University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Building productive relationships between superintendents and board members

(USC Thesis Other)

Building productive relationships between superintendents and board members

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Building Productive Relationships Between Superintendents and Board Members
by
Alex Vieira

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

December 2021

© Copyright by Alex Vieira 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Alex Vieira certifies the approval of this Dissertation

David Cash
Kalim Rayburn
Julie Slayton, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
According to the California School Board Association, the role of the school board is to ensure
that school districts are responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of their communities.
Even though board members have a complex list of roles and responsibilities, CSBA assigns five
primary major responsibilities: setting direction, establishing an effective and efficient structure,
providing support, ensuring accountability, and providing community leadership as advocates for
children, the school district, and public schools. Once appointed, board members are not
provided training that explains how they will do their jobs. Therefore, how board members
approach their responsibilities with respect to governing the district is often dependent on the
superintendent’s leadership approach. The purposes of this study were to (a) examine how
equipped board members and superintendents in three districts in California believed they were
to engage in effective school governance as a result of participating in the Masters in
Governance training, and (b) to understand the leadership approach taken by each
Superintendent in determining how they and board members would work together to govern their
school districts. Three superintendents and 12 board members were interviewed. Data revealed
that (a) board members lacked training and background knowledge, (b) the Masters in
Governance training provided tools for superintendents and board members to do their jobs, and
(c) guidance by superintendents helped board members to understand their roles and
responsibilities to govern their district.
v
Acknowledgments
Newton (1675) said, “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the
shoulders of giants” (p. 1). Completing this dissertation has been a roller coaster. I started
the journey with 19 other doctoral candidates and a different dissertation chair. I was
excited to be part of a group formed by assistant superintendents, district directors,
principals, and assistant principals. As a teacher, I felt intimidated, but I knew that I
belonged there because I was experiencing a side of education that the rest were not.
During my time with that group, I noticed and experienced inequities: Dissertation
members created smaller groups and did support other members and the dissertation chair,
treating students according to their status in education. As an educator and leader, I know
that many students face inequities in the classroom; it was ironic that this was happening in
a dissertation group. It was time to speak up and act, I left the group and decided to work
on my own.
Moving to a new dissertation chair was exciting and nerve wracking. On some
days, I was excited to get things right; on other days, I doubted my analytical skills, asking
myself, “Why is this so hard? Why can’t I see it?” and often, “I hate this process.” My new
chair said “Trust the process; we go slow to go fast.” I did not understand that until the
end. I could not have achieved this accomplishment without the help and support of the
following people. Thank you for not giving up on me and believing in me or, as my
students call me, “The Math GOAT (Greatest of All Time).
First and foremost, Dr. Julie Slayton. I met her at an informational event about the
doctoral program for USC. After that event, I knew that I would apply and wished one day
that she would be my professor. A few months later I was a student in her Inquiry II class,
vi
where she made me suffer (in a good way). After that class, I thought to myself, “Man, I
should have chosen her as my dissertation chair.” Many friends told me said that, instead, I
should take the “easy route.” I wanted a challenge, and it is funny how things in life work.
After leaving my dissertation group, Dr. Slayton gladly offered her support as my new
dissertation chair. I was thrilled. She never gave up on me and challenged my analytical
skills. I often told her, “So this is how my students feel when I challenge them in
mathematics!” I will not forget the day when she said, “Good job Alex, this is really good,
perfect, uh huh, excellent!” I could not believe that would ever hear those words from her.
It was all thanks to her positive attitude, guidance, and believing that I can always do
better. Because of her, my analytical skills are much better and I am able to see the
education system with a more analytical lens. I cannot thank her enough for supporting me
every step of the way to become a better educator, leader, and person in this society. I
promise that one day I will be a successful superintendent and leader and will utilize the
tools that she provided. I thank my dissertation committee, Dr. David Cash and Dr. Kalim
Rayburn, for agreeing to be part of my journey and supporting and guiding me.
My future wife Maribel Guevara, gave unending support during this process. She
was always there for me, en las buenas y en las malas. She was my rock, and shoulder to
lean on. Finally, a shout out to my amazing dogs, Rocko (RIP), Troy, and beautiful
Hendrix.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................5
Research Questions ..............................................................................................................6
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................6
Organization of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................8
Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature ....................................................................................9
School Boards ....................................................................................................................10
Superintendents ..................................................................................................................17
Effective Governance .........................................................................................................25
The Four Frames ................................................................................................................27
Leadership Theories ...........................................................................................................27
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................28
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................33
Chapter Three: Methods ................................................................................................................34
Research Design .................................................................................................................35
Population, Sample, and Participants.................................................................................35
Instrumentation and Data Collection .................................................................................38
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................40
viii
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................41
Ethics..................................................................................................................................42
Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................43
Delimitations ......................................................................................................................44
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................44
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................46
Findings for Research Question 1 ......................................................................................47
Finding for Research Question 2 .......................................................................................61
Chapter Five: Executive Summary, Implications, and Recommendations ....................................76
Summary of the Findings ...................................................................................................76
Implications and Recommendations ..................................................................................78
References ......................................................................................................................................83
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails .......................................................................92
School Board Member Recruitment Email ........................................................................92
Superintendent Recruitment Email ....................................................................................93
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey .................................................................................94
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey .............................................................................................97
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ............................................................100
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol .........................................................................101
Appendix F: Informed Consent ...................................................................................................102
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix ...................................................................................103

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Sample and Participants ...................................................................................................37
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey .................................................................................94
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey .............................................................................................97
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ............................................................100
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol .........................................................................101
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix ...................................................................................103
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................30
Figure 2: Bolman and Deal’s Four Leadership Frames .................................................................31
Figure 3: Overview of Bolman and Deals Four-Frame Model ......................................................32

1

Chapter One: Introduction
This chapter contains the background of the problem, the statement of the problem, the
research questions, the significance of the study, and an overview of the remainder of the
dissertation.
Background of the Problem
According to the National School Boards Association (NSBA, 2019), there are more than
90,000 school board officials in the United States. The California School Boards Association
(CSBA; 2018a) stated that school board members are locally elected public officials entrusted
with governing a community’s public schools and entrusted to provide direction and oversight
for the professionals who manage the day-to-day operations of the schools. Most of these
officials are locally elected and govern more than 13,600 local school districts serving more than
50 million public school students. In a few cases, county board members are appointed by the
county board of supervisors (CSBA, 2018a). Although the number of appointed board members
among the 2018 respondents more than doubled from 2010 (12% versus 5.5%), the majority
(88% in 2018) are locally elected (NSBA, 2018a). In 2007, CSBA stated that, when a vacancy
occurs on a board, the rest of the board may order an election or appoint a board member to serve
until the next regularly scheduled election in accordance with law. If the vacancy occurs within 4
months of the end of the board member’s term, the board does not fill the vacancy. In California,
public schools serve more than 6 million students and there are about 1,000 school districts
governed by nearly 5,000 board members (CSBA, 2018a). Prior experience in the field of
education is not required to serve as a school board member in the state. To be eligible to serve
as a board member in California, the candidate must be 18 years of age or older, a citizen of the
state, a resident of the school district, a registered voter, and not disqualified by the constitution
2

or laws of the state from holding a civil office (CSBA, 2018a). California school districts vary
widely. For example, there are isolated rural districts with fewer than 20 students to the largest
urban district with more than 700,000 students (CSBA, 2018a). California is a state where school
board members are not required to have any training or education concerning their
responsibilities before being elected or appointed to their seats on the board. Also, there are no
requirements to complete any training or further board members education concerning their role
after taking the oath of office. Education in the United States is continuously changing, adding
pressure to those who choose to become board members. Bartusek (2011) stated that people are
not born understanding the intricacies of school funding formulas, parliamentary procedure, open
meetings, and public records requirements, which can affect board members who do not
understand the education system or acquire any training to pursue their roles as board members.
CSBA (2018a) works to make school districts responsive to the values, beliefs, and
priorities of their communities. CSBA’s Masters in Governance (MIG) program equips board
members and superintendents with knowledge and skills to build and support an effective
governance structure. The CSBA (2018b) expects its members to perform five significant
responsibilities: (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. To attend the training, attendees
must pay a registration fee of $399 per course, for a total of $1,995. There is also a late
registration amount ($424) per course (CSBA, 2018b). The CSBA (2018b) stated that board
members can fulfill these responsibilities by working together as a governance team with the
superintendent to make decisions that will best serve all students in the community. In
California, boards consist of three, five, or seven members and serve for terms of up to 4 years
3

(CSBA, 2018a). Based on the 2018 survey respondents, the typical board contains seven
individuals, while in the 2010 survey boards with five seats were the most common (NSBA,
2018). Also, the average length of an individual board term in the 2018 survey was 4 years,
which remained consistent with the 2010 survey findings (NSBA, 2018). The CSBA (2018d)
stated that citizen oversight of local government is the foundation of democracy in the United
States; therefore, the association entrusts the governance of school districts to citizens elected by
their communities to oversee both school districts and county offices. Nearly 100,000 board
officials provide direction and accountability to their local communities and oversee
professionals who manage the day-to-day operations of the schools.
There are 6 million students, 10,500 schools, and more than 1,000 school districts in
California. School districts in the state vary widely, from isolated rural districts with fewer than
20 students to the most significant urban district with more than 700,000 students (California
Department of Education [CDE], 2020a). Similarly, there are elementary school districts with
Grades kindergarten through 6 or 8, high school districts with Grades 9 through 12, and unified
school districts with Grades kindergarten through 12. Local boards of education oversee all of
these districts. “The role of school boards today is increasingly complex, as multiple
stakeholders and interest groups have become more influential in the education policy making
process, including local and state actors with no formal jurisdiction over education policy”
(Frankenberg & Diem, 2013, p. 118).
The topic of accountability is particularly prevalent and controversial in the area of K–12
public education governance (Ford & Ihrke, 2015). For example, there are almost 13,000 school
districts in the United States (Hogue, 2013); states spend more public money on K–2 education
than anything else (Berman, 2006); public education governance is an area with which every
4

American citizen is at least somewhat familiar through personal experience as a student, parent,
or taxpayer; and both state and federal governments collect and report extensive amounts of
education performance data, enabling researchers to connect governance themes such as
accountability with performance (Ford & Ihrke, 2015). As community representatives, board
members ensure accountability to the public for the performance of the community’s school by
establishing systems and processes to monitor results, evaluating the school system’s progress
toward accomplishing the district’s vision and communicating the progress to the local
community (CSBA, 2018b). Board members are accountable for evaluating the superintendent;
monitoring, reviewing, revising, and setting policies; monitoring student achievement, program
effectiveness, finances and the collective bargaining process; and evaluating its own
effectiveness through board self-evaluation (CSBA, 2018b).
Statement of the Problem
Previous researchers have argued that board members should be knowledgeable (Shober
& Hartney, 2017). Board members might be expected to be fairly informed about their districts,
given that they tend to be more educated, more politically active, and more affluent than their
constituents (Shober & Hartney, 2017). School board members should possess a particular vision
or focus for the schools that they oversee, for example, improving student learning by providing
high-quality education (Shober & Hartney, 2017). Also, board members should receive training
in board roles and responsibilities, budgeting, legal policy issues, and other aspects of running a
public bureaucracy (Shober & Hartney, 2017). Shober and Hartney (2017) reported that just
more than half of board members had reasonably accurate knowledge of on-the-ground
conditions in their districts. Board members appeared to have a limited capacity to govern and
incomplete knowledge of district conditions (Shober & Hartney, 2017). Shober and Hartney
5

(2017) also reported that many board members lacked a strong academic focus, which may be a
disadvantage to their students, as well as to the teachers and principals who work in test-based
accountability systems.
To improve the knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of board members, a strong
and effective relationship between superintendents and school board members depends on clear
definitions of each body’s roles and responsibilities (Hanover Research, 2014). After surveying
successful board members and superintendents, the Iowa Association of School Boards (n.d.)
identified five key principles for positive board-superintendent relations: (a) Clarify roles and
expectations for board members and superintendent, (b) establish and implement a clear process
for communication between board members and administration, (c) actively work to build trust
and mutual respect between the board and administrative team, (d) evaluate the whole team, and
(e) actively work on improved decision making. In addition to building 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 overarching purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of board
members as a result of their attendance at the MIG and in relation to their work as board
members. It was also intended to understand how superintendent leadership mattered in the way
that the superintendent and board operated together. Moreover, I examined how the board
members and the superintendent considered that the superintendent’s leadership approach
structured how they understood their roles and engaged as board members. I was also interested
6

in understanding the role of the superintendent in each district and how board members work
with the superintendent to govern their school district.
Research Questions
Two research questions guided this study:
1. How do board members and superintendents in three districts in California believe
they were equipped to engage in effective school governance as a result of
participating in the MIG training?
2. What is the role of the superintendent in each district in determining how they and
board members work together to govern the school district?
Importance of the Study
The Mississippi School Board Association (n.d.) stated that being a school board is one
of the most challenging and rewarding jobs an individual can undertake. There is a lack of
research regarding the education and training of individual school board members and the impact
that the training might have on member effectiveness to influence the direction of the school
corporations that they serve (Halik et al., 2012). Elected school boards need to develop
governance skills that allow them to support the work of the district (NSBA, 2018). More than
56% of board members reported that they almost always turned to their superintendents to get
the information that they need to make board decisions and 88.7% said that they turned to their
superintendents often or almost always (Hess & Meeks, 2010). The role of the superintendent is
a key piece for decision making and the information to which board members have access (Hess
& Meeks, 2010).
Leithwood et al. (2004) noted that effective school research ignored the role of district-
level leadership, including school board governance. In education, research has shown that
7

teaching quality and school leadership are the most important factors in raising student
achievement (Mizell, 2010). There has been limited research showing that governance increases
student achievement rates. However, boards with members who have an academic focus and
exhibit certain work practices are associated with better student achievement than expected,
given their district conditions. A report by Hess and Meeks (2010), on behalf of the NSBA,
stated the following:
The increasing public demand for accountability for student learning now emphasizes the
responsibility of the board as a governing body, to ensure that student learning results are
high and equitable. Even though school boards are removed from the teaching and
learning that goes on every day in classrooms, there are critical linkages between the
policymakers who guide local school districts and the behaviors of those who regularly
interact with students. (p. 9)
The study investigated how governing teams considered themselves to be equipped to
engage in school governance as a result of participating in the CSBA’s (2018b) MIG. Similarly,
the purpose of the current study was to understand the experiences of board members as a result
of their attendance at the MIG and in relation to their work as board members. It was also
intended to understand how superintendent leadership mattered in the way that the
superintendent and board operated together. Moreover, the study examined how the board
members and the superintendent considered that the superintendent’s leadership approach
structured how they understood their roles and engaged as board members. The study was
designed to explain the role of the superintendent in each district and how board members
worked together with the superintendent to govern their school district.
8

Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provided the background of
the problem, the problem, the purpose, and the importance of the study, research questions, and
the significance of the study. Chapter 2 provides a history of school boards’ leadership,
governance, roles and responsibilities, and training. Chapter 3 explains the methodology of the
study, which includes the research design, population and sample, instrumentation, credibility
and trustworthiness, collection of data, and data analysis. Chapter 4 presents the findings with
regard to each of the research questions. Chapter 5 presents and summarizes the findings of the
overall study, including implications for future research.
9

Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature
This study examined how board members and superintendents in three districts in
California considered that they were equipped to engage in effective school governance as a
result of participating in the MIG training and to understand the leadership approach taken by
each superintendent in determining how the they and board members worked together to govern
their respective school districts. Two research questions guided the study:
1. How do board members and superintendents in three districts in California believe
they were equipped to engage in effective school governance as a result of
participating in the MIG training?
2. What is the role of the superintendent in each district in determining how they and
board members work together to govern the school district?
First, to provide a background for the study, I discuss who board members and
superintendents are. To address the research questions, I examine three bodies of literature:
effective governance, the four frames, and leadership theories. I introduce the conceptual
framework that guided the research design, sampling, instrumentations, data collection, and
analysis.
First, I examined literature that discussed who board members and superintendents are. I
chose to introduce these positions for the study because I needed to understand how districts
decided to place these two entities to govern school districts. Within this body of literature, I
wanted to understand how districts decided to have board members to govern school districts. I
focused on board member history, their current status of school boards, boards as decision-
making bodies, and qualifications and responsibilities of board members. Second, literature on
superintendents is discussed in four parts: the present superintendent, duties and responsibilities,
10

superintendent preparation, and relationship of the superintendent. After understanding who
superintendents and board members are, I examine the three bodies of literature (effective
governance, the four frames, and leadership theories) that provided the background to address
the research questions. I conclude the chapter with the conceptual framework that emerged from
the data analysis.
School Boards
To address the research question related to the relationship between board members and
superintendents, I present the history and current state of school boards. I offer the history of
board members to provide the background to understand how board members started as part of
governing teams and making decisions for school districts. I then turn to the current status of
board members because it describes the structure of how board members work alongside the
superintendent. I also address decision making, qualifications and responsibilities of board
members because board members are placed in positions to make decisions for a whole school
district that could be affecting student achievement. This information helped me to address the
research questions by providing insight into how board members and superintendents work
together to govern a school district.
History
The United States was founded in 1776, making the country 245 years old as of 2021
(World Population Review, 2021). The United States has grown in the past 245 years and, with
it, the roles and complexity of public schools have evolved. By 1789, the General Court granted
authority to school committees to regulate schools. In October 1789, the first school committee
was established in Boston. This committee was large (21 members). Nine of those members were
town selectmen; the remaining members were representatives from each of the 12 districts of the
11

town. These committees were selected annually (Boston Archives, 2021). Boston was the first
city to acquire a school committee. After Boston, many states started to develop their school
committees or school boards (Campbell et al., 1990). As the first decade of the 21st century
ended, the U.S. educational system was struggling to evolve (U.S. Department of Education,
n.d.). Everything about board members started in New England when villages and townships met
once a year in town meetings to deliberate the aspects of city government, development of the
city, and approval of budgets and laws (Wainwright, 2010). The idea of school governance
started in Massachusetts more than 200 years ago by selectmen (members of the local
government board; Danzberger, 1994). These selectmen separated educational governance from
general governance as the population grew. The educational governance appointed committees in
individual towns to govern education (Danzberger, 1994). The first-ever established state board
of education and superintendent position occurred in Massachusetts in 1837, recommended by
Governor Edward Everett (Hayes, 1932). Southern states developed county school districts,
while the Northeast organized around small towns. Southwestern and Western school districts
grew by annexation (Kirst, 2010). The job of the board of education at the time was to provide
states a greater role in education (because the state had established public school systems), but
the job was transferred to local school boards by the state (Danzberger, 1994). Between 1890 and
1910, schools were placed under stronger control of local education governments and board
members were elected by wards, introducing corruption at the expense of school districts as a
whole (Kirst, 2010). To resolve this challenge, board members contended that elections at large
or citywide, without any subdistrict electoral boundaries, were needed because a good school
system is good for all, not just for one part of the community (Kirst, 2010). Local school boards
are composed of persons entrusted with authority by their state governance (CSBA, 2018d). As
12

the population grew, school districts funded by local taxes were formed to accommodate the
growth in the number of students (Danzberger, 1994). Each district was entrusted with financial
and administrative authority over its schools (Danzberger, 1994).
Local school boards grew from the mid-1800s through the early 1900s, and their primary
role was to manage public education (Institute for Educational Leadership, 1986). In the late
1800s, school boards in urban areas were elected by local neighborhoods because communities
did not want them to be involved with politics (Danzberger, 1994). During the 20th century,
local educational governance created smaller city school boards formed by citizens selected
through city-wide elections (Danzberger, 1994). From the mid- to late 1800s, the role of the
superintendent was determined by the school board, and it focused exclusively on instruction. As
time progressed, the superintendent’s responsibilities expanded to more management
responsibilities that required training (Danzberger, 1994). Some of the characteristics that school
boards demonstrated were local control to meet the specific needs of stakeholders; separation of
education from general governance; large districts broken into small boards; lay oversight with
concentration on policy making; reliance on a professional superintendent for management,
patterned after corporate boards of directors with a chief executive officer; and democratic
representation of all citizens through at-large elections rather than subdistrict elections or
appointments (Land, 2002).
Districts do not necessarily follow the mentioned characteristics (Danzberger, 1992;
Institute for Educational Leadership, 1986; Urban & Wagoner, 1996). Districts have various
rules for their boards. For example, Virginia had a mandatory appointment of board members
until 1992. Chicago has a seven-member board, with all members appointed by the mayor
(Bauer, 2021). The General Assembly Local School Boards passed legislation that allowed
13

election of board members. On the other hand, in Hawaii, there are no local school boards
because the State Board of Education arranges and oversees policies for public education (State
of Hawaii Board of Education, n.d.).
School boards’ history has demonstrated their governance, management, priorities when
dealing with finances, social, and religious contexts (Danzberger et al., 1987; Johnson, 1988;
Olson, 1992; Resnick, 1999). An important reason that districts have variation in their rules for
board members is the student population. For example, urban school districts are frequently
marked by higher concentrations of poverty, greater racial and ethnic diversity, larger
concentrations of immigrant populations and linguistic diversity, and more frequent rates of
student mobility (Kincheloe, 2010).
In the second half of the 20th century, changes in federal and state laws and regulations
changed how school boards behaved, reducing the extent of school boards’ local control because
federal and state governments assumed a greater role in the governance of education (Todras,
1993). The federal government assumed greater local control through special programs and
allocation of federal funds to address concerns generated by the Soviet Union regarding the
inadequacy of students’ academic achievement in the United States (Danzberger, 1994). In the
1960s and 1970s, federally and state-funded categorical programs, such as special and migrant
education, multiplied (Kirst, 1994). Some of the goals that states acquired were to improve
students’ academic achievement by recommending effective curricula, teacher certification,
competency testing, graduation standards, and data collection (Institute for Educational
Leadership, 1986). The federal and state governments started to pressure districts after the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; CDE, 2001) was passed in 2001 because there were no signs of
high academic standards or achievement growth. In 2009, the Common Core State Standards
14

were developed by state leaders, governors, and state commissioners of education from 48 states,
two territories, and the District of Columbia to ensure that all students, regardless of where they
live, would graduate high school prepared for college, career, and life (Common Core Standards
Initiative, 2021). Similarly, parents, educators, and elected officials across the country
recognized that a stronger and updated law was necessary to expand opportunity for all students;
support schools, teachers, and principals; and strengthen the education system and economy. As
a result, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed by President Obama on
December 10, 2015 (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.).
Current Status of School Boards
Nearly 90,000 school board members, most (88%) elected, govern the nation’s 13,500
school districts (NSBA, 2018). While boards may consist of three, five, or seven members, the
majority of California school boards are composed of five members (CSBA, 2018a). Research
shows that nationally, local public school districts had an average enrollment of 3,659 students in
the 2013–2014 school year (Maciag, 2016).
In 2019, approximately 56.6 million students attended elementary and secondary school
in the United States. Of these 56.6 million students, 50.8 million were in public schools; the rest
were in private schools (Hanson, 2021). Between 1988 and 1998, the number of larger districts
gradually increased and the number of smaller districts decreased. Therefore, the more
significant district trends started in the early 20th century (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2000). Due to changes in the early 20th century, school boards started to transform
into smaller, more centralized organizations. Also, school boards started to recruit more educated
successful professionals and business people. However, there were few changes in the highest
education level achieved by board members between 2010 and 2018, with the greatest number in
15

two surveys having either a master’s degree or a doctorate (46.5% and 46%). In 2018, 31% of
participants had obtained a Bachelor’s degree; 19% had some college or other postsecondary
training, including Associate of Arts or Associate of Science degrees; just 4% had only a high
school diploma or general education diploma, down from 5.1% in 2010 (NSBA, 2018).
According to a survey conducted by NSBA (2018), there is a gender balance among school
board members; 19.6% seats in the U.S. Congress and 24.9% of positions in state legislatures
were filled by women in 2017, while 50% of the nation’s school board members were female.
The number of females holding school board positions has steadily increased from 39.9% in the
1992 NSBA 1992 survey to 44% in its 2010 survey. Board members’ median age is 59 (NSBA,
2018). Although school boards are becoming increasingly diverse, they do not reflect the rapidly
changing demographics of the K–2 student population (NSBA, 2018). Data collected in 2017 by
the U.S. Department of Education showed that students entering prekindergarten through Grade
12 were White 48%, Black 16%, Hispanic 27%, less than 1% each Asian/Pacific Islander and
American Indian/Alaska Native, and nearly 3% identifying as two or more races. On the other
hand, most board members in the 2018 survey were White (78%), followed by African
American/Black (10%), Hispanic or Latino(a) (3%), and American Indian/Alaskan Native (1%).
Board members who self-describe as multiracial comprised 1% of survey respondents; 7% did
not answer (NSBA, 2018).
As volunteers, board members reflected a wide range of occupations. Data collected in
2018 by the NSBA showed that education remained the largest category among board members
at 27%, followed by 11% in business and finance. Several minor occupational fields from 2010
were collapsed into the “other” category in 2018, making direct comparisons challenging.
16

In the survey conducted by the NSBA (2018), board members reported that their career
choices provided 49% of them with annual household incomes at or above $100,000, the same as
found in the 2010 survey. The number of participants earning between $50,000 and $99,999
declined in 2018 to 30%, down from 40% in 2010; 8% in 2018 were earning $25,000 to $49,999.
Although just under 2% of survey participants earned less than $25,000 in 2010, none of the
2018 respondents selected that category; however, 13% did not answer the question.
The number of appointed school boards in 2018 was double that of 2010 (12% versus
5.5%), but the majority (88% in 2018) were locally elected (NSBA, 2018). NSBA (2018) found
that board members serve on average 8.6 years. Board members had similar reasons for running
for school boards. The top-ranked response in 2018 collected by the CSBA (47%) was “to ensure
that our children’s schools are the best they can be,” followed by “to give back to my
community.”
Qualifications and Responsibilities of Board Members
According to the Illinois Association of School Boards (ISBA; 2020), the qualifications
to become a school board member are as follows: 18 years of age or older, a citizen of the state, a
resident of the school district, a registered voter, and not a school trustee. According to the
CSBA (2018a), boards govern their schools by establishing a proficient and robust structure for
the school district. One of their goals is to create a supportive environment for their districts, as
well as to ensure accountability and exhibit leadership to the community. According to the
CSBA (2007), board members have five major responsibilities: (a) set the direction for the
community’s schools, (b) establish an effective and efficient structure for the school district, (c)
provide support, (d) ensure accountability to the public, and (e) act as community leaders.
17

Superintendents
To address the research question related to the relationship between board members and
superintendents, I first present the history and current state of superintendents. The history of
superintendents was important for the study because it provided an overview on how states
decided to create this leadership position to govern school districts. Also, superintendents work
hand in hand with their board members to govern their districts. Then, I present the current
superintendent, including their duties and responsibilities, preparation, and relationships. This
information was important to address the research question because it provided information to
understand the superintendent’s leadership style to govern their district and build relationships
with their counterparts.
To understand the role of superintendents and how they worked together with school
boards, a brief history of this leadership position is presented. At first, daily operations such as
approving budgets and laws were controlled by men who were selected from the community.
These groups of men were named “selectmen.” In 1642, Massachusetts passed the School
Ordinance, which allowed townships to choose “selectmen” to manage how the community was
educating children.
Selectmen were responsible for setting taxes, wages, hiring teachers, and determining
how long the school year would be (Campbell et al., 1990; Reeves, 1954). Selectmen were
accountable for the educational and noneducational aspects of public schools. As school
enrollment increased, the duties of these selectmen also increased, until school duties were
separated from the operations of the cities. Boston citizens voted selectmen to be the first official
school group to take charge of the examination of schools under the town’s jurisdiction
(Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2021).
18

History of Superintendents
From the start, school boards faced challenges as it became difficult to handle all of their
duties and responsibilities. Boards began to name one person from the board to be fully in charge
of schools and take on the responsibilities that board members could not handle (Knezevich,
1969). The first superintendents were appointed in Buffalo, New York, and Louisville,
Kentucky, in 1837. Districts in other states followed quickly. Between 1837 and 1850, 13 local
school systems appointed superintendents. California’s first superintendent was appointed in San
Francisco in 1852, placed in charge of 1,854 students. The first superintendent in Los Angeles
was elected in 1854 and was responsible for only 127 students (Griffiths, 1966).
There were no requirements or formal or official names for the position of
superintendent. Instead, districts used titles such as manager or headmaster. These managers and
headmasters were selected from the best male teachers in the districts (Swartz & Blair, 1992).
School districts needed a consistent word to describe this leadership position. Eventually, the
title “superintendent” was developed to describe the position. The word was derived from the
Latin super (over) and intendere (direct attention to; Swartz & Blair, 1992). The job of the
superintendent involved difficulties and direct challenges, as well as unwillingness to utilize the
funds to pay for such a position. When school districts were small in size, most teachers did not
agree with having one person (superintendent) to be in charge of the school system. As the
education system has changed and increased in size, even the most militant unions recognize the
need for such a position (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). One of the roles of the superintendent was to
direct principals and teachers. In the early days, principals and teachers utilized political
strategies to undermine the position when they disagreed with the superintendent’s vision
(Wilson, 1960).
19

Superintendents of today can identify with challenges similar to those that the first
superintendents encountered. For example, the superintendent faced multiple areas of
responsibility, such as verbalizing the strategies in public education to motivate direction, goals,
and policies related to instructional programs but not directly involved in the day-to-day
management of school sites or individual teachers. According to Griffiths (1966), from 1837 to
1910, the role of the superintendent was mostly instructional, with minimal responsibilities
related to the business operations of the district. Superintendents were trained teachers who
understood academics. Their job responsibilities were relegated to basic tasks assigned by school
boards or community members (Kowalski, 2013). The school board and community members
maintained power over the superintendents. These two entities agreed that the school board
should be the ultimate authority over the superintendent. They did not have confidence in
teachers appointed to the superintendency based on their lack of experience and training in
directing and managing material and human resources (Knezevich, 1984).
The primary responsibilities of the superintendent changed again between 1910 and 1945.
The superintendents of this era considered themselves scholars but, at the end of this period, the
idea emerged that this position should be more akin to that of chief executive officer (CEO).
According to Kenton (2019), CEO responsibilities include making major corporate decisions and
managing the overall operations and resources of a company. CEOs act as the main point of
communication between the board of directors and corporate operations. CEOs are also the
public face of the company.
It was decided that superintendents should focus more on being the executive office of
the board. This new role included dealing with business functions and efficient operations.
Between 1910 and 1945, administrators received formal training through universities such as
20

Columbia University, University of Chicago, Stanford University, and Harvard University. The
training provided by these universities was geared toward superintendents (Swartz & Blair,
1992). In 1916, Cubberley suggested that superintendents should be expected to complete
college and 1 year of graduate school and that many should continue to the doctorate (Mehta,
2013). With the Great Depression in 1930, the reign of the superintendent as a businessman
came to an end but annual salaries increased from 1931 to 1932 from $4,000 to $4,200. The
reason salaries increased during the Great Depression is that the U.S. Office of Education found
that schools had budgeted slightly more for 1931–1932 than for 1930–1931, and citizens were
still expected to pay taxes (Encyclopedia.com, n.d.).
From 1945 to the present, the role of the superintendent shifted to governing districts as a
team unit, with not just one leader making decisions for a school district. This shift is a paradigm
shift from having total control of the district to having the superintendent share leadership with
others. There are multiple areas of responsibility for public education in the K–12 setting. It is
impossible to assume that a single person can take charge of all responsibilities that a school
district requires. For example, some superintendents’ responsibilities presented by the CSBA
(2018c) are as follows:
• Promotes the success of all students and supports the efforts of the Board of Trustees
to keep the district focused on learning and achievement.
• Values, advocates, and supports public education and all stakeholders.
• Recognizes and respects the differences of perspective and style on the Board and
among staff, students, parents, and the community—and ensures that the diverse
range of views inform board decisions.
21

• Acts with dignity, treats everyone with civility and respect, and understands the
implications of demeanor and behavior.
• Serves as a model for the value of lifelong learning and supports the Board’s
continuous professional development.
• Works with the Board as a “governance team” and assures collective responsibility
for building a unity of purpose, communicating a common vision and creating a
positive organizational culture.
• Recognizes that the board/Superintendent governance relationship is supported by the
management team in each district.
• Understands the distinctions between board and staff roles and respects the role of the
Board as the representative of the community.
• Understands that authority rests with the Board as a whole; provides guidance to the
Board to assist in decision-making; and provides leadership based on the direction of
the Board as a whole.
• Communicates openly with trust and integrity including providing all members of the
Board with equal access to information and recognizing the importance of both
responsive and anticipatory communications.
• Accepts leadership responsibility and accountability for implementing the vision,
goals, and policies of the district. (CSBA, 2010, para. 2)
The Present Superintendent
Research has recorded the constant evolution of the superintendency in the United States.
For example, the way school boards select superintendents has changed repeatedly over time, as
have their duties and responsibilities (New Jersey School Boards Association, 2016). The
22

American Association of School Administrators (AASA; 2014) represents school
superintendents across the United States. According to AASA, among other demographics, 60%
of superintendents hold a doctoral degree. The AASA (2014) reported that the mean age of
superintendents was between 54 and 55 years. These data confirm that today’s superintendents
have years of experience and an extensive educational background. The primary role of
superintendents is to balance their duties and responsibilities to manage school districts. A
superintendent’s responsibility is to understand how business, human resources, instruction,
leadership, and political landscape work in the district. Along with these responsibilities, The
NCLB reauthorization of 2001, the Common Core State Standards implementation in 2009, and
the 2015 ESSA have impacted the state of accountability for public schools across the nation.
Each of these initiatives, along with several other laws and reforms, have led to an increased
push for accountability and an environment in which superintendents are expected to perform
efficiently the executive functions of the district and to increase student academic achievement
(Hutchenson, 2020). The demographics of superintendents have also changed over time, showing
a more diverse position for these individuals. While the racial and ethnic diversity of districts in
which superintendents work has increased in recent decades, the AASA reported that the nation’s
superintendents were still overwhelmingly White and male, despite gradual shifts in
demographics. The percentage of female superintendents increased slightly in the past decade,
from 24.1% in 2010 to 26.68% in 2020—more than double the percentage of female
superintendents documented in 2000 (13.1%; AASA, 2020). The AASA (2020) reported that the
number of superintendents of color is increasing much more slowly, with 8.6% of respondents
identifying as superintendents of color in 2020, compared to 6% in 2010 and 5% in 2000. Of the
relatively small percentage who are African American, Latinx, or other minority groups, nearly
23

42% are women. There are 1,037 school districts in California. About 10,588 public schools are
part of these districts, presently serving about 6.2 million students (CDE, 2020). Although the
duties and responsibilities of a superintendent vary from state to state, California (unlike most
states) outlines the responsibilities in the Education Code of California (California Legislative
Information, n.d.). The following section presents these responsibilities.
Duties and Responsibilities
To appoint a secretary and a bookkeeper for the board, the superintendent, who is part of
the governance team of the school district, has the opportunity to select individuals for these
positions. Members of the district board do not have the power to choose a person for this
position. Just like every position in the district, these two positions also have duties to
accomplish: (a) certify or attest to actions taken by the governing board when such certification
or attestation is required for any purpose; (b) keep an accurate account of the receipts and
expenditures of school funds; (c) make an annual report, on or before the first day of July, to the
County Superintendent of Schools in the manner and form and on the blanks prescribed by the
Superintendent of Public Instruction; (d) make or maintain such other records or reports as are
required by law (California Legislation Information, n.d., California Education Code § 35250).
Further responsibilities of the superintendent are outlined in California law (California
Legislation Information, n.d., California Education Code § 35035) as follows: be the chief
executive officer of the governing board, prepare and submit a budget to the governing board,
prepare and submit the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) to the governing board.
According to the CDE (2020), the LCAP is a 3-year plan that describes the goals, actions,
services, and expenditures to support positive student outcomes that address state and local
priorities. The LCAP provides an opportunity for local education agencies (LEAs) to share their
24

stories of how, what, and why programs and services are selected to meet their local needs.
Superintendents must ensure implementation of the LCAP, assign all certificated employees to
their positions, transfer teachers according to board policies, verify that all certificated
employees indeed hold and maintain certificates required for their positions, enter into contracts
on behalf of the board, and submit financial and related reports to the governing board.
In addition to the job duties specified in the Education Code, superintendents have a host
of other responsibilities. For example, the LCAP specifies 10 state priorities: necessary
conditions of learning, state standards, parental involvement (engagement), pupil achievement
(pupil outcomes), pupil engagement, school climate, course access, other pupil outcomes,
expelled pupils, and foster youth (CDE, 2018). Even though superintendents have many duties
and responsibilities designated by the state, each governing board has the right to develop and
assign duties and responsibilities to their superintendents (California Legislation Information,
n.d., California Education Code § 35250).
Relationship of the Superintendent
Kowalski (2013) mentioned that one of the most important roles of today’s
superintendents is to communicate effectively. Research shows that the style of communication
dictates the effectiveness of the superintendent. Some empirical evidence (Richmond et al.,
1980) suggests that perceptions of administrator effectiveness are associated with administrators’
communication styles. Ascough (2010) stated that superintendents must be advocates for good
communication, reminding others on their team of their communication responsibilities and
serving as a role model for all. In addition, Ascough (2010) explained that superintendents must
support school board members to understand not only their important communications role but
also the parameters of their role as defined by policy and legal considerations.
25

Effective Governance
Effective governance includes collaboration by school boards, superintendents, and staff
to foster positive relationships to move forward the mission, vision, and goals of the school
district (CBSA, 2017). Effective leadership teams engage stakeholders (i.e., community, parents,
students, and staff) in developing a shared vision that emphasizes learning and achievement
tailored to the needs of all students (CBSA, 2017). The governance team addresses educational
issues by advocating for public education by providing leadership on behalf of students, public
education, and the community at the local, state, and federal levels (CBSA, 2017). Effective
governance includes communicating expectations and responsibilities of each role to share a
common mission, goals, and framework at all levels of the organization (CBSA, 2017). Effective
governance teams consistently evaluate, adopt, monitor outcomes, and revise strategic plans and
policies according to the school district’s mission and goals (CBSA, 2017). Furthermore,
leadership teams preserve accountability for student learning by implementing district-wide
curriculums, evaluate student progress, and provide a safe educational environment to all
students (CBSA, 2017).
Accountability
The priority of the school district is student learning and closing the academic gap
through increasing achievement success (CBSA, 2007, 2017). School boards evaluate and
communicate advancement toward the district’s mission, visions, and goals to the public
(Resnick, 1999). NCLB focused on school accountability and standardized testing by evaluating
schools based on students’ performance (Figlio & Loeb, 2010).
The purpose of school accountability was to identify and establish measurable standards
on core subject areas by aligning curriculum for students to achieve those high standards (Figlio
26

& Loeb, 2010). School accountability includes state oversight of school districts by using
outcomes of standardized measures of schools’ achievement toward achieving state goals to
reduce schools’ discrepancies (Figlio & Loeb, 2010). As part of accountability, standardized
testing helped to identify low-performing schools to hold them accountable for improving
students’ learning and achievement (Figlio & Loeb, 2010).
Accountability for schools can align stakeholders’ (i.e., community, parents, students,
and staff) goals with the school district’s vision to promote progressive change for student
learning and achievement (Figlio & Loeb, 2010). Through political accountability, school district
residents elect school board members to act on behalf of the community and public education.
After board members are elected, they have the authority to select the superintendent for the
school district. Subsequently, the superintendent delegates the school district’s mission and
vision to administrators to move forward the vision of the district (CBSA, 2017). Through school
and political accountability, school boards and superintendents are responsible for publicly
communicating quantifiable progress toward established objectives (Resnick, 1999).
Establishing the District ’s Vision and Providing Structure
School districts create opportunities for improvement in student learning and
achievement by closing the academic gap (CBSA, 2017). Establishing a shared district vision
allows board members, superintendents, and administrators to work toward a common goal
through strategic planning and allocating resources to achieve those objectives (CBSA, 2017).
According to CBSA (2017), to improve students’ learning and achievement, school districts must
incorporate equity in the educational vision.
27

The Four Frames
Bolman and Deal (2017) stated that leaders should approach organizational challenges
through four frames (structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) to gain an overall view
and decide which frame(s) leaders will utilize. Furthermore, Bolman and Deal (2017) stated that
it is the leader’s responsibility to use the appropriate frame for each challenge. Bolman and Deal
(2017) described the four frames as follows. The structural frame focuses on the “how” of
change. It is primarily a task-orientated frame. It focuses on strategy, setting measurable goals;
clarifying tasks, responsibilities, and reporting lines; agreeing on metrics and deadlines; and
creating systems and procedures. The human resources frame places emphasis on people’s needs.
It focuses primarily on giving employees the power and opportunity to perform their jobs well,
while at the same time addressing their needs for human contact, personal growth, and job
satisfaction. The political frame addresses the problem of individuals and interest groups having
sometimes conflicting (often hidden) agendas, especially when budgets are limited and the
organization must make difficult choices. In this frame, leaders will see coalition building,
conflict resolution work, and power base building to support the leader’s initiatives. The
symbolic frame addresses people’s needs for a sense of purpose and meaning in their work. It
focuses on inspiring people by making the organization’s direction feel significant and
distinctive. It includes creating a motivating vision and recognizing excellent performance
through company celebrations.
Leadership Theories
Khan et al. (2016) noted that there are plentiful explanations, classifications, theories, and
definitions about leadership. They stated that researchers and practitioners have concluded that
leadership is a flexible developmental process, with each new piece of research building on and
28

occasionally completely disregarding previous definitions. Khan et al. (2016) identified
leadership theories: great man theory, trait theory, contingency theory, style and behavior theory,
process leadership theory, transactional theory, and transformational theory. Six of these
leadership approaches, extracted from work by Northouse (2016), were deemed likely to be
demonstrated by superintendents in this study: transformational, authentic, servant, adaptive,
ethical, and team. Each approach is discussed next in the section on conceptual framework.
Conceptual Framework
My previous dissertation chair, Dr. Michael Escalante, did not request the team to create
a theoretical framework but my new chair, Dr. Julie Slayton, asked me to do so. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) stated that a theoretical framework is the “tailoring” component in a study.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that conceptual frameworks determine the problem to be
investigated, the particular data to collect, and how the data will be analyzed and interpreted. In
the current framework, I argue that how superintendents describe the benefits of board members
attending the MIG training reveal at least one of the four Bolman and Deal (2017) frames (e.g.,
political, human resource). CSBA’s MIG program equipped board members and superintendents
with knowledge and skills to build and support effective governance structures to enhance their
governance skills, expand their knowledge, exchange ideas, and discuss important issues (CSBA,
2018b). Moreover, board members displayed one of the four frames when discussing what they
saw as most important in relation to their ability to govern their districts.
Drawing on Northouse (2016), I argue that superintendents create relationships with their
board members and govern their district by enacting a specific leadership approach (e.g.,
transformational, authentic, servant, adaptive, ethical, team). If the superintendent leads by
enacting attributes of authentic leadership, for example, the superintendent will have an
29

intrapersonal perspective that focuses closely on the leader and what goes on within the leader,
incorporating the leader’s self-knowledge, self-regulation, and self-concept (Northouse, 2016).
On the other hand, if the superintendent leads by employing attributes of adaptive leadership, the
superintendent will engage in activities that mobilize, motivate, organize, orient, and focus the
attention of others (Northouse, 2016). If the superintendent enacts transformational leadership,
the superintendent will engage with others and create a connection that raises the level of
motivation and morality in both the leader and the followers. This type of leader is attentive to
the needs and motives of followers and tries to help followers to reach their fullest potential
(Northouse, 2016). If the superintendent uses a servant leadership approach, the superintendent
will show the natural feeling that one wants to serve first, then conscious choice brings one to
aspire to lead and make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served
(Northouse, 2016). Ethical leadership is concerned with what superintendents do and who they
are. It has to do with the nature of the superintendent’s behavior and the choices they make and
how they respond in a given circumstance as they are informed and directed by their ethics
(Northouse, 2016). If the superintendent applies a team leadership approach, the superintendent’s
job is to monitor the team and take whatever action is necessary to ensure team effectiveness
(Northouse, 2016). This conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure 1.

30

Figure 1

Conceptual Framework

Note. MIG = Masters in Governance.

The Four-Frame Model
Bolman and Deal (2017) theorized leadership under a four-frame model (structural,
human resource, political, and symbolic) as interchangeable frames in which leaders can operate
to adjust their management and leadership style depending on circumstances (Tan et al., 2015, as
cited in Bolman & Deal, 2017). The structural frame introduces the concept of the leader as a
“social architecture,” emphasizing the foundation of the organization through roles and
responsibilities to maximize outcomes and performance (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The purpose of
the human resource frame in any organization is to support the needs of the people. When there
is a good relationship, both the organization and individuals benefit (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The
31

political frame views organizations as coalitions (i.e., individuals and interest groups) competing
and distributing scarce resources, which leads to conflict and power struggle (Tan et al., 2015).
The symbolic frame emphasizes the culture of the organization to instill a sense of identity and
commitment to the mission (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Tan et al., 2015). Figures 2 and 3 illustrate
the four-frame theoretical framework. The responsibility of the superintendent and board
members is to lead and manage their school district effectively to achieve desired outcomes. The
four-frame model can be adopted by the superintendent and board members to manage and lead
their school district by implementing components of the structural, human, resource, political,
and symbolic frameworks.

Figure 2

Bolman and Deal’s Four Leadership Frames

Note. From Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, by L. G. Bolman and
T. E. Deal, 2017, Wiley.

32

Figure 3

Overview of Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model

Note. From Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, by L. G. Bolman and
T. E. Deal, 2017, Wiley.

By doing so, interchangeably, the management and leadership of the school district can
overcome organizational challenges. Each frame applies to the roles and responsibilities of a
school district. The school district should establish and attain the goals and objectives that meet
the mission and vision of the organization. Superintendents and board members can resolve
challenges as they arise by restructuring and solving problems (e.g., bargaining, positioning,
negotiating) within the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
Leadership
Each superintendent will demonstrate attributes of one or more of the six leadership
approaches identified by Northouse (2016)—transformational, authentic, servant, adaptive,
ethical, or team—as they interact with their board members. For example, Northouse (2016)
stated that transformational leadership is the process whereby a person engages with others and
33

creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the
followers. Authentic leadership is about the authenticity of leaders and their leadership. Servant
leaders demonstrate behaviors such as committing to put followers first, being honest with them,
treating them fairly, and developing strong relationships with them. Adaptive leadership is
concerned with how people change and adjust to new circumstances. Ethical leadership is rooted
in respect, service, justice, honesty, and community. A team is as an interdependent group of
individuals similar to a task force that work towards a common goal and share common interests
(Northouse, 2016).
Chapter Summary
The review of the literature provides the history of school leadership, board members,
and superintendents; the preparation of school board members; and the relationship between
school board members and superintendents. The MIG training could support school boards,
superintendents, and school districts, and improve their relationships. Similarly, the training
program could support board members to increase their knowledge to support their school
districts by making right decisions when discussing finances, providing ideas to improve student
achievement, and developing the district’s vision.
34

Chapter Three: Methods
The purpose of this study was to examine school board members’ and superintendents’
perceptions about how MIG training equipped board members to participate in effective school
district governance. I also examined the leadership approaches undertaken by the superintendents
in relation to guiding the school board members to work together to govern their respective
districts.
This chapter describes the qualitative approach, instrumentation, and data collection and
analysis methods used to conduct this research. I drew on Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four-frame
model of effective leadership to understand the frames that the superintendents and school board
members applied when describing the value and utility of the MIG. I drew on the CSBA’s (2007)
Professional Governance Standards to understand which tools, if any, board members and
superintendents saw as useful in their work. I drew on leadership theories (Northouse, 2016) to
understand the leadership approaches (e.g., transformational, authentic, servant, adaptive, ethical,
team) that superintendents demonstrated in relation to their work with school board members.
Two research questions guided the study:
1. How do board members and superintendents in three districts in California believe
they were equipped to engage in effective school governance as a result of
participating in the MIG training?
2. What is the role of the superintendent in each district in determining how they and
board members work together to govern the school district?
This chapter is comprised of five sections. First, I discuss the reasoning behind the
decision to conduct a qualitative case study. Second, I describe sampling procedures and the
population chosen for the study. Third, data collection methods are explained. Fourth, the
35

analysis of the data is explained. Fifth, I discuss the credibility, trustworthiness, limitations,
delimitations, and ethics of this study.
Research Design
I conducted a qualitative research study by interviewing 12 leaders (three superintendents
and nine board members) in three districts in California. My decision to undertake a qualitative
study was based on Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) definition of qualitative research: “Qualitative
researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they
construct their world, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences” (p. 6). Qualitative
methods are appropriate when researchers are interested in uncovering the meaning of a
phenomenon rather than determining cause and effect. This study focused on understanding
leaders’ experiences of attending a leadership training program and their beliefs about the value
of that training, as well as their experiences of the leadership approaches demonstrated by the
superintendents of their respective school districts. Throughout a qualitative approach, I
discovered how the MIG training provided basic information and tools for governing teams to
govern school districts. I also learned how superintendents used various leadership approaches to
govern their districts and how they created relationships with their board members. I used the
same semistructured open-ended interview protocol with all participants (superintendents and
board members) to gain insight into their perceptions of the MIG training and their work
together.
Population, Sample, and Participants
Initial sampling decisions were made by members of Dr. Escalante’s dissertation group.
To be part of the study, participants had to meet precise criteria developed by the research team.
The research team used purposeful sampling (Patton, 2015). Purposeful sampling was
36

appropriate because we wanted to discover, understand, and gain insight about a particular
phenomenon and purposeful sampling should be used to select a sample from whom the most
could be learned.
The research team also used criterion-based selection (LeCompte & Schensul, 2010),
thus deciding what attributes were crucial for selection. The first criterion was that participants
would be drawn from school districts in northern and southern California. The second criterion
was that a minimum of three school board members had completed at least one of the five
modules of the MIG training. Once the criteria were established, team members reached out to
superintendents and board members on their own.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, I conducted the interviews online or on the
telephone. As a result, I reached out to districts across California. To identify participants, I
contacted districts in northern and southern California. I sent an email to a superintendent for
each school district (elementary, secondary, and unified school districts), asking for information
about their board members to determine whether they had completed at least one of the five
modules for the CSBA MIG training. Only three superintendents replied to the email, indicating
willingness to participate in the study because most of their board members had attended the
MIG training. Other superintendents replied but explained that they could not participate because
their board members were not trained or a majority of their board members had not attended the
MIG.
From there, I narrowed the sample to three superintendents and nine board members from
three school districts in southern and northern California who agreed to participate (Table 1).
Most of the school board members in each of these three districts had attended the MIG training.
One participant was currently an interim superintendent. He was willing to participate in the
37

study because one member of the dissertation group worked closely with him and gave me his
personal information. Two districts in northern California and one district in southern California
were chosen. In 2021, Sunny Valley District reported 35,731 students; 68% are Asian, 15% are
Hispanic, 2% are African American, 11% are White, and 4% are other, with a 93% graduation
rate (Public Schools Review, 2021). Moon Valley District enrolled 6,872 students in 2021; 67%
are Asian, 20% are Hispanic, 2% are African American, 5% are White, and 6% are other, with a
93% graduation rate (Public Schools Review, 2021). Star Valley District enrolled 1709 students
in 2021; 4% are American Indian, 1% are Asian, 24% are Hispanic, 2% are African American,
62% are White, and 7% are other (Public Schools Review, 2021).

Table 1

Sample and Participants

District Superintendent Board Member Board Member Board Member
Sunny Valley Mr. Enzo Ms. Guevara Mr.Troy Mr. Angel
Moon Valley Ms. Rose Mr. Hendrix Mr. Rocky Ms. Ellie
Star Valley Mr. Rocko Mr. Ralph Ms. Luna Mr. Gump

38

Instrumentation and Data Collection
In this section I describe the instrumentation used to collect the data for the study and the
data collection activities.
Interviews
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), there are three types of interviews: (a) highly
structured, (b) semistructured, and (c) unstructured. Under supervision of my previous
dissertation chair, a semistructured interview protocol that had been used in a previous
dissertation (Choi, 2013) was modified by members of the research team. The original 19
interview questions focused on the impact of the MIG training on school board members and
superintendents. The interview included (a) an introduction and overview of the purpose of the
study, (b) consent information, (c) questions and probes, and (d) a closing, with the possibility to
collect more data at a later time if needed.
The semistructured nature of the protocol provided flexibility and included a mix of more
or less structured interview questions, as well as the opportunity to ask probing questions. Patton
(2015) stated that probes should focus on eliciting greater detail and filling out the detailed
picture. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that it is virtually impossible to specify these probing
questions or comments ahead of time because they are dependent on how the participant answers
the lead question. Patton (2015) stated that probes are used to deepen the responses to a question,
increase the richness and depth of responses, and give cues to the interviewee about the level of
response that is desired. Probing allowed me to make adjustments in the interviews as they
developed and ask for clarification to gain further details on the responses provided by the
participants. When using probes, I made sure that they were conversational, offered in a natural
39

style and voice, and used to follow up on initial responses. Some sample questions asked for the
study were as follows:
1. What factors impacted 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 individuals argue that school board training should be mandated in California.
How do you respond to them?
4. How has the MIG training affected how your school board members govern your
school district, if at all? If so, please explain.
Data Collection
Patton (2014) stated that, during the data collection phase, the purpose of interviews is for
the researcher to record the interviewee’s perspectives as fully and fairly as possible. I
interviewed nine board members and their corresponding superintendents from three school
districts. Interviews lasted from 30 to 90 minutes, averaging 60 minutes. Patton (2015) stated
that the quality of data obtained from interviews relies on the interviewer. Ideally, all interviews
would have been face to face; however, due to the pandemic, interviews were conducted online
via the video conferencing tool Zoom. During the interviews, I established rapport with
participants by making eye contact and acknowledging their answers. I was flexible by using
“probing and in determining when it is appropriate to explore certain subjects in greater depth, or
even to pose questions about new areas of inquiry that were not originally anticipated” (Patton,
2014, p. 3). I also took notes during the interviews and documented “significant patterns”
(Patton, 2014, p. 3) to help me to remember what we talked about during the interview and to ask
follow-up questions when needed.
40

Data Analysis
Patton (2015) stated that the challenge of qualitative data analysis lies in making sense of
tremendous amounts of data. This involves reducing the volume of raw information, filtering
trivia from significance, identifying significant patterns, and constructing a framework for
communicating the essence of what the data reveal. Since all of the data were collected and
coded by me, analytic induction occurred. Patton (2015) argued that the researcher develops a
hypothesis, sometimes rough and general approximations, before entry into the field or, in cases
where data are already collected, before data analysis. I began by coding the data and asking
what concepts might help me to understand what was happening in the data. I looked at words
and asked whether they could stand for more than one idea. I also engaged in open coding to
allow the data to speak to me. During this phase, I engaged in empirical coding, initially
identifying the exact words that were spoken and looking for the larger ideas that they might
communicate. I eventually used a priori coding by applying the four frames and the leadership
theories for these ideas. I also worked on analytic memos and did a code book. I used color
coding and labels in an Excel
®
spreadsheet to organize the data in the codebook. Miles (2014)
advised that the researcher ask whether the data are consistent and reasonably stable over time.
To achieve this, I spent time with the data by reviewing it and reorganizing it to ensure that the
data aligned with the findings. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained that, to achieve
consistency, the human instrument can become more reliable through training. Working twice a
week with my dissertation chair allowed me to move in the right direction and be trained to
minimize inconsistencies when analyzing data. During each meeting, she encouraged me to think
outside the box and look at the data with a different lens. The meetings were always recorded;
41

before I started analysis on my own, I watched the videos to ensure that I had not forgotten
anything that I needed to do.
The researcher might come up with hypotheses based on assumptions, careful
examination of the research and theory collected, or both. Interviews and survey responses were
analyzed using triangulation to increase validity of the study. Patton (2015) stated that the
strategy of triangulation provides diverse ways of looking at the same phenomenon and adds
credibility by strengthening confidence in the conclusions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Patton (2015) stated that, when a researcher is collecting data, triangulation of the data
must be included. Triangulation of the data “increases the accuracy and credibility of finding” (p.
247) and makes the study reliable. Patton (2015) described triangulation as a method that uses
different perspectives or theories to interpret data. I collected rich data by conducting interviews
with 12 people and created an audit trail that allowed me to account for all of my actions. Patton
(2015) also stated that triangulation can examine data from various angles. I triangulated the data
by (a) utilizing the information collected from interviewing both school board members and
superintendents, and (b) using information from the literature review provided in what became
the conceptual framework of the study. To ensure trustworthiness, I utilized Merriam and
Tisdell’s (2016) strategy of reflexivity to understand how I affected the research process and how
that influenced the findings. Selecting data that fit existing goals, theory, or preconceptions was
referred to by Maxwell (2013) as researcher bias. Before the data were collected, I took a step
back and acknowledged that I am a Latino male, middle class, working as a mathematics teacher
and department lead. I conducted these interviews with my own ideas and perceptions about
governing teams and how they should work together to govern their districts. I asked myself
42

questions to uncover my own biases and to see where they might be showing in the data. For
example, my reflective notes provided a clearer interpretation of the data to ensure
trustworthiness and recognition of my biases. Also, I noted that, prior to the study, I had not held
any administrative positions, such as assistant principal, principal, board member, nor had I
worked for a district office.
To enhance the credibility of the study, Patton (2015) shared three inquiry elements:
(a) rigorous methods for doing fieldwork that yields high-quality data, (b) credibility of the
researcher, and (c) a philosophical belief in the value of qualitative inquiry. The main instrument
for the study is the researcher. Personal experiences and beliefs could affect the subjectivity of
the study.
Ethics
I complied with the University of Southern California (USC) Institutional Review Board
(IRB) process. I completed the Collaborative IRB Training Initiative (CITI) before collecting
data. The purpose of the training was to certify me to conduct research with people. With the
guidance of my previous dissertation chair, the group used research questions from a previous
dissertation and modified them for this study. The design for this study was also borrowed from
a previous study to guide the dissertation group in collecting and analyzing the data. To ensure
that the interviews were conducted ethically, I shared the context and purpose of the study with
the participants. Contact information about the chair, the research questions, and the protocol of
the research was also shared with participants to guarantee that they understood the study.
I asked participants for verbal or written consent to audio record the interview. The audio
recording was transcribed using recording software. I reassured participants that their privacy
would be kept safe. I changed the names of participants and their districts in the report of the
43

findings to ensure confidentiality of participants. Only I and my second dissertation chair had
access to the data associated with this study. All recordings were deleted from any device after I
transcribed them. All collected data from the interviews will be kept for 3 years after the study.
Limitations of the Study
This study had several limitations. I was a novice researcher, constrained by the fact that
I was conducting interviews for the first time. As a result, I may have not asked the appropriate
questions or probed when I should not have. My analysis was limited by the quality of the data,
since most of the time I did not ask follow-up questions during the interviews. Therefore, the
analysis was bounded by the quality of the data. Furthermore, different interview questions could
have been asked to understand how the MIG training was effective long term for board members.
For example, the study was limited in asking board members how they were using the MIG
training, if at all, after attending the courses.
Even though there are more than 5,000 board members in California, the study focused
only on board members who had completed the MIG training offered by the CSBA and did not
consider other types of training. The MIG training is offered to any board member in California,
but the study focused on only three districts, two from northern California and one from southern
California. The study focused on districts in which the majority of school board members had
participated in at least one of the five training modules. Delimiting the study to three districts and
board members who had attended the MIG restricted the pool of participants; data did not
represent all superintendents and school members in other counties or states. The study was
limited by the participants’ recollections of their experiences during the MIG training and to the
time allocated to complete the interview. The validity of the study is based on how well the
participants understood the instructions for the interview and their perceptions. The truthfulness
44

of the participants limited the study, as their responses could have been idiosyncratic and might
have reflected personal viewpoints. The study was limited to the number of board members and
superintendents who agreed to participate in the interview process. Due to COVID-19, I was
restricted to use of Zoom interviews. This study had additional limitations that I could not
control. For example, the study was limited by the fact that the research questions were crafted
essentially for me from a previous dissertation group guided by Dr. Michael Escalante; I had
little to no control over their development. The study was limited by the instrument for data
collection; I did not have the opportunity to create it. It was created by others and the questions
were essentially predetermined. Another limitation is that the interview questions focused on the
members only after they had participated in the MIG. The study did not investigate what happens
in the long run and how the training played out in the context of their actual work.
Delimitations
Although the participants were selected from northern and southern California districts,
there were other selection criteria for the districts: (a) only public elementary, secondary, and
unified school districts were considered; (b) a majority of school board members had completed
at least one of the five modules of the MIG training; (c) no consideration was given to a school
district’s economic status; and (d) school districts that did not participate in the CSBA MIG
training were not considered. There was no consideration of the districts’ socioeconomic status,
and only school board members and superintendents who had completed the MIG training were
included in the study.
Chapter Summary
Through this research, I had the opportunity to understand the relationship between
superintendents and board members and how they worked together to govern their districts. I
45

interviewed three superintendents and nine board members from three districts in California (two
from northern California and one from southern California). I collected data through
semistructured interviews using the Zoom platform. My conceptual framework guided me to
analyze and understand the data. These methods were chosen to collect as many details as
possible to address the research questions. Appendices A through G contain the emails and
protocols used in the study.
46

Chapter Four: Findings
Exceptional school board members add significant value to their districts, making a
visible difference in the fulfillment of the district’s mission (CSBA, 2018a). Good governance
requires board members to understand their role (CSBA, 2018c). According to the CSBA, the
MIG program is intended to equip board members and superintendents with knowledge and
skills to build and support effective governance structures to enhance their governance skills,
expand their knowledge, exchange ideas, and discuss important issues (CSBA, 2018b). This
study’s overarching purpose was to understand how board members and superintendents in three
districts in the state of California saw the MIG training as contributing to their ability to govern
in their respective school districts effectively. This chapter presents the findings that emerged
from interviews of nine school board members and three superintendents in three school districts
across the state of California in response to the two following research questions:
1. How do board members and superintendents in three districts in California believe
they were equipped to engage in effective school governance as a result of
participating in the MIG training?
2. What is the role of the superintendent in each district in determining how they and
board members work together to govern the school district?
The findings are presented by research question. In response to Research Question 1,
three findings emerged. Each finding had several themes. Finding 1 was that the MIG provided a
foundation for board members to access information and the knowledge that they believed was
necessary for them to establish a foundational understanding of their roles and responsibilities.
There were two themes within this finding. The first theme was the lack of requisite knowledge.
The second theme was the benefits of the MIG. The second finding was that, while board
47

members had access to information from the MIG, they were unable to use it to govern. There
were three themes within this finding. The first theme was that the MIG is too theoretical. The
second theme was that the MIG provided too much information. The third finding was that the
MIG provided a common language among members who attended the training.
In response to Research Question 2, there was one finding with three themes. The finding
was that superintendent’s role was to guide board members and help them understand their roles
and responsibilities to govern their district. The first theme was how superintendents work as a
team by instilling the idea of teamwork (team leadership). The second theme was that board
members know their roles and responsibilities by having the superintendent lead from the front
(authentic leadership). The third theme was that members know their roles and responsibilities
by having the superintendent lead from the back (servant leadership).
Findings for Research Question 1
Research shows that many school board members are elected with little to no training or
background in education (Delagardelle, 2008). Consistent with the literature, interview data from
three superintendents and nine board members revealed that the MIG training provided board
members with access to information that they believed they needed in order to understand their
roles and responsibilities but the training was limited in its ability to position them to govern
effectively.
Finding 1
Finding 1 was that the MIG training provided board members access to the information
and knowledge that they believed was necessary for them to establish a foundational
understanding of their roles and responsibilities. This finding contains five themes: (a) Board
members did not know their roles and responsibilities, (b) the MIG training provided access to
48

the information necessary to establish a foundational understanding of their roles and
responsibilities, (c) the MIG training provided a common language among members who
attended the training, (d) the MIG training provided resources and tools, such as the handbook, to
which members to refer once they returned to their districts, and (e) while the MIG provided
relevant content overall, board members believed that some of the information was outdated or
not directly applicable to their local contexts and therefore could not be applied to their districts.
Across the 12 interviews, both board members and superintendents communicated a
belief that new board members began their tenure without the requisite knowledge to govern the
district. They agreed that the MIG provided certain types of support to new board members. How
they described what board members needed to know or be able to do and how the MIG provided
them with that support was shaped by their mental models (Bolman & Deal, 2017). In the
conceptual framework, I argued that each board member and superintendent had a mental model,
or a frame, “a set of ideas and assumptions” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 13) that they carried in
their heads that would determine how they made sense of their work on the school board.
Consistent with that conceptual framework, the data demonstrated that each board member and
superintendent described their experiences in language consistent with one of the four frames.
Specifically, superintendents and board members described how prepared board members were
for their work and what they valued as a result of participating in the MIG in terms that were
consistent with the structural frame. They pointed to the structures, roles, goals, and policies
(Bolman & Deal, 2017) as aspects of the work that they had not known upon assuming their
roles as board members and as critical information that they gained through their participation in
the MIG. This finding has two themes. The first theme describes their perceptions of their
49

preparedness when assuming their roles as board members. The second theme speaks to how
they believed that they benefited from attendance in the MIG.
Lacked Requisite Knowledge
Consistent with the literature (Delagardelle, 2008), board members from each district
explained that, at the time they stepped into their roles as members of their district’s governance
teams, they did not understand what they were expected to do (i.e., their responsibilities). For
example, Ms. Guevara, from Sunny Valley District stated,
For me, there was no knowledge about how the role of school board members, how they
function. I have a sense of the politics. You elect a school board member but how they
are involved or engaged in running a school district was kind of nebulous.
Here, Ms. Guevara directly stated as a board member that she had not had any “knowledge”
regarding the responsibilities of her job because she did not understand how the governing team
“function[ed].” Before Ms. Guevara was elected as a board member, she had a “sense of the
politics,” implying that she understood that she had to be elected to become a board member.
Bolman and Deal (2017) described someone who sees the world through a structural frame as
someone who focuses on the way that an organization exists to accomplish its goals or where
coordination and control are essential to effectiveness. Ms. Guevara’s characterization of what
she did not know about how school board members “function” is consistent with the structural
frame in that she focused on the operational practices of running a district.
According to Bolman and Deal (2017), people who demonstrate elements of the
structural frame focus on the roles and procedures of their work. When Mr. Hendrix, a board
member from Moon Valley District, talked about his colleagues on the board, consistent with
50

someone who views the world through a structural frame, he focused on the way that they did
not understand the roles and procedures associated with being board members.
A few years ago, we had someone become president of our board, and I have to be honest
with you, it was an embarrassment every month. They just didn’t know what an action
item meant. They didn’t know what a consent item was. It was, frankly, the most
embarrassing year I have had on the board because they weren’t properly trained. They
didn’t do what they should have done.
He believed that his peers were not “properly trained” and were unable to understand how to do
their job. Mr. Hendrix added that, when their President did not know what he was doing, it was
an “embarrassment” for their governing team. Mr. Hendrix implied that, when board members
did not understand what they were expected to do, they had the freedom to make decisions that
they “should not have done.” Thus, he suggested that their lack of understanding about the rules
associated with being a board member led them to make mistakes in carrying out their roles.
Mr. Troy, from Sunny Valley District also saw the work of a board member through a
structural frame.
As a new board member or as a board member, you feel as though you’re lost. So, you
want to make sure that if you’re supposed to be doing something, you’re doing it [right].
And so the best way to figure out is to take the [MIG] course.
Mr. Troy said that, once board members stepped into their position, they wanted to handle their
responsibilities correctly. As suggested by Bolman and Deal (2017), someone who views the
world through a structural frame focuses on understanding their role and the goals of an
organization or entity. Because Mr. Troy believed that attending the MIG would allow him to
gain the needed knowledge to perform his job “right,” he appeared to be demonstrating a
51

structural frame. He wanted to understand what he was “supposed to be doing,” the role and
rules associated with the position. Board members wanted to know what their job was and to
engage in their personal responsibilities. Mr. Troy believed that the only way for board members
to determine their job’s responsibilities was to attend the MIG training. His statement that the
MIG course would provide them with needed information suggested that he believed that board
members were able to execute their responsibilities and understand their role in their district after
attending the MIG training. His response is consistent with the structural frame in that he focused
exclusively on the way that the MIG would help him to figure out how to not be “lost” in relation
to what he was “supposed to be doing” as a member of the Board, suggesting a focus on roles
and structure of the Board.
Benefits of the MIG
According to the CSBA (2018b), the purpose of the MIG program is to provide board
members and superintendents insight into the roles and responsibilities associated with being
members of a governance team. CSBA suggested that this is done by focusing on core concepts
of effective governance ranging from Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction to
Human Resources and Collective Bargaining to Student Learning and Achievement (CSBA,
2018a). Consistent with the structural frame, participants identified structures, roles, goals, and
district policies as information and knowledge that they gained and valued from their
participation in the MIG program that allowed them to understand their roles and responsibilities
as governing members. Board members saw the MIG training as an experience that provided
insight into their responsibilities that they did not have at the time they became members of their
boards. For example, in Sunny Valley District, board members consistently pointed to the MIG
52

as providing information related to their roles and responsibilities. One board member, Ms.
Guevara, stated:
So, when I first got on to the board, I was appointed, and really did not have a good idea
of how school boards function. Enzo, as the superintendent, said to give you that
fundamental or foundational understanding, they recommended the MIG.
Here, Ms. Guevara indicated that, as a new board member, she had not understood how the
governing team “functioned.” Her understanding of the value of the MIG came from the
superintendent, who recommended that she attend the MIG training to gain the “fundamental or
foundational” knowledge associated with being a board member. Ms. Guevara’s interpretation of
the value of the MIG reflects a structural frame as she identified understanding her roles and
responsibilities as the most important content needed to be an effective board member.
Ms. Guevara added, “For me, there was no knowledge about how the role of school board
members, how they function,” suggesting that, when she became a board member, she had not
understood the role and responsibilities of a board member. “So going back to what I said what I
thought was critical was that foundational course. It’s always that reminder of what is our role.”
Thus, Ms. Guevara believed the MIG training was a foundational piece that provided a reminder
of her role as a board member.
Both board members and superintendents expressed the belief that the foundational piece
of the MIG training allowed governing teams to develop insight into the governance team’s roles
and responsibilities and to focus on the core concepts of the MIG program: trusteeship and
governance (CSBA, 2018b). Attendees who complete Course 1, Foundations of Effective
Governance/Setting Direction, are exposed to information that provides the foundation to
understand their roles and responsibilities. Board members start to distinguish between their
53

roles and the superintendent’s role. Consistent with this description, Mr. Rocky from Moon
Valley District said, “Where we have one job, we have one employee, our job is to support the
superintendent and our job is to find the best superintendent for us. And I think that the training
allows for that.” In his statement, Mr. Rocky demonstrated his belief that board members had
only one job, to assist and hire the “best” superintendent. Mr. Rocky’s understanding of his
duties shows a structural frame as he focused on the idea that one of his responsibilities as a
board member was to hire and support the superintendent. Mr. Rocky implied that the MIG
training would allow board members to identify their main responsibilities on the governing
team. Mr. Rocky seemed to suggest that the training allowed them to know their job and do it.
Similarly, Mr. Rocko, the superintendent from Star Valley District, said,
I think my board has on more than one occasion shared that they have this training and,
and the master’s in governance and feel like they can effectively run the organization or
sit in a policy role as board members. So, I think that’s the big piece, confidence and a
belief in the work and the willingness to understand the different roles. I keep coming
back to it, but no successful district is run unless there is absolute clarity between the
Superintendent and the board on what those roles are, so there’s not a mix.
Mr. Rocko explained that, after his governing team had attended the MIG training, board
members had a better understanding of their roles as they now confidence to run their district
effectively. For example, board members would now be able to “sit in a policy role.” Bolman
and Deal (2017) explained that someone who views the world through a structural frame
understands the structures, roles, goals, and policies of their organization. Mr. Rocko stated that,
when board members understand their roles, their district will run more effectively, displaying a
54

structural frame. Mr. Rocko also said that, when there is clarity and board members understand
that their roles and the superintendent’s roles are different, the district will run successfully.
Another board member from Sunny Valley District, Ms. Flores, offered, “The training
provided that, so just some basics of how to comport yourself as a public official, down to details
about how to evaluate a superintendent effectively, a lot of information about the budget and
human resources.” In this statement, Ms. Flores indicated that one of the roles that she came to
understand that she had as a board member was to evaluate the superintendent. Her assessment
of her experience was that the information would position her to do so “effectively.” Another
responsibility that she learned that she had as a result of participating in the MIG training was
responsibility for the budget and human resources. She indicated that she was introduced to “a
lot of information” about both topics, suggesting that she saw these as part of her work as a
member of the board. Ms. Flores’s perception of the basic responsibilities of a board member
including the evaluation of the superintendent represents a structural frame, because the MIG
introduced Ms. Flores to her tasks as a board member.
Board Member Mr. Ed added, “To be an effective board member, I really think that I
needed that knowledge and that training [MIG] in order to do my job. It’s kind of that simple.”
During the interviews, board members from the three school districts agreed that, by
accessing the information provided by MIG, they had the basic knowledge to perform their roles
and responsibilities. Mr. Ed’s view reflects a structural framework because, in order to keep
doing his job and be an effective board member, he needed to have a clear understanding of his
roles within the governing team.
55

Finding 2
Finding 2 was that, while board members had access to information from the MIG, they
were unable to use it to govern. CSBA’s MIG program was intended to equip governing teams
with knowledge and skills to build and support an effective governance structure (CSBA,
2018b). The program took place over a series of weekends, with sessions lasting 4 hours
covering five courses: (a) Foundations of Effective Governance, (b) Policy and Judicial Review,
(c) School Finance, (d) Human Resources, and (e) Community Relations and Advocacy. Board
members found it difficult to carry what they were introduced to during the MIG into their work
for two reasons: (a) Too much information was provided in too theoretical a way, making it
difficult to translate the theory into practice in their setting or the information was not directly
applicable to their specific context (cited by 11 participants in three districts); or (b)Too much
information was communicated in too concentrated a period of time (cited by 11 of the 12
participants).
Too Theoretical
While board members generally agreed that the MIG provided relevant information, nine
board members and three superintendents described their ability to take up the information as
constrained by the learning conditions in the MIG itself. For example, Ms. Guevara said, “The
training provided that, so just some basics of how to comport yourself as a public official, down
to details about how to evaluate a Superintendent effectively, a lot of information about the
budget and human resources.” Ms. Guevara stated that the MIG training provided access to basic
information on how to behave as a public official, evaluate the superintendent, and learn about
the budget and human resources. Her interpretation of the information that the MIG provided is
consistent with someone who views the world through a structural frame as she focused on
56

actions that she would perform in her role and enact her responsibilities as a board member. She
spoke to the behavior that she was to demonstrate when comporting herself in public, as well as
her responsibility for “effectively” evaluating the superintendent and the information required to
handle her responsibilities related to budget and human resources. At the same time, she
explained that she was unable to transfer much of what she had learned due to the way it was
provided. “Oh, my gosh. You’re trying to absorb all this kind of theoretical information and it’s
kind of hard to process that again by yourself in the midst of also experiencing it.” Here Ms.
Guevara described how she tried to understand the theoretical information but found it
challenging to do so by herself. In addition, she found it difficult to translate the theoretical
information into practice while simultaneously experiencing it in real life as a board member.
She found making the theoretical concrete to be beyond what she could do on her own.
Similarly, Mr. Angel from Sunny Valley District stated,
Again, I think they’re all very theoretical and even though the people who are doing it are
practitioners. They’ve all been in the field. They’ve all been either superintendents or
board members or what have you, which is great. But I think when you’re on the ground
doing the work, that theory doesn’t always become a reality.
In his statement, Mr. Angel also expressed that the information provided at the MIG was “very
theoretical.” On the one hand, Mr. Angel appreciated that the people who provided the
information had real-life experience as they had “been in the field.” On the other hand, he found
them to be too disconnected from his current experience “on the ground doing the work,” and
they could not help him to see the connection between the theory and what he perceived to be his
reality.
57

Too Much Information
The MIG training took place in five modules in approximately 20 hours across 2 days (a
weekend). Each module lasted about 3.5 hours when it was held virtually or 4 hours when it took
place in person (personal communication, Darcel Lee, Director of Trainings, 2021). Four board
members and one superintendent across all three districts expressed that the training contained
too much information in a very concentrated period of time. They indicated that they were
overwhelmed by the amount of information that was provided and that it would have been easier
to complete the training and to learn from it had it been presented more slowly and delivered in
smaller portions.
For some participants, the structure of the MIG training made it difficult for board
members to learn. It was offered in only one format, taking place over 2 days rather than spread
out. For example, Superintendent Rose from Moon Valley District shared that the training would
have been more manageable for at least one of the members of his district’s board had it been
spread across multiple days to make it less concentrated:
Part of his [board member] issue is that he needed smaller chunks [to complete the
training]. So providing opportunities to learn, to take the MIG in two formats, in addition
to the current one where it’s done over 2 full days, the Friday and a Saturday. Perhaps
allowing it to be something that’s done in 4 half days because then maybe that board
member might have attended all of them.
Here, Superintendent Rose explained that her board members’ opportunities to learn
would have been improved had the training been provided in smaller portions. Instead,
Superintendent Rose said that the current version, provided “over 2 full days,” made it difficult
for the board member to learn or complete the training. She suggested that it would have created
58

an improved opportunity to learn had it been presented in two formats. She suggested that “4 half
days” instead of the “2 full days” might have supported his attendance better. Implied in her
suggestion was that the 2 full days provided too much information in a very concentrated period
of time. She seemed to suggest that slowing down and spreading out the content would have
made it easier for the board member, not just to complete the program but to learn from the
experience. According to Bolman and Deal (2017), people who demonstrate elements of the
human resources frame focus on people and their needs, ways to facilitate individual
productivity, communication, and motivation. Superintendent Rose’s contention that the MIG
training would have better supported the board member is consistent with someone who views
the world through a human resources frame as she focused on how the training met, or in this
case did not meet, the board member’s needs and did not support his ability to be productive or
effective as a board member.
Ms. Lauren from Moon Valley District spoke to how complicated the information was
and how difficult it was to get the most out of the training:
The speakers would simplify the process in relaying the message to us to make it easier to
understand, especially when it comes to the LCAP. Yeah. It’s very complex. And if going
too fast, new members would not grab all the information.
Ms. Lauren stated that the training was challenging to understand because the
communicated message was not simplified for members, especially regarding “complex” topics
such as the LCAP. From her experience at the MIG, Ms. Lauren also noted that it would be
challenging for new board members to “grab all the information” because the training was too
fast and difficult to understand. Here, Ms. Lauren demonstrated that she viewed the world
through a structural frame as she was focused on the information that she believed was related to
59

her responsibilities as a board member. For example, while the process was complex, she valued
that the information was simplified for her so she could work with her district’s LCAP.
Finding 3
Finding 3 was that the MIG provided a common language among members who had
attended the training. Six board members and superintendents across two of the three districts
communicated that one benefit from attending the MIG was that they had gained a common
language that they would use as they worked together. For example, Superintendent Rose from
Moon Valley District said that attending the MIG provided board members a common reference
point to communicate with each other in relation to their work together:
With that first group, the five of us going through it and two of them had... I think that it
provided us with something to talk about that we had learned. And then now that we have
junior members who went through it after the senior members, now it gives the senior
members something to say, “Remember when you learned this in MIG.” So it gives, I
think, almost a continuum or a rubric for reference.
Superintendent Rose used the training as a common reference point. Board members and
the superintendent shared their learned knowledge as a result of having attended the MIG as a
group. Board members with more experience can point those with less seniority to content that
was introduced during the MIG. Superintendent Rose implied that the MIG provided the
opportunity for sharing expertise and developing a shared knowledge base that could be used to
hold people accountable for how they should operate as members of the board. She also seemed
to suggest that the MIG provided more senior members with a way to redirect more junior board
members so that they did not take the wrong direction and were held true to what they had
learned in the MIG.
60

Board Member Luna from Moon Valley District saw the MIG as an experience that
contributed to how she and her peers worked together to accomplish their job:
It’s the compass. It’s the roadmap in terms of how we look at policy, how we evaluate the
superintendent, how we look at the health of our district in terms of how we can be the
best that we can possibly be? That’s what it does for me.
In Ms. Luna’s perspective, the “compass” was the roadmap on how they examined
policy, how they evaluated the superintendent, and how they looked at the health of their district.
She stated that these qualities enabled the board to work collectively. Her use of the “we”
implied collectivity and how they operate together. The “compass” was the signal that kept them
attuned to their true north and moving them in the right direction. She also said that all board
members attending and collectively defining terms using the MIG would allow them to be “the
best that we can possibly be.” Bolman and Deal (2017) explained that someone who views the
world through a structural frame understands the structures, roles, goals, and policies of their
organization. Ms. Luna displayed a structural frame because, as a board member, she focused on
her responsibilities, such as evaluating the superintendent. In her mind, for a district to be the
best it can be, it was essential for board members to understand their responsibilities.
Similarly, Superintendent Rocko from Star Valley District said that a benefit of attending
was that it provided the board a way to align their efforts. “[The training] should be done as a
team so that the learning is collaborative and together and not in isolation. So when you come
back, the team has a common understanding.” Here, Superintendent Rocko supported the co-
construction of knowledge during the MIG. His interpretation of attending the MIG as a team
reflects a human resources frame because he was invested in the way that interpersonal
relationships would create a common language, increasing communication within the governing
61

team. After acquiring this common knowledge, having heard the same information, and having
been given the opportunity to leave with a similar, if not the same, understanding of what they
had learned enabled them to return with similar understandings as they moved forward in their
work.
Similarly, board member Ralph from Star Valley District used the MIG training as the
common ground for board members to use:
So, there’s a piece of it that’s nice because you can always say we have this common
piece, but then you have to get to the latest strategies. So it’s nice to say, again, “Well,
there’s something for us to go to train,” or, “Did you take a look at that, or have you read
this article?” And there’s a common thread.
Mr. Ralph appreciated commonality that MIG provided for him and the governing team. As a
board member, Mr. Ralph expressed how the governing team has this shared experience to bring
them together. Having attended the MIG created an opportunity for cohesiveness and alignment
to share a common vocabulary to keep themselves up to date with the “latest strategies” that the
MIG provided.
Interview data from three superintendents and nine board members demonstrated that the
MIG training had provided board members access to information that they believed they needed
to understand their roles and responsibilities but was limited in its ability to position them to
govern effectively.
Finding for Research Question 2
Northouse (2016) defined leadership as the process whereby an individual influences a
group of individuals to achieve a common goal. The process implies that a leader affects, and is
affected by, followers. In other words, leadership is not a linear event but rather an interactive
62

event. Consistent with the literature, interview data from three superintendents and nine board
members revealed three themes that spoke to the guidance of the superintendents in helping their
board members to understand their roles and responsibilities to govern their district: (a) showing
them how to work as a team, (b) showing board members their roles and responsibilities by
leading from the front, and (c) showing board members their roles and responsibilities by leading
from the back. The primary responsibilities of the board are to set a direction for the district,
provide a structure by establishing policies, ensure accountability and provide community
leadership on behalf of the district and public education (CSBA, 2018c). To accomplish these
responsibilities, effective board members must execute a number of specific jobs: (a) hire and
support the superintendent so that their vision, goals, and policies of the district are implemented;
(b) adopt, evaluate, and update policies consistent with the law and the district’s vision and
goals; and (c) adopt a fiscally responsible budget based on the district’s vision and goals, and
regularly monitor the fiscal health of the district. The superintendents’ governance standards
include (a) work with the board as a “governance team” and ensure collective responsibility for
building a unity of purpose, communicating a common vision and creating a positive
organizational culture; (b) understands the distinctions between board and staff roles and respect
the role of the board as the representative of the community, (c) understand that authority rests
with the board as a whole, providing guidance to the board to assist in decision making and
provide leadership based on the direction of the board as a whole; (d) communicates openly with
trust and integrity, providing all members of the board equal access to information and
recognizing the importance of both responsive and anticipatory communications; and (e) accept
leadership responsibility and accountability for implementing the vision, goals, and policies of
the district. Consistent with the conceptual framework of this study, the data demonstrated that
63

board members and superintendents described their roles and responsibilities in alignment with
the professional governance standards set by the CSBA (2018b). Data revealed that, in the
presence of a strong leader, board members understood their responsibilities in governing their
districts.
In the conceptual framework, I argued that each superintendent displayed at least one
leadership approach (Northouse, 2016) to guide board members to work together and govern
their school districts. Consistent with the conceptual framework, the data revealed that each
superintendent’s leadership approach was consistent with one of the six leadership styles
presented in the conceptual frame. Specifically, superintendents’ leadership approaches showed
how they steered their ships in the directions that they envisioned by supporting board members
to work together to govern their district.
This finding has three themes. The first theme describes how the board members and
superintendent described how they worked together as a team. The second theme speaks to how
the superintendent and board members described the role of the superintendent in ensuring that
they understood or enacted their roles/responsibilities as he leads from the front. The third theme
describes how the superintendent shows board members their roles and responsibilities by
leading from the back.
Working as a Team
Consistent with the literature, work teams are very prevalent in today’s organizations.
Northouse (2016) described a team as a type of organizational group that is composed of
members who are interdependent, who share common goals, and who must coordinate their
activities to accomplish these goals. Swezey and Salas (1992) defined a team as a distinguishable
64

set of two or more people who interact, dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively toward a
common and valued goal, who have been assigned specific roles or functions to perform.
First, with respect to interacting interdependently with board members, one way in which
Superintendent Rose from Moon Valley District fostered team governance was by modeling the
importance of working together and attending the MIG training with her governing team as an
interim superintendent. Superintendent Rose leveraged training sessions as a time and place to
work with board members to foster a team governance approach. For example, she chose to
attend the MIG training with board members. She attended not only when she was interim
superintendent but also after being appointed as a superintendent. Superintendent Rose also
cultivated teamwork by making it her responsibility to attend the MIG training with her board
members and used it as a core idea in her district and in the way they operate together. The MIG
training was one tool among others, including governing team retreats to foster team governance.
Superintendent Rose fostered team governance by modeling the importance of working together
when she joined the MIG training as an interim superintendent. By attending the training with
her board members, she communicated the importance of being together to interact and cultivate
interdependence in the way work is done. During this process, she showed that everyone is
works as a team, not separately:
I think that it’s really been beneficial. Like for example, the first time I went, none of my
board members, it was when I was interim superintendent, and none of the board
members had attended the MIG. And so, we did that on one, we did it together, and the
one with the most years of experience learned some new things about what the role of the
president was. And then the other piece too, is it enabled us all to have common
understanding about what the roles are, so that those who really got a lot out of it could
65

use it to address issues or behaviors with others who weren’t remembering what it was
that they were supposed to be doing.
Consistent with Northouse (2016), Superintendent Rose suggested that she fostered a
team leadership approach by making it her responsibility to attend training sessions with her
board members to cultivate a team mentality. In her description of her actions, she reported that
she cultivated a “team mentality” by modeling for her governing team the importance of
attending the training with them and “to have a common understanding about what [their] roles”
were. She also demonstrated her desire to cultivate this team mentality when she described that
she was a member of the team by going to the training as an interim superintendent. Attending
the training as an interim superintendent displayed a team leadership approach because she made
it her responsibility to integrate herself as part of the team. The fact they went together to the
training as a governing team implies some level of awareness or understanding that they were
supposed to be a team. Implied in her belief that it was important to attend the training as a team
was that she saw the board members and herself as interdependent and that they had the
responsibility to work together to ensure that everyone understood their roles and how they were
supposed to enact those roles as members of the same team:
With that first group, the five of us going through it and two of them had . . . I think that
it provided us with something to talk about that we had learned. It also provided us with a
compass of what we could work towards becoming. And then now that we have junior
members who went through it after the senior members, now it gives the senior members
something to say, “Remember when you learned this in MIG.” So, it gives, I think,
almost a continuum or a rubric, for reference.
66

Superintendent Rose kept cultivating team governance by showing her governing team
the importance of working together. She indicated that they all attended the MIG, as well as
other training sessions, and participated in a governing team retreat. She made it her
responsibility to be together with her board anytime she could. She stated that attending training
sessions with her board members helped everyone to keep cultivating a team. The MIG training
provided the governing team with a “compass.” The board members utilized the compass as a
reference to keep working interdependently as a team towards a direction that they envisioned:
I can say that the MIG provides governance teams with the opportunity to be together for
extended periods of time to talk about their roles and policy and that, in and of itself,
helps to build the team. I don’t think that that’s just because of MIG. That could be a
situation in any learning situation where the group is together. It doesn’t have to be MIG
and you would still have similar outcome because when we have our board
Superintendent retreats, we have that opportunity to be together.
Here, Superintendent Rose communicated her belief that the board and the superintendent
should operate as a team as she referred to the “governance team” in her description of what
attending the MIG had provided. She claimed that the opportunity for the “governance team” to
spend time together helped to “build a team,” again indicating that she saw the board and
superintendent as a team that would understand their roles and policy. She emphasized the
importance of the team when talking about the many opportunities that existed for the board and
superintendent to pull together in any situation where they were learning, during retreats, or were
together. When board members “have the opportunity to be together,” they have the opportunity
to work as a team around a common set of goals.
67

Of the range of characteristics of an individual who enacts team leadership, Northouse
(2016) suggested that someone who enacts team leadership will work collaboratively to develop
trusting relationships. Superintendent Rose also talked about the way that time together
promoted the existence of trusting relationships. “And then I would say the greatest piece is, as
superintendent, sitting there with that board member. It gives us a lot of time to get to know each
other. So there’s the team development relational piece.” Implied in this statement was that when
the governing team spent extended periods of time talking about their roles, what each valued,
clarifying what they were and how they would work together, as well as policy, trusting
relationships developed.
According to Zaccaro et al. (2002), truly effective teams maintain high levels of
collective performance. According to Northouse, individuals who demonstrate characteristics of
team leadership will take on leadership behaviors to influence the team and to maximize team
effectiveness. As suggested by Northouse (2016), the ability of a team to collaborate or work
well together is essential to team effectiveness. A collaborative climate is one in which members
can stay focused on the problem, listen to and understand one another, feel free to take risks, and
be willing to compensate for one another. Ms. Ellie, a board member from Moon Valley District,
talked about the way in which team leadership worked in her district’s governing team.
Consistent with someone who showed characteristics of team leadership, she focused on how
they became more effective when they worked collaboratively. “We work together and it makes
us more effective in our leadership skills.” Ms. Ellie claimed that the value of her governing
team working together led to their leadership skills becoming more fruitful for their district. Mr.
King, another member from Moon Valley District, shared a similar perspective consistent with
the definition of team leadership provided by Northouse (2016). “So, we want to work together,
68

be strong, lead together.” Mr. King’s words showed the value of teamwork by stating that the
governing team becomes stronger when they work and lead together.
Leading From the Front (Authentic Leadership)
According to Northouse (2016), authentic leadership represents one of the newest areas
of leadership research. Authentic leadership focuses on the authenticity of leaders and their
leadership, as well as showing that leadership is genuine and real. Northouse (2016) explained
that there is no single accepted definition of authentic leadership because the process is complex
and difficult to characterize. Chan (2005) stated that there are multiple definitions for authentic
leadership and that every researcher provides a different viewpoint with a different emphasis.
One of those viewpoints is the intrapersonal perspective, which focuses closely on the
leader and what goes on within the leader. It incorporates the leader’s self-knowledge, self-
regulation, and self-concept. This perspective outlines authentic leadership as relational, created
by leaders and followers together (Eagly, 2005). For example, consistent with self-knowledge,
Superintendent Rocko had enough awareness and understood his own capabilities that it would
not be effective for him “to facilitate a protocol workshop” by himself:
With all due respect, probably the most effective thing was me bringing in an outsider to
facilitate a protocol workshop with the board that to this day we live by. That has helped
us be an incredibly successful leadership team.
Consistent with Northouse’s (2016) definition of authentic leadership of self-knowledge
and self-regulation, Superintendent Rocko understood that he needed to have somebody else
leading the workshop, inferring that he had a consciousness and that he needed to step out of the
way to let someone else help the governing team. He wanted them to find each other in this
relational way and to do it as a team, without him pushing the agenda. Similarly, he showed self-
69

regulation as he handed this responsibility to an outsider. As an authentic leader, he did not own
this success of being “an incredibly successful leadership team”; he acknowledged that someone
else fostered a co-created leadership team.
A further demonstration of Superintendent Rocko’s self-knowledge was revealed in the
following quotation as he understood what he needed to be successful as a leader in the district.
He displayed an authentic leadership approach by showing self-knowledge and self-awareness
when governing his district. He understood that, to be a “successful district,” the board members
and superintendent had to know their roles without intertwining them and that those roles should
be part of his contract before becoming a superintendent:
So I think that’s the big piece, confidence and a belief in the work and the willingness to
understand the different roles. I keep coming back to it, but no successful district is run
unless there is absolute clarity between the Superintendent and the board on what those
roles are, so there’s not a mix. I know when I came in, one of the agreements I shared
with the board in order for me to come on as the superintendent, I wanted to have a
contract and an agreement and protocols that we designed that had clarity between the
role of the Superintendent and the role of the board. And I think the trainings helped
center them with an understanding, so it didn’t seem the Superintendent was driven by
certain goals or personal goals or ego, versus wanting to effectively run an organization.
And the only way to do that is clarity on roles.
Here Superintendent Rocko understood enough about himself to know what he needed
and what board members needed to be a successful district. It is evident that, to be an authentic
leader, Superintendent Rocko made sure that his board members had a clear distinction between
their roles and his role. He had a strong self-concept and a clear sense of what his responsibilities
70

were and who he was as a leader. Before accepting his job as a superintendent, he wanted to be
sure that the district understood clearly what his roles and responsibilities were; one way of
doing that was to require his board to add in writing to his “contract and agreement.” By putting
it in writing, he was saying that it had to be guaranteed and that, if it did not come to pass, it
would lead to a breach of contract and he would leave the district.
According to Eagly (2005), authentic leadership is created by leaders and followers
together. Avolio and Gardner (2005) argued that authentic leaders are expected to evoke
followers’ self-concept in authentic leadership, recognizing that they share similar values with
the leader. The self-concept can be viewed as the knowledge that one has about oneself.
Consistent with the definition of self-concept, Superintendent Rocko supported his board
members to recognize that they had values to those of their leader. Self-concept is a conception
of the board members having a set of essential values to understand the difference between their
roles and the superintendent’s role and that these values are similar or the same as those held by
the leader. Superintendent Rocko contended that he helped board members to realize that they
held the same values as he did. He enforced his efforts to evoke in his board members a shared
value in the importance of his role; the board’s role was to put it in writing in his contract. Before
Superintendent Rocko accepted his role, he made sure that his contract stated his role and the
board’s role:
From my perspective [after completing the MIG], I had shared that clarity on the roles
was essential if I was going to come on board. So clarity between what the board’s role is
and what the superintendent’s role is was key.
Superintendent Rocko communicated the values that his board members were supposed
to hold regarding their role and his role. He requested that his role and the board’s roles be added
71

to his contract. One could argue that, by entering into the contract with him wherein his role and
the board’s role were explicitly stated, board members understood and shared those same values.
In other words, they agreed with him and brought him on board as their superintendent.
Consistent with Eagly (2005), Board Member Gump suggested that Superintendent
Rocko evoked for Gump that they shared the same values by emphasizing and “shaping” the
importance of attending the training. Superintendent Rocko understood that, if his board
members attended the training, it would support the students in their district. Board member
Gump stated,
So you get to this training, and one of the things, I think it was the emphasis of our new
Superintendent that helped shape the training piece. If the adults aren’t learning, the
students aren’t learning, is what he said.
First, Superintendent Rocko instilled the idea of what training could do for the governing
team if they attended. Board Member Gump heard what Superintendent Rocko said, that it was
important for him to be a learner and learn what the MIG had to offer and get an insight on how
to operate as a board member, as well as model what the superintendent wanted to be true for the
children in the district. In other words, children would learn what they needed to know through
their experiences in school.
Gump suggested that, by attending and understanding the importance of the training and
their roles, board members would share similar values with Superintendent Rocko and improve
their district. “Again, I think any improvement that’s happening within our district, based on our
Superintendent’s recommendations and the leadership team, comes from us understanding our
role as a board member.”
72

Consistent with Eagly (2005), Board Member Gump demonstrated that his values were
aligned with those espoused by Superintendent Rocko. Gump recognized the improvements in
their district due to the governing team and the recommendations from Superintendent Rocko. In
addition, he shared values with his superintendent because he also understood that the
improvements were happening because they understood their roles as board members, and that
was an idea that his superintendent kept displaying for them. As a result, his board members
recognized that they had different roles and that it was essential that they understand their roles
and operate within them.
Leading From the Back (Servant Leadership)
Northouse (2016) stated that servant leaders put followers first by being attentive to their
concerns, empowering them, and helping them to develop their full personal capacities.
Consistent with that definition of servant leadership in relation to leaders putting their followers
first by being attentive to their concerns, each year Superintendent Enzo asked his board
members to name three or four tasks for him to work on:
So as an example, one of the things that we did back then was, I would say to the board
annually, “Tell me what you want me to do and I’ll do it but you’re not giving me more
than three or four things that you want me to do.”
Here, as a servant leader, Superintendent Enzo showed that he put his board members
first by being attentive to what they were concerned about with respect to the needs of the district
by asking them about the tasks that they needed him to work on. He implied that he asked this
question each year because wanted his board to choose these three or four things that most
concerned them each year. At the same time, he showed them that he was a good listener. He
was precise with his instructions and asked for no more than four tasks, implying that, as a
73

servant leader, he wanted to serve and he acknowledge that he wanted to accomplish the tasks
that his board members were giving him. As the district leader, he could have chosen his tasks
without asking anyone in the governing team. Instead, he was attentive and asked his board
members before making a decision.
Northouse (2016) stated that servant leaders empower their followers. Empowerment can
be viewed as the leader giving authority or power to followers to do something. Consistent with
the definition of empowerment, Superintendent Enzo empowered his board members by fully
supporting their decision to rotate the leadership of the board each year:
Here, they do this rotation of the president, every year the president change. The
president, the vice president, the clerk, each year everybody rotates up one seat and
eventually everybody gets to be the president. I think that was the reason that they chose
to go down that path and I fully supported it. I will add that, that rotating the seat thing is
crazy making for the superintendent, but only because I have to get used to a different
personality and a different way of working with somebody to plan meetings and agendas
every year.
Superintendent Enzo empowered his board members by supporting their decision to
rotate the board president seat each year. Depending on how long the board members were part
of the governing team, their decision allowed all board members to be president at least once. By
disagreeing with the board’s decision, Superintendent Enzo indicated that he thought that it was
worse for him because the board’s decision made his life more complicated because it was
“crazy making.” Even though Superintendent Enzo disagreed with their decision because he had
to get used to a different personality and leadership style to plan, discuss, and run the agendas, as
74

a servant leader, he gave his board members authority or power to make a decision in order to
accomplish their own ends.
Superintendent Enzo helped his board members to be more efficient to reach their full
potential by helping them to operate collectively as a board. “They had never evaluated the
Superintendent until I came here and forced them to do an annual evaluation.” As a servant
leader, he helped his board members to work collaboratively to create an “annual evaluation” to
evaluate the effectiveness of the superintendent. By prompting the board to work together, he
ensured that they would reach their full potential to operate collectively as a board and work with
him.
Consistent with Northouse (2016), Board Member Guevara suggested that
Superintendent Enzo was attentive by listening to her and providing advice on reinforcing the
gaps that she had as a board member. When Guevara was appointed as a board member, she did
not know her role because she did not understand how “school boards functioned.” However, as
a servant leader, Superintendent Enzo was attentive to her concerns and empowered her to take
the MIG training. Guevara stated,
So, when I first got on to the board, I was appointed, and really did not have a good idea
of how school boards functioned. So, Enzo, as the Superintendent, said to give you that
fundamental or foundational understanding, he recommended the MIG. . . . So, I kind of
jumped on that opportunity to take the MIG training.
First, Superintendent Enzo was attentive to Guevara’s concern of not knowing “how
school boards functioned.” Although, for example, Superintendent Enzo could have ignored her
concerns, he was attentive and recommended the MIG training. In addition, he empowered her to
attend the training because he knew that the MIG would provide the “fundamental or
75

foundational understanding” that she needed to understand her role as a board member. As a
follower, Guevara implied that she wanted to understand how to operate as a board member,
listened to her Superintendent’s recommendation, and “jumped on [the] opportunity to take the
MIG training.”
Interview data from three superintendents and nine board members demonstrated that
each superintendent had enacted a different leadership approach. Each superintendent cultivated
a leader-follower relationship by demonstrating a leadership approach: team, authentic, or
servant, as defined by Northouse (2016). Superintendent Rose from Moon Valley District
revealed a team leadership approach. For example, as a team leader, she cultivated a teamwork
relationship with her board members by choosing to attend the MIG training with board
members when she was an interim superintendent. She continued to cultivate team leadership by
making it her responsibility to keep attending the training with them after being appointed as the
superintendent. Superintendent Rocko from Star Valley District exhibited an authentic leadership
approach. As an authentic leader, Superintendent Rocko cultivated a leader-follower relationship
when his self-knowledge and self-awareness were revealed and ensuring that his board members
understood their roles and his role. He did not want these roles to intertwine because that would
affect the governing of the district. Superintendent Enzo from Sunny Valley District
demonstrated a servant leadership approach. He cultivated a leader-follower relationship with
board members by putting them first and being attentive to their concerns by asking them for
three to four tasks that they considered to be most pressing. All three superintendents had
different leadership styles, but they all fostered a relationship with their board members to
govern their district.
76

Chapter Five: Executive Summary, Implications, and Recommendations
This purpose of this study was to understand board members’ and superintendents’
perceptions about the benefit of participating in CSBA MIG training and the way that
superintendents fostered productive governance and relationships with members of their school
board. Two research questions guided the study:
1. How do board members and superintendents in three districts in California believe
they were equipped to engage in effective school governance as a result of
participating in the MIG training?
2. What is the role of the superintendent in each district in determining how they and
board members work together to govern the school district?
The findings emerged from analyzing interviews with nine board members and three
superintendents from three school districts in California. I purposefully sampled these districts,
superintendents, and board members using specified criteria. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
in-person interviews were not possible, all 12 interviews were conducted via the Zoom platform.
Interviews lasted between 30 minutes and 90 minutes. To analyze the data, with the support of
my dissertation chair, I first engaged in open coding by creating a codebook using an Excel
spreadsheet and color coded the themes that emerged from the collected data.
Summary of the Findings
In a school district, the board and superintendent are expected to work together as a
governance team. The school board members are locally elected public officials entrusted with
governing a community’s public schools (CSBA, 2018a). The role of the school board is to
ensure that school districts are responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of their
communities (CSBA, 2018a). Boards are expected to fulfill this role by performing five major
77

responsibilities: (a) sett direction, (b) establish an effective and efficient structure, (c) provide
support, (d) ensure accountability, and (e) provide community leadership as advocates for
children, the school district, and public schools (CSBA, 2018a). Before being appointed to a
team of five or seven members, board members are expected to know the basics of their roles
and responsibilities to make decisions for their districts that affecting thousands of students
(Choi, 2013).
With respect to Research Question 1, data revealed five major themes that spoke to the
lack of training and background knowledge held by new members and how the Masters In
Governance (MIG) supported them in their ability to do their jobs: (a) Board members did not
know their roles and responsibilities, (b) the MIG training provided access to the information
required to establish a foundational understanding of their roles and responsibilities, (c) the MIG
training provided a common language among members who attended the training, (d) the MIG
training provided resources and tools such as the handbook for members for referral upon return
to their districts, and (e) while the MIG provided relevant content overall, board members
reported that some of the information was outdated or not directly applicable to their local
contexts and therefore could not be applied to their districts.
With respect to Research Question 2, interview data from three superintendents and nine
board members revealed three themes that spoke to the guidance of the superintendents helping
their board members to understand their roles and responsibilities to govern their district: (a)
showing them how to work as a team, (b) showing board members their roles and responsibilities
by leading from the front, and (c) showing board members their roles and responsibilities by
leading from the back. Interview data from three superintendents and nine board members
demonstrated that each superintendent enacted a different leadership approach. Each
78

superintendent cultivated a leader-follower relationship between themselves and their board
members by demonstrating a leadership approach: team, authentic, or servant leadership. Even
though all three superintendents had different leadership styles, they all fostered a relationship
with their board members to govern their district.
Implications and Recommendations
The purposes of this study were (a) to examine how board members and superintendents
in three districts in California considered themselves to be equipped to engage in effective school
governance as a result of participating in the MIG training, and (b) to understand the leadership
approach taken by each superintendent in each district in determining how they worked with
board members to govern the school district. In this section, I offer implications and
recommendations for practice, policy, and research that emerged from these findings related to
school board members, superintendents, and the MIG training.
Practice
As demonstrated in Chapter 4, the MIG’s structure (a full-day course) did not allow the
governing team to engage in meaningful learning during the training. For example, two board
members explained that it was not beneficial to attend the training alone because they did not
have the opportunity to discuss the challenges that they were having in their districts. Instead, the
governing team was exposed to information that sometimes did not apply to what they were
facing in their districts. Board members were limited in what they were likely to learn because
there was not enough time for actual learning and application of the concepts to which they were
exposed in the training. To complete the MIG training, board members need to complete five
courses. Each course had a pre-course each board member needed to complete before attending
the full-day course. To complete an entire module, governing teams needed to attend two
79

sessions in 2 days. Each session was 4 hours long. Since the MIG training provided an avalanche
of information for members in such a short period of time, the structure of the MIG did not
promote learning by board members. Board members did not have the opportunity to apply the
concepts to their local context. Another component is that districts do not require their governing
teams to attend training together, limiting opportunities to engage in teamwork or collaboration.
As a result of not attending together, the effectiveness of the MIG is limited in terms of
supporting the boards’ development as a team. The implication is that, for boards to benefit from
the MIG, the training should be better aligned with good professional development practices that
provide enough time and structure to support participants’ ability to gain knowledge and skills
needed to be effective board members. The recommendation is to extend the MIG in terms of
length and structure to align with good continuously evaluated professional development
practices. Elmore (2002) stated that professional development should be designed to develop the
capacity of educators to work collectively on problems of practice, within their own schools and
with practitioners in other settings, as much as to support the knowledge and skill development
of individual educators. Elmore (2002) explained that the essential purpose of professional
development should be the improvement of schools and school systems, not just the
improvement of the individuals who work in them. Elmore (2002) also stated that successful
professional development—because it is specifically designed to improve student learning—
should be evaluated continuously and primarily on the basis of its effect on student achievement;
it must involve hard, detailed work on the fundamentals of content and pedagogy. By including
targeted professional development in boards’ practice and continuously evaluating it, members
will have the opportunity to learn more about their roles and responsibilities. During professional
development sessions, governing teams will collaborate to improve student learning.
80

Policy
Data showed that superintendents and board members who attended the MIG training
received resources that came with the training and a certificate of completion. Board members
agreed that the resources and certificate of completion were insufficient to enable them to be
proficient in their roles as board members. The implication is that governing teams now assume
that they have accomplished all there is to accomplish after receiving the certificate of
completion. Governing teams were not provided the opportunity to continue to learn how to keep
developing the skills to be a board member. In other words, the board members are not getting
enough from the training. The recommendation is that governing teams consider having in place
(at the board level) a professional development plan to ensure learning where they are
intentionally setting out to support board members on becoming more knowledgeable in their
job. For example, the district can purchase a CSBA’s Online Learning Center account where
board members can learn at any time and anywhere about becoming a more knowledgeable
board member. The CSBA’s Online Learning Center provides topics for governing teams to
understand (a) ethics, (b) LCAP, (c) equity, (d) governance, (e) governmental relations, (f)
technology, (g) student safety, and (h) learning experiences related to pre-K–12 educational
issues and CSBA initiatives (CSBA, 2018a). Governing teams that are constantly coached ad
trained will keep current with policies and concepts and they will be more aware of their job as a
board member. For example, board members will understand that their job is to set policies and
not micromanage other staff in the district. To promote this professional development idea,
superintendents can gain board members’ buy-in by introducing and utilizing Bolman and Deal’s
(2017) four frames of leadership. Superintendents can show board members that, by adopting
81

this professional development and applying it to their daily board members’ job, they will be
more knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities and will grow professionally.
Another implication that emerged from the data is that the leadership approach applied by
a superintendent mattered when governing a school district and board members. In each case,
even though each superintendent used a different leadership approach, all guided their board
members in a particular direction to increase the likelihood of a movement toward articulating
district goals. Data showed that, regardless of the approach or style of leadership applied by the
superintendent, the superintendent intentionally and actively worked to guide the district and
board members in the right direction. It is recommended that, when districts and board members
are hiring and evaluating possible superintendents, they should pay attention not necessarily to
having superintendents who display a specific leadership approach but should ensure that the
future superintendent is a well-equipped leader who can bring people together and guide the
district in a particular direction. Moving forward, districts should also consider making this
recommendation part of their evaluation form for hired superintendents. Northouse (2016)
defined leadership as the process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal. Mobilizing superintendents toward a given end is essential for districts
to achieve their common goals.
Research
This study provides insights into how board members and superintendents in three
districts in California were equipped to engage in effective school governance as a result of
participation in the MIG training. The research also spoke to the role of the superintendent in
each corresponding district in determining ways that the superintendent and board members
worked together to govern their school district. Although measures were taken to ensure that the
82

data and the findings were as accurate as possible, the study was limited by factors that would
have otherwise provided a clearer picture of the research. For example, the study focused on only
three districts in California. Future research should include a much larger sample (more
districts). Districts could be studied by looking at high-performing districts, average-performing
districts, and underperforming districts to identify their strategies to govern their districts.
Trained board members tend to demonstrate characteristics of understanding their roles
and responsibilities. Future research could compare trained board members versus untrained
board members to understand the impact of that factor on governing the district.
This study focused on only three districts in California. Some states mandate the MIG;
other states, such as California, offer it as an option. Future research could collect data from
other states to understand the impact of the superintendent’s leadership style. It is recommended
to study attendees’ experiences after they have participated in the MIG training to determine
whether were long-term effects of the training
83

References
American Association of School Administrators. (2014). Superintendent and district data.
https://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=740
American Association of School Administrators. (2020). School administrator: Creativity and
the arts. https://www.aasa.org/home/
Ascough, L. (2010). The superintendent as lead.
https://www.nspra.org/files/newsletter/communication_matters/Dec2010CM-
The_Suprintendent_as_Lead_Communicator_Part_II.pdf
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-07088-001
Bartusek, L. (2011). Research can help school board effectiveness. http://www.schoolboardnews
.nsba.org/2011/02/research-can-help-school-boardeffectiveness/
Bauer, K. (2021). Chicago is getting an elected school board as Pritzker signs bill Lightfoot had
fought. https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/07/30/chicago-is-getting-an-elected-school-
board-as-pritzker-signs-bill-lightfoot-had-fought/
Berman, D. R. (2006). Local government and the states: Autonomy, politics, and policy. Sharpe.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Boston Archives. (2021). Boston (Mass.). School Committee. https://archives.cityfboston.gov/
agents/corporate_entities/46?&filter_fields[]=subjects&filter_values[]=School
+integration
California Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind. https://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/
84

California Department of Education. (2020a). California School Dashboard and system of
support. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/
California Department of Education. (2020b). Fingertip facts on education in California.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/ceffingertipfacts.asp
California Legislative Information. (n.d.). California Education Code. https://leginfo
.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§ionNum=35250
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards.
https://www.csba.org/~/media/51E3FBB839504700825CB16B7265F3C4.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2010). Governance and policy resources: Research,
guidance, and services for effective school bord governance.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/
California School Boards Association. (2017). The school board role in creating the conditions
for student achievement. https://www.csba.org/-/media/CSBA/Files/
GovernanceResources/Reports/201705BoardResearchReport.ashx?la=en&rev=6aea555
a678e4fb6a40494f013e2546f
California School Boards Association. (2018a). About CSBA.
https://www.csba.org/About/AboutCSBA
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Masters in Governance.
https://www.csba.org/en/TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance
California School Boards Association. (2018c). Role and responsibilities. https://www.csba.org/
GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/RoleandResponsibilitiesofSBMs.
Aspx
85

California School Boards Association. (2018d). What it takes to lead: The role and function of
California’s school boards. https://www.csba.org/-/media/CSBA/Files/
GovernanceResources/EffectiveGovernance/20180613_WhatItTakesToLead_Final.ashx?
la=en&rev=b8966813606b4655b362803de02a37f6
Campbell, R. F., Cunningham, L. L., Nystrand, R. O., & Usdan, P. (1990). The organization and
control of American schools. Merrill.
Chan, A. (2005). Authentic leadership measurement and development: Challenges and
suggestions. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic
leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development (pp. 227–251). Elsevier
Science.
Choi, V. J. (2013). The impact of the Masters in Governance training for effective California
school boards (Publication No. 3563825) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2021). Development process.
http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/#:%7E:text=
The%20state%2Dled%20effort%20to,Center%20for%20Best%20Practices%20
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (2021). Board of selectmen members: Explanation of the
conflict of interest law. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/board-of-selectmen-
members-explanation-of-the-conflict-of-interest-law
Danzberger, J. P., (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/
86

Danzberger, J. P., Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan, M.
D. (1987). School boards: The forgotten players on the education team. Phi Delta
Kappan, 69, 53–59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
20403529?refreqid=excelsior%3Ab265af5f0b000174982e3de21ae99293
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). Rowman & Littlefield.
Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?
Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 459–474.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.007
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Albert Shanker Institute.
Encyclopedia.com. (n.d.). Historic events for students: The Great Depression. https://www
.encyclopedia.com/education/news-and-education-magazines/education-1929-1941
Figlio, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). School accountability. Handbook of the Economics of Education,
3, 383–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53429-3.00008-9
Ford, M. R., & Ihrke, D. (2015) School board member definitions of accountability: What are
they, and do they impact district outcomes? Public Performance & Management Review,
39(1), 198–222, https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2016.1071173
Frankenberg, E., & Diem, S. (2013). School board leadership and policymaking in changing
political environments. The Urban Review, 45(2), 117–142.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-012-0211-8
Griffiths, D. E. (1966). The school superintendent. Center for Applied Research in Education.
87

Halik, J., Gruenert, S., Balch, B., Helton, R., & Kaiser, P. (2012). Does the training of school
board members make a difference? http://search.proquest.com/docview/1015636586/
Hanover Research. (2014). Effective board and superintendent collaboration.
https://www.hanoverresearch.com/media/Effective-Board-and-Superintendent-
Collaboration-Featured.pdf
Hanson, M. (2021). K-12 school enrollment & student population statistics.
https://educationdata.org/k12-enrollment-statistics
Hayes, C. (1932). The American lyceum: Its history and contribution to education.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542227.pdf
Hess, F. M., & Meeks, O. (2010). Governance in the accountability era: School boards circa
2010. National School Boards Association, The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, and the
Iowa School Boards Foundation.
Hogue, C. (2013). Government organization summary report: 2012. U.S. Census Bureau.
Hutcheson, C. M. (2020). The influence of superintendent longevity and continuity on student
achievement and faculty mobility (Publication No. 27830649 [Doctoral dissertation,
Seton Hall University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Illinois Association of School Boards. (2020). Qualifications and characteristics of a school
board member. https://www.iasb.com/IASB/media/Documents/Qualifications-
Characteristics-of-a-School-Board-Member.pdf
Institute for Educational Leadership. (1986). School boards strengthening grass roots
leadership. Institute for Educational Leadership.
Iowa Association of School Boards. (n.d.). Legislative beliefs.
https://www.ia-sb.org/advocacy-center/advocacy-agenda/legislative-beliefs
88

Johnson, B. L. (1988). Sacrificing liberty for equality: The erosion of local control in American
education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 356 531)
Kenton, W. (2019). What you should know about corporate hierarchy.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporate-hierarchy.asp
Khan, Z., Nawaz, A., & Khan, I. U. (2016). Leadership theories and styles: A literature review.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234696192.pdf
Kincheloe, J. L. (2010). Why a book on urban education? In S. Steinberg (Ed.), 19 urban
questions: Teaching in the city (2nd ed., pp. 1–28). Peter Lang.
Kirst, M. W. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5),
378–381. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ475810
Kirst, M. W. (2010). The political and policy dynamics of K-12 education reform from 1965 to
2010: Implications for changing postsecondary education. Research Priorities for Broad-
Access Higher Education.
Knezevich, S. J. (1969). Administration of public education. Harper & Row.
Knezevich, S. J. (1984). Administration of public education: A sourcebook for the leadership
and management of educational institutions (4th ed.). Harper & Row.
Kowalski, T. J. (2013). The school superintendency: Theory, practice and cases. Merrill/Prentice
Hall.
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%2F00346543072002229
LeCompte. M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (2010). Designing and conducting ethnographic research:
An introduction (2nd ed.). AltaMira Press.
89

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How
leadership influence student learning. Wallace Foundation
Maciag, M. (2016). Total school districts, student enrollment by state and metro area.
https://www.governing.com/archive/school-district-totals-average-enrollment-statistics-
for-states-metro-areas.html
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
Mehta, J. (2013). From bureaucracy to profession: Remaking the educational sector for the
twenty-first century. Harvard Educational Review, 83(3), 463–488.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.83.3.kr08797621362v05
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
Mississippi School Board Association. (n.d.). Board members, board service.
https://www.msbaonline.org/BoardMembers/BoardService/tabid/323/Default.aspx
Mizell, H. (2010). Why professional development matters: Learning forward. https://
learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/professional-development-matters.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of education statistics, 2000.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001034
National School Boards Association. (2018). Today’s school boards & their priorities for
tomorrow.
National School Boards Association. (2019). NSBA history.
https://www.nsba.org/About/SBAhistory
90

New Jersey School Boards Association. (2016). Fundamentals of school board membership.
https://www.njsba.org/news-publications/school-board-notes/may-17-2016-vol-xxxix-no-
39/fundamentals-school-board-membership-available-njsba-members/
Newton, I. (1675). Letter to Robert Hook. Simon Gratz Collection.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Sage.
Olson, L. (1992). Boards of contention: Up for discussion. Education Week, 11(32), 23–25, 27–
28.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Depth interviewing. Igarss, 1, 1-5.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Public Schools Review (2021). Top 10 best California public schools.
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/california
Reeves, C. E. (1954). School boards, their status, functions, and activities. Prentice-Hall.
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and tomorrow’s
promise. Education Commission of the States.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Davis, L. M., & Koontz, K. A. (1980). Perceived power as a
mediator of management communication style and employee satisfaction: A preliminary
investigation. Communication Quarterly, 28, 37–46.
Shober, A. F., & Hartney, M. T. (2014). Does school board leadership matter?
https://edexcellence.net/publications/does-school-board-leadership-matter
State of Hawaii Board of Education. (n.d.). Welcome.
https://boe.hawaii.gov/Pages/Welcome.aspx
91

Swartz, S., & Blair, B. G. (1992). An introduction to California school administration.
Kendall/Hunt.
Swezey, R. W., & Salas, E. (1992). Teams: Their training and performance. Ablex.
Todras, E. (1993). The changing role of school boards. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management.
Urban, W., & Wagoner, J. (1996). American education: A history. McGraw-Hill.
U.S. Office of Education. (2017). Report of the Federal Security Agency: Office of Education.
U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
https://www.ed.gov/ESSA
Wainwright, P. (2010). Colonial meetinghouses of New England.
http://www.colonialmeetinghouses.com/background_information.shtml
Wilson, R. E. (1960). The modern school superintendent: His principles and practices. Harper.
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan.
World Population Review (2021). How old is America.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/articles/how-old-is-america
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly,
12, 451–483. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-02230-003
92

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 also 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
93

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 also 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
94

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
95

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
96

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
97

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
98

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
99

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
100

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?
101

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?
102

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: _______________________________________________________________________
103

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 According to the California School Board Association, the role of the school board is to ensure that school districts are responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of their communities. Even though board members have a complex list of roles and responsibilities, CSBA assigns five primary major responsibilities: setting direction, establishing an effective and efficient structure, providing support, ensuring accountability, and providing community leadership as advocates for children, the school district, and public schools. Once appointed, board members are not provided training that explains how they will do their jobs. Therefore, how board members approach their responsibilities with respect to governing the district is often dependent on the superintendent’s leadership approach. The purposes of this study were to (a) examine how equipped board members and superintendents in three districts in California believed they were to engage in effective school governance as a result of participating in the Masters in Governance training, and (b) to understand the leadership approach taken by each Superintendent in determining how they and board members would work together to govern their school districts. Three superintendents and 12 board members were interviewed. Data revealed that (a) board members lacked training and background knowledge, (b) the Masters in Governance training provided tools for superintendents and board members to do their jobs, and (c) guidance by superintendents helped board members to understand their roles and responsibilities to govern their district.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

School board training and governance in California

PDF

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

PDF

Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts

PDF

Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance

PDF

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

PDF

Superintendents' entry periods: strategies and behaviors that successful superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during their entry period

PDF

School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy

PDF

School board governance training and student achievement

PDF

School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…

Asset Metadata

Creator Vieira, Alex (author)

Core Title Building productive relationships between superintendents and board members

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 10/27/2021

Defense Date 09/08/2021

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

Tag Board Members,California School Boards Association,data,governing,leadership,leadership approach,Masters in governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,Relationships,responsibilities,superintendents,Training

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Rayburn, Kalim (committee member)

Creator Email alexvc2@gmail.com,alexviei@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC16251448

Unique identifier UC16251448

Legacy Identifier etd-VieiraAlex-10176

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Vieira, Alex

Type texts

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

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