Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
(USC Thesis Other)
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
School Board Training: Impact on Governance and Achievement
by
Devon Lee Rose
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May, 2021
Copyright by Devon Lee Rose
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Devon Lee Rose certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Rudy M. Castruita
Charles Hinman
Katherine Thorossian
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
Rapidly changing global demands on the education system require school board members to be
knowledgeable about the role of their leadership in the complexities of informed decision
making that influences the quality of public education. This qualitative study examined the
impact of the California School Board Association (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG)
training program on school board members’ governing practices, what attitudes and behaviors
support school board members to attend MIG training, and whether attending MIG training has a
perceived impact on student achievement. Data from surveys and interviews were triangulated
with three theoretical frameworks: The CSBA professional governance standards, Bolman and
Deal’s framework for leadership and management, and the Lighthouse Inquiry by the Iowa
Association of School Boards. The findings indicated that MIG training clearly identified school
board members’ roles and responsibilities, influenced their governing practices, and improved
their focus on student achievement. The culture of a district should be considered when
determining why school board members attend MIG training. The participant pool in this study
was restricted to 12 California counties in which the majority of a district’s school board
members and the district superintendent had participated in MIG training. This study highlights
the importance of school board members attending school board training to build capacity and
understand characteristics of effective governance.
v
Dedication
To my wife, Leslie Rose; my kids, Charlize, Caden, and Christian; and my mother, Maie Dell
Rose. Leslie is the backbone to our family, and I could not have completed this accomplishment
in my life without her support. She is the direct reason that I began and finished this USC
doctorate program and inspires me to provide a better future for the Rose family. Charlize,
Caden, and Christian should remember that they can do anything that they set their minds to. The
sky is the limit when one combines one’s work ethic with the gifts that the Lord has given one.
My mother, a single parent, always put her kids first, modeled what it meant to be passionate
about work, and demonstrated the consistency it took to attain success. She inspires me to be the
best version of myself. I love and thank each one of them.
vi
Acknowledgments
I begin by acknowledging Dr. Charles Hinman and Ms. Denise Knutsen for their ongoing
support and guidance. They are a direct reason that I began the USC doctoral program; their
leadership has been instrumental in my development as an administrator.
The wisdom that Dr. Michael Escalante has shared in the past three years has given me
insight into the nuances of effective leadership. He provided valuable mentorship on how to
develop systematic change in a school district. I appreciate his support as our dissertation chair.
Dr. Marc Trovatore is a stellar example of a transformative leader. He set the bar for
others to achieve and I appreciate all that he has done for me in the past five years.
The work with my immediate USC cohort, Jennifer Jackson, Jayne Nickels, and William
Gideon, was amazing. I would not have made it through this program without them. I hope that
we are able to work together professionally in the future. Each of them is outstanding.
Finally, give special thanks to the 2021 Executive Cohort. Through it all, the highs and
lows, I am extremely grateful for each of them.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................5
Research Questions ..............................................................................................................5
Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................5
Limitations ...........................................................................................................................6
Delimitations of the Study ...................................................................................................6
Assumptions of the Study ....................................................................................................7
Definitions of Terms ............................................................................................................7
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................10
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................12
History of the School Board ..............................................................................................12
Modern-Day School Board Roles and Responsibilities Framework .................................14
Highly Effective Board Members ......................................................................................18
Board Member Elections ...................................................................................................20
School Board Member Stakeholders Accountability .........................................................21
School Board and Superintendent Relationship ................................................................24
viii
Leadership ..........................................................................................................................25
Superintendent Leadership.................................................................................................26
Theoretical Frameworks ....................................................................................................30
School Board Training .......................................................................................................36
Masters in Governance Training ........................................................................................38
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................40
Chapter Three: Research Methodology .........................................................................................41
Research Questions ............................................................................................................42
Research Team ...................................................................................................................42
Research Design.................................................................................................................43
Participants and Sampling..................................................................................................44
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................44
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................47
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................48
Validity, Reliability, and Trustworthiness .........................................................................49
Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................50
Chapter Four: Results ....................................................................................................................52
Background Information of Sample and Population .........................................................53
Data and Analysis ..............................................................................................................57
Findings for Research Question 1 ......................................................................................57
Findings for Research Question 2 ......................................................................................66
Findings for Research Question 3 ......................................................................................78
Summary of Findings .........................................................................................................85
ix
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................87
Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations .................................88
Purpose of the Study Restated ...........................................................................................88
Summary of the Study .......................................................................................................89
Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................90
Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................92
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................................93
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................94
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................95
References ......................................................................................................................................96
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails .....................................................................107
School Board Member Recruitment Email ......................................................................107
Superintendent Recruitment Email ..................................................................................108
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey ...............................................................................109
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey ...........................................................................................112
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ............................................................115
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ........................................................................116
Appendix F: Informed Consent ...................................................................................................117
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix ...................................................................................118
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participation 53
Table 2: Demographics of the School Districts 54
Table 3: Primary Factors That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in
Masters in Governance Training 59
Table 4: School Board Members’ Rankings of the Five Masters in Governance
Modules in Order of Importance to Their Role as a Member of the
Governance Team 62
Table 5: Responses to the Survey Item “What Platform(s) of the Masters in
Governance Training Program Would Increase the Chances of Participation?” 65
Table 6: Reponses to the Survey Item, “School Board Members Who Are Masters in
Governance Trained Exhibit a Clearer Understanding of the Difference
Between Their Roles and Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent” 68
Table 7: School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item “The Masters in
Governance Training Clarified the Differences Between My Roles and
Responsibilities as a School Board Member and Those of the Superintendent” 69
Table 8: Responses to the Survey Item “The Masters in Governance Training Helps
School Board Members to Differentiate Among Policy, Leadership, and
Management” 70
Table 9: Responses to the Survey Item “The Masters in Governance Training
Encourages School Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of
Our School Board Meetings” 72
Table 10: Responses to the Survey Item “The Masters in Governance Training Impacts
My Ability to Govern Effectively” 73
Table 11: School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item “As a Result of the
Masters in Governance Training, I Understand the Importance of Aligning
the Decision-Making Process With the District’s Vision and Goals” 74
Table 12: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item “School Board Members
Who Are Masters in Governance Trained Understand the Importance of
Aligning the Decision-Making Process to the District’s Vision and Goals” 76
Table 13: School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item “As a Result of the
Masters in Governance Training, My Ability to Constructively Accept the
Majority Decision, Even If I Hold the Minority View, Has Improved” 77
xi
Table 14: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item “School Board Members
Who Have Earned Masters in Governance Certification Demonstrate an
Increased Focus on Student Achievement” 80
Table 15: School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item “As a Result of the
Masters in Governance Training, My Focus is on Achievement? 81
Table 16: Responses to the Survey Item “Attending MIG Training Has Positively
Impacted Student Achievement in My District” 82
Table 17: Responses to the Survey Item “As a Result of the Masters in Governance
Training, I Encourage Governance Team Members to Consistently Use Data
to Make Informed Decisions Regarding Student Achievement” 83
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The success of a school board of education and its ability to govern effectively plays a
critical role in a district’s ability to meet state and federal mandates, manage the monetary budget
of the district, and improve student learning outcomes (Shober & Hartney, 2014). According to
the National School Boards Association (NSBA, 2019), nearly 14,000 school boards consisting
of nearly 90 thousand school board members oversee more than 50 million students enrolled in
K–12 public schools and manage a budget of more than 50 billion dollars. As pressure to
increase student learning outcomes continues to rise, despite the lack of funding in public
education, the increase in state and federal mandates and the explosion of diversity in student
populations, school board member accountability also continues to expand exponentially.
Because of this increase of accountability, the roles and responsibilities of school board members
have changed dramatically over the years, yet the qualifications and criteria for becoming a
school board member have changed only minimally. It is with this understanding that school
board professional development has become a focal point in education to ensure that school
board members are knowledgeable and informed about the complex education system in the
communities that they serve.
Most jobs require that the person either begins with previous experience and/or is
provided training. For a school board member, training is required in only 24 states; California is
not one of those states (Alsbury, 2008b). In fact, no history or background with an understanding
of how to govern school districts effectively is required in California. The public often uses this
lack of training to explain the poor state of many school districts (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). To
address the need for school board training, the California School Boards Association (CSBA)
developed an optional school board training program for its board members. The CSBA training
2
is called the Masters in Governance (MIG) Program and consists of five modules: (a) Foundation
of Governance, (b) Policy and Judicial Review, (c) School Finance, (d) Human Resources, and
(e) Community Relations and Advocacy. The purpose of the training is to provide skills and
understanding for school board members and superintendents regarding how to govern
effectively and to create a solid foundation to build upon (CSBA, 2007).
This study examined school board members in California who had received MIG
training. School board practices were analyzed to determine whether the training had a positive
effect on school board governance and student achievement. Motivations of school board
members to attend training were also explored.
Background of the Problem
As accountability for student achievement continues to increase, every aspect of the
public education system’s effectiveness is being challenged (Webster-Wright, 2009). Society,
including employers and higher education institutions, are challenging the public education
system’s ability to prepare students with the basic fundamentals to be successful in college
and/or career (Brenner et al., 2002)
The school board governance system has existed for more than 200 years (Land, 2002). It
was developed to allow local citizens to have control of their schools and to lessen control by
federal and state governments that might be out of touch with local issues (Land, 2002).
However, as the U.S. public school enrollment has grown to more than 50 million, the number of
school board governance teams has decreased dramatically over the years. Because of this
paradox, the responsibilities of school board members have become multifaceted (Hess, 2002).
Responsibilities include policy making, hiring/firing of the superintendent, budget allocation,
adopting curriculum, increasing student achievement, and granting charters (Hill et al., 2002).
3
Understanding the complexities of these intricate processes is critical to school board member
success. Because of this condition, the researcher analyzed how school board members were
trained and the impact of the training on effective school governing.
Current research implies that effective school governance is a positive indicator of
successful school districts. While most educational reform legislation is aimed at teacher
preparation programs, teachers’ instructional practices, and administrators’ effectiveness
(Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003), this reform fails to address school boards’ responsibilities
or accountability. Danzberger et al. (1987) posited that, as experts in the field of education
policy, school boards are the forgotten players on the education team. Danzberger et al. (1987)
suggested that state educational reformers should consider the influences of school boards on
school improvement and aim educational reform at strengthening the capacity of local school
boards and increase accountability measures to monitor effectiveness. Waters and Marzano
(2006) contended that it is critical that governance leadership be cohesive, effective, and focused
in order to meet the growing needs of public education. Nevertheless, this is not commonly
observed in all districts, some of which support fractured boards that contribute to a lack of
student achievement (Waters & Marzano, 2006). In fact, many school boards and
superintendents have difficulty in establishing clear roles and responsibilities and developing a
positive working relationship with each other (Brenner et al., 2002; Leithwood et al., 2008). This
lack of effective leadership adds to current problems faced by school boards. Without clear roles
and responsibilities, established norms, common understanding of policy and educational issues,
it is difficult for school board members to meet the needs of their school district.
Training for school board members has been shown to establish clear roles and
responsibilities and to improve communication between the superintendent and school board
4
members (Brenner et al., 2002; Waters & Marzano, 2006). The CSBA’s (2007) MIG school
board training program supported this research, as the MIG program encourages and prepares
school board members to exhibit the highly effective behaviors of effective school boards.
In California, fewer than half of all school board members have received MIG training
(CSBA, 2018). It is unreasonable to expect a regulating body, with responsibilities as complex as
those of modern school board members who are unskilled or ignorant regarding educational
governance, to be able to govern effectively. Outdated standards and a lack of mandates to
require school board members to be trained or even knowledgeable about educational
governance have left California school boards unprepared to meet the current needs of the school
system. The absence of an educational policy stipulating that school board members either attend
professional development or demonstrate minimum understanding of governance leads to the
conclusion that there is a need to ensure that all school board members are prepared to govern a
district effectively. A policy that mandates attendance at school board training, such as the MIG
training, may improve school governance, which could ultimately have a positive impact on
student achievement.
Statement of the Problem
The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of
informed decision making that influence the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
5
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefits of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
In order to explain what this study was designed to learn or understand (Maxwell, 2013),
three research questions were developed:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Significance of the Study
This study revealed the impact of school board training on effective district governance
practices, in particular how MIG training in California influences school board member
practices. These findings should benefit school board members who strive to improve conditions
6
that lead to effective governance. This research is valuable to those who are interested in learning
how to improve school governance and provides insight to those who provide MIG training.
This study should be of significance to state policymakers in California as consideration
may be given to make school board training mandatory as it is in other states. Some critics
contend that school boards are composed of unskilled and unprepared people, elected by a small
voter turnout. Some of the behaviors of current school boards may, in fact, be counterproductive
to a district mission of improving student learning. This research contributes to policy, practice,
and a better understanding of effective governance.
Limitations
Limitations are influences that the researcher cannot control and that place restrictions on
methodology and conclusions (Simon & Goes, 2013). The limitations of this study were largely
dictated by the study participants. The responses given by the participants were subjective,
reflected personal viewpoints, and based on their recollections of their school board training
experiences. Because the research team was limited in terms of time to complete the surveys and
interviews, the viewpoints expressed may not represent all superintendents and board members.
Also, due to the global coronavirus pandemic, interviews were held virtually, using the online
platform Zoom. Finally, the study results are limited to southern California due to geographical
constraints and the limited time available to the research team.
Delimitations of the Study
Delimitations are choices made by the researcher that describe the boundaries of the
study (Simon & Goes, 2013). In this study, the research was delimited to school boards in 12
counties in California that govern K–12 school districts. The criteria for selecting school districts
were dependent on the majority of the governance team’s participation in the MIG training; other
7
training was not considered for this study. This purposeful sampling was done to include as
many participants as possible who had attended MIG school board training. Superintendents
were included in the study to provide feedback and insight into the impact of MIG training on
school board governance.
Assumptions of the Study
Assumptions are beliefs in the proposed research that are necessary to conduct the
research but cannot be proven (Simon & Goes, 2013). Assumptions about research tools,
participants, and school board training were made. It was assumed that the qualitative
instruments used in the study were valid and reliable. In order to support the findings, it was
assumed that school board members, as participants, have a direct governance impact on their
districts. Assumptions made about school board training were that training improves practice,
that school board members should commit to training, and that training has the ability to improve
superintendent and school board relations. It was assumed that CSBA’s MIG training is accurate
and research based.
Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
Accountability: The concept that schools and school districts will be held responsible for
performance or producing documents and records, creating and following plans, and reporting
student performance on assessments.
Assessment: The annual summative evaluation of student learning through state-
sanctioned multiple-choice tests.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): This
administration includes the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments; the California Alternate
8
Assessments (CAA), including the CAA for Science; the California Science Test (CAST); and
the California Spanish Assessment (CSA; CAASPP, 2020).
California School Boards Association (CSBA):
The nonprofit education association representing the elected officials who govern public
school districts and county offices of education. With a membership of nearly 1,000
educational agencies statewide, CSBA brings together school governing boards and
administrators from districts and county offices of education to advocate for effective
policies that advance the education and well-being of the state’s more than 6 million
school-age children. A membership-driven association, the CSBA provides policy
resources and training to members and represents the statewide interests of public
education through legal, political, legislative, community, and media advocacy. (CSBA,
2018a, para. 1)
Effectiveness: The degree to which school board training (MIG) improves governance
and student achievement.
Institutional Review Board (IRB): An administrative body established to protect the
rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in research activities
conducted under the auspices of the institution with which it is affiliated.
Local control accountability plan (LCAP):
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 LEAs to share their stories of how, what, and why programs and services
are selected to meet their local needs. (California Department of Education [CDE],
2020a, LCAP Overview section, para. 1).
9
Local control funding formula (LCFF): The law enacted in 2013-2014 to simplify how
funding is provided to local education agencies (LEAs). Previously, funding included more than
50 categorical funding lines designed to give targeted services based on student demographics
(CDE, 2020b).
Local education agency (LEA):
A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a state for
either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public
elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or
other political subdivision of a state, or for a combination of school districts or counties
as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools
or secondary schools. (Legal Information Institute, Electronic Code of Federal
Regulations, n.d., para. 1)
Mandate: A required implementation of a program and/or system into a school or school
district.
Masters in Governance (MIG): A training program sponsored by the CSBA consisting of
five modules designed to define roles and responsibilities, improve governance and leadership
through increased knowledge and skills to support an effective governance structure, and
maintaining a focus on student learning.
National School Boards Association (NSBA):
NSBA is a federation of 49 state associations and the U.S. territory of the Virgin Islands,
representing their more than 90,000 school board officials. These local officials govern
over 13,600 local school districts serving more than 50 million public school students.
Working with and through our state associations, and serving as their Washington, D.C.,
10
office, NSBA advocates for equity and excellence in public education through school
board leadership. (NSBA, 2015, para. 1).
Public school: A school supported by public funds.
School board: A group of nonpartisan citizens, either elected or appointed within a school
district, to act as a single unit regarding various aspects of governance (CSBA, 2007); locally
elected public officials entrusted with governing a community’s public schools (Agron et al.,
2010).
School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding at public
meetings of school boards.
School district: Synonym for LEA; a public organization tasked with operating public
schools and serving students within a designated geographic area.
School governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000).
Student achievement: The measure of the amount of academic content a student has
learned over a given time frame, as demonstrated on the CAASPP.
Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district with
oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation proposal contains five chapters. Chapter One includes an overview of
the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, significance of the
study, limitations and delimitations, assumptions, and definitions of key terms. Chapter Two
provides a review of relevant literature on the topic of the history of the school board, the
11
modern-day school board roles and responsibilities, the accountability of the school board, the
role that leadership plays with school board members and superintendents, the history of the
superintendent, school board training, and the theoretical frameworks that guided the study.
Chapter Three describes the methodology and research design utilized in the study. It contains a
discussion of the qualitative approach that was employed. Also described are the research team,
population and sample, instrumentation, data collection, and the data analysis process. Chapter
Four presents the results of the collected data, including an identification of themes and a
description and analysis of the data. Chapter Five summarizes the findings of the study, identifies
implications for practices, and offers recommendations for future research.
12
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The highest-performing urban school districts have strong effective school boards that
understand their roles and responsibilities; the superintendent is viewed as the CEO and
instructional leader, and there is a positive working relationship between board and
superintendent (Pardini & Lewis, 2003). School board effectiveness plays a critical role in
student achievement. There has never been a more pivotal time for ensuring that all students
achieve. A student’s success in K–12 education will determine future employment opportunities,
economic earnings, and even life expectancies (Mattos et al., 2016), yet many school boards are
dysfunctional, lacking understanding of their responsibilities, roles, or goals. As a district’s
governing body, school boards are required to be highly knowledgeable about the various
responsibilities and operations of school districts that they govern (Bianchi, 2003; Gemberling et
al., 2000; Morehouse, 2001; Petronis et al., 1996; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
In a performance-based accountability system, school boards and superintendents are the
units that are held liable (Stecher et al., 2004). As the roles of school board members continue to
evolve, it is critical that school board members receive comprehensive professional development
to inform them of their roles and responsibilities and to provide them the skills that are necessary
to govern a school district effectively. In order to realize the current state and roles of the school
board, it is important to understand the background and foundation of the local educational
governance system.
History of the School Board
School boards have evolved in the past 200 years toward a highly political position with
more accountability measures in place than ever before. In 1727, Massachusetts enacted the first
law that required each town in the state to create its own organization of governance to supervise
13
public education (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). After the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was
enacted in 1791, citizens in every state sought to keep governance of the education system local.
Eventually, growing populations led to greater responsibilities and increased complexity in local
governments, which drove the separation of education from town governance (Kirst, 2008; Land,
2002). In 1837, the first state board of education was established and the first superintendent of
schools was appointed (Campbell & Green, 1994). The primary role of the school board was to
manage clerical duties and the role of the superintendent was to maintain the budget of the
district (Campbell & Green, 1994).
School boards in the early 20th century went through a major shift toward a more
centralized school governance, a transformation in the expectations of school board member
roles and responsibilities, and a reorganization of the school board election process (Land, 2002).
Reformers argued that the decentralized, ward-based committee system for administering public
schools created opportunities for political influence and education inefficiency (Alsbury, 2008a;
Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). This newly centralized governance structure
shifted efforts from daily administration to a focus on policy making. The daily administration of
the school district became the responsibility of the superintendent.
In the middle of the 20th century, federal and state governments became a major
influence on education. The signing of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in
1965 limited local authority and required the local school board to spend allocated funding on
historically underserved (defined as low-income) families (Alsbury, 2008a; Hess, 2002; Land,
2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Since then, ESEA has gone through periodic reauthorizations to its
pinnacle of centralized national governmental oversight with the passing of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) in 2002. The latest reauthorization of ESEA, known as Every Student Succeeds
14
Act (ESSA), was signed into law in 2015 by President Obama. This legislation reduces federal
influence on schools, bringing governance back full circle, and returning some authority to states
and local governments (Klein, 2019).
The added responsibilities and measures of federal and state accountability support a
change in school board policy to increase requirements for training and professional
development of school board members (Timar, 2003). Early school boards were responsible for
implementing school policies that aligned with their respective communities’ values; they were
accountable only to local stakeholders (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). However, school boards today deal
with increased responsibilities in finance, student achievement, and mandates from state and
national levels. Navigating the complex environment of school governance requires knowledge,
effective management, and leadership skills, all of which are developed through professional
learning.
Modern-Day School Board Roles and Responsibilities Framework
Board members have very complex school governance roles that they must execute in a
highly political environment (Campbell & Green, 1994). The CSBA (2007) stated that the
responsibility of the school board is to be responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of its
community. As a governing body, the school board must understand its role of guiding
implementation of local, state, and federal policies that plot the course of public education. The
current school board must be able to recognize, accept, and incorporate decisions made by the
federal and state legislators and courts (Fusarelli, 2006). The CSBA (2007) defined the modern
school board’s primary roles as to establish and maintain the basic organizational structure for
the school system, including employment of a superintendent, adoption of governance policies,
and creation of a climate that promotes excellence.
15
The CSBA (2007) categorized five major roles and responsibilities of school boards: (a)
setting the direction of the school district, (b) establishing an effective and efficient structure for
the district, (c) providing support for the superintendent and personnel, (d) ensuring
accountability to the public, and (e) providing community leadership. The scope of their role is
further described in the following subsections.
Setting the Direction (Vision and Goals)
One of the essential roles of a school board is to develop and communicate a long-term
vision for the school district (CSBA, 2007; Land, 2002; Senge, 1990; Supovitz, 2006; Thurlow
Brenner et al., 2002). In a time when school accountability is the broadest that it has ever been,
board members must come to a consensus and clearly identify, prioritize, and concentrate their
efforts on those most important measures. Korelich and Maxwell (2015) reported that
governance teams in highly effective districts work toward the same goals while preserving the
interests of students first in the decision-making process. When a board prioritizes increasing
student achievement and develops a vision around this goal, the board’s effectiveness in
improving student achievement is increased (CSBA, 2007).
Establishing an Effective and Efficient Structure
Boards are responsible to create and maintain structures and support that drive the district
vision and empower district employees. The following four categories are critical structures that
fall under the responsibility of the school board:
Policy Making
State laws and local policies make it clear that board members should focus on leadership
and governance for student achievement and not on administrative logistics (Thurlow Brenner et
al., 2002). A critical component of this is to ensure that school boards provide structures through
16
written board policy. Policies set boundaries for what is acceptable in the process of achieving
the district’s goals (Campbell & Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Danzberger et al., 1987; Ehrensal
& First, 2008; Grissom, 2007; Hill et al., 2002; Hopkins et al., 2007; Johnson, 2011; Land, 2002;
Resnick, 1999). Having an awareness of the substantial list of education codes and board policies
helps board members to govern effectively, ensure federal and state mandates are met, and
increase the probability of meeting the district goals (Ehrensal & First, 2008).
Systems Coherence
In order for districts to achieve and maintain high student achievement, systems must be
implemented effectively and systematically. This is known as systems coherence. Boards can
play a vital role in fostering a coherent school district through their actions and initiatives as the
essential goals and vision for student achievement remain the focus (CSBA, 2017; Johnson,
2011). Coherence supports that balance as it provides guidance for how sites can respond to
needs in a manner that is consistent with school board initiatives for achieving student success
(CSBA, 2017; Rice et al., 2000).
Culture of Growth
The culture of any organization is critical to its growth and success (Muhammad, 2018).
Culture can be defined as the prevailing norms, values, and attitudes that drive behavior in the
district (Campbell & Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2017). The culture of a school district directly
impacts the success of improvement initiatives (CSBA, 2017). According to CSBA’s 2017
report, the school board, including the superintendent, sets the tone for the school district by
modeling positive and professional relationships.
17
Using Data to Inform and Support Continuous Improvement
Data-informed decision making and a data rich culture in an organization promote
success (Means et al., 2009). Student learning outcomes can improve with the effective use of
data to assess district programs and monitoring goals. Waters et al. (2003) found that student
achievement is significantly correlated to the district leaders’ support of monitoring progress
toward goals and strategically aligning resources to those goals. Specifically, board members can
ensure that the district office provides support for the school staff to use data effectively by
investing in professional development and funding data support staff (CSBA, 2017).
Providing Support
Board members’ relationships and support for each other, the superintendent and other
staff, and the public, have a profound impact on a board’s effectiveness. The ability of board
members not only to build relational capacity with constituents but also to support them is a
critical skill set. The CSBA (2007) listed the following primary support responsibilities of the
board: (a) making decisions and providing resources that support mutually agreed upon priorities
and goals, (b) upholding and supporting the district policies that the board has approved, and (c)
acting with a professional demeanor that models and supports the district’s beliefs and vision.
Ensuring Accountability to the Public
As elected officials, school board members are accountable to their constituents. It is the
school board’s responsibility to monitor results regularly, to hold themselves accountable to their
goals, and to communicate this to their constituents. According to Brenner et al. (2002), board
members should establish frequent, regular times to visit school sites to see how the district
vision and goals are progressing, as well to monitor the success of their policies. In addition,
holding public hearings and scheduling monthly board information sessions that link the budget
18
to performance goals are suggested ways in which school boards can structure sessions to focus
on school improvement and inform the public (Brenner et al., 2002).
According to the CSBA (2007), in order to ensure personnel, program, and fiscal
accountability, the board is responsible for the following: (a) evaluating the superintendent and
setting policy for the evaluation of other personnel; (b) monitoring, reviewing, and revising
policies; (c) serving as a judicial and appeals body; (d) monitoring student achievement and
program effectiveness and requiring program changes as indicated; (e) monitoring and adjusting
district finances; (f) monitoring the collective bargaining process, and (g) evaluating its own
effectiveness through board self-evaluation.
Community Leaders
An important responsibility for board members is to generate public interest and assist
community members in their understanding of the educational system (Land, 2002). Resnick
(1999) suggested that quality governance requires board members to be actively involved in the
community to build a connection between the school district and the community. Board members
should be advocates for students, district programs, and public education. It is their responsibility
to build support locally, at the state level, and nationally.
Highly Effective Board Members
How effectively board members carry out their figurative role is as important as the role
itself. A board member’s skills affect the board’s ability to reach consensus about the direction of
the school system, advocate with credibility, and establish a positive climate that encourages the
best from staff (CSBA, 2007). Board members vary in their leadership style and skills; while
each has a unique background and perspective, the highly effective board members have these
skills in common:
19
• Keeps learning and achievement for all students as the primary focus
• Values, supports and advocates for public education
• Recognizes and respects differences of perspective and style on the board and
among staff, students, parents and the community
• Acts with dignity, and understands the implications of demeanor and behavior
• Keeps confidential matters confidential
• Participates in professional development and commits the time and energy
necessary to be an informed and effective leader
• Understands the distinctions between board and staff roles, and refrains from
performing management functions that are the responsibility of the superintendent
and staff
• Understands that authority rests with the board as a whole and not with
individuals. (CSBA, 2007, p. 8)
In contrast, when school boards lack clarity of roles and expectations and lack a laser
focus on goals, conflict among school board members and with the superintendent ensues
(Thomas, 2001). Unclear responsibility within the school governance structure encourages
behaviors that are characteristic of ineffective school governance. Research by Brenner et al.
(2002) and Campbell and Green (1994) indicated that many school board members were
unaware of their individual role as school board members and that many seemed to be unaware
of the role of the school board itself. Considering the impact of school boards on public
education, it is critical that all board members clearly identify their roles and expectations and
the goals of the district.
20
To extend the responsibilities of school board members, accountability to stakeholders
has grown extensively since school boards originated. Whether due to the increase in the number
of constituents, demographic changes in communities, or changes in voting laws, all of these
directly impact board members’ ability to meet their stakeholders’ goals and expectations.
Board Member Elections
With board members being accountable to an array of stakeholders, it appears to many
that school boards lack the ability to meet the goals of the community. In an effort to minimize
the variety of expectations for board members by their constituencies and to increase the
diversity of school boards to reflect their community, school board elections typically follow one
of three methods, or a mixture thereof: (a) At-large: All voters residing in the school district may
vote for any school board candidates running, regardless of geographic location; (b) trustee area:
Only voters residing in a specific geographic area in the school district may vote for certain
school board candidates, who must reside in that specific geographic area; or (c) trustee area at-
large: All voters residing in the school district may vote for any candidates, but candidates must
reside in specific geographic areas within the school district (CSBA, 2007)
In 2009, half of all board members nationally were elected in at-large elections, nearly
50% were elected by trustee areas/trustee area at-large, and 100 districts nationally utilized a
community board to select members for their school boards (Kirst & Wirt, 2009). The trustee-
area voting process supported a change in the demographics of school board members. To
further support demographic equity of school board officials, the California Voting Rights Act
was passed in 2001. The act prohibited localities from running at-large elections if this hindered
minority groups from electing candidates of their choice (Fleming, 2013). While there is still a
large discrepancy in equitable representation of school board members and minority
21
representation, the Voting Rights Act of 2001 and trustee area voting led to an increase in
minority representation on school boards (Fraga et al., 2010).
Teacher union endorsement in board elections continues to grow and influence local
board elections (Kirst & Wirt, 2009). As teacher union candidates are elected to the board, their
accountability to the teachers union can create conflict with other board members who may have
accountability to other community concerns and student achievement.
School Board Member Stakeholders Accountability
School boards are small political systems that reflect the pressures in a democracy related
to school and community values of equity, efficiency, and quality of education (Kirst & Wirt,
2009). A stakeholder is anyone who directly contributes to and benefits from achievement of the
organization’s goals. Board members find themselves caught between myriad expectations of
their stakeholders and policies and practices that increase student achievement. Board member
accountability to the community, federal and state mandates, and increasing student achievement
has contributed to the complex demands on a school board member.
School Board Accountability to the Community
School boards were created to be involved in all areas of local school operations and to
respond quickly to community concerns (Kirst, 1994). This may have been more convenient
when the ratio of school boards to constituents nationally was more reasonable and the
constituents of the board were more reflective of the board members (Kirst & Wirt, 2009). This
is evident when comparing the number of constituents to the number of school boards nationally
in 1910 and in 2016. Nationally, in 1910, there was a ratio of 500:1 of constituents to school
boards (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2017), and school boards focused on
the special interests of their community, without federal or state oversight and mandates. In
22
2016, the national ratio was 22,000:1 and the ratio in California was 38,000:1 (NCES, 2017).
The reduction in school districts in the past century, in conjunction with the population boom,
has led to an increase in the number of constituents whom board members must appease, which
has led to an increase in the complexity of the role.
In California, this issue of board members meeting expectations of their community
constituents is at its most complex. California is the most diverse state in the union, yet more
than 77% of the school board members are Caucasian, compared to 61% in the state population
(Grissom, 2007). Monetarily, the average household income for school board members is
$112,500 compared to $53,629 for the average household in California (Grissom, 2007).
Furthermore, 100% of school board members in California reported that they had earned a high
school diploma and 69% reported having earned a Bachelor’s degree, while only 80% of the
state population over 25 had a high school diploma and only 29.5% had a Bachelor’s degree
(Grissom, 2007). Grissom’s research demonstrates a great disparity between the board members
and the community that they serve, which can create a level of disconnect with regard to
community goals and expectations.
School Board Accountability to Federal/State Mandates
School boards have become more accountable to federal and state oversight and
mandates in the past hundred years (McGuinn, 2006). Originally, school boards were created
based on the desire for local control over policy, management, and finances; this has changed
dramatically. School boards must understand that they are one of many decision makers
determining the direction of public education. Direct oversight by state and federal governments
is an additional accountability measure placed on board members. The 2001 reauthorization of
ESEA (i.e., NCLB) is a direct example of this. NCLB standardized teacher professional
23
requirements and student learning expectations nationally. This federally developed program was
implemented to improve public education, but because school boards were not involved in the
development of NCLB and were only marginally involved in its implementation, board members
felt unprepared and unqualified with meeting this mandate (Lake & Hill, 2009). Federal and state
mandates directly impact a school board’s ability to utilize its resources to meet the goals of their
community. However, because community members know little about federal and state mandates
for which boards are accountable, community members still hold the expectation that all of their
local needs will be met, which leads to negative perceptions of a school board’s effectiveness
(Timar, 2003). It is an unattainable expectation for school board members to meet both local
community expectations and federal/state mandates.
School Board Accountability for Student Achievement
Although there is little empirical evidence that directly links school board practices with
student achievement, high-performing urban districts almost always have strong boards, and
their superintendents and principals are more likely to take risks aimed at bringing about
effective reform because they have highly supportive boards (Education Writers Association
[EWA], 2003). Richard H. Goodman, project director at the New England School Development
Council, examined 10 school districts in five states. He found that well-run districts had lower
dropout rates, higher percentages of students going to college, and higher aptitude test scores,
compared to poorly run districts (Shober & Hartney, 2014). Along with the responsibility for
student achievement, school boards assume responsibilities for policy making, financial
decisions, curriculum adoption, professional development, and personnel decisions. It is an
overwhelming set of tasks, yet school boards are asked to perform these tasks while maintaining
rigorous standards for student achievement (Hill et al., 2002). The community, district staff,
24
parents, and students hold school boards accountable for these responsibilities, just as school
board members hold administrators and teachers accountable. Boards composed of more
members holding an academic focus are much more likely to govern districts in which students
show better academic achievement per dollar than similar districts (Shober & Hartney, 2014). A
survey by the NSBA showed that only 21% of superintendents agreed that it was very important
to hold school boards accountable for raising student achievement, and that, if the boards
accepted this responsibility, their effectiveness would improve (EWA, 2003). Similarly, school
boards with members reporting that they participate in professional development and work more
hours have been associated with a 0.01-point increase in achievement per dollar spent per student
(Shober & Hartney, 2014). While maintaining a strong focus on student achievement supports an
increase in student achievement, almost equally important is the relationship between board
members and the superintendent.
School Board and Superintendent Relationship
Waters and Marzano (2006) reported a correlation between an effective working
relationship between school board members and superintendent and student achievement in the
classroom. The school board and superintendent are accountable to each other and must work
together to connect the school district with the needs of the community (Goodman &
Zimmerman, 2000). Blumberg and Blumberg (1985) suggested that effective decision making in
education is contingent on the quality and frequency of communication between the school board
and the district superintendent. Many argue that the most important task that a superintendent has
is to build a strong relationship with the school board (Neff & Citrin, 2005; Watkins, 2003).
While the superintendent is an employee of the school board, it is incumbent on the board to
allow the superintendent to fulfill duties without interference. Farkas et al. (2001) reported that
25
65% of superintendents speculated that many school boards simply wanted leaders whom the
board could control and that superintendent frustration stemmed from school boards
micromanaging or interfering in superintendents’ administrative responsibilities. Kowalski et al.
(2011) posited that the most pertinent information from their decennial school board study
focused on the emphasis that school boards were placing on superintendents and that relational
building was the most important factor in job effectiveness and retention.
The school board has the ability to hire and fire superintendents. To decrease
superintendent turnover (average 2.5 years) and improve student achievement, Goodman and
Zimmerman (2000) proposed that a quality working and collaborative relationship between the
school board and superintendent is a critical component and foundation for student success. At
the heart of the American public school education is the relationship between a school board
elected by the community and the superintendent hired by the school board to carry out the
vision and mission of the school district (Björk et al., 2014). Superintendents and boards of
education should be allied and committed to ongoing relational building in order to improve
student achievement, the public perception of school districts, and leverage of external resources
(Wallace Foundation, 2003).
It is with this understanding of how board member oversight of a superintendent impacts
the effectiveness and longevity of superintendents that it is important to examine the roles and
responsibilities of superintendents and their leadership impact on public education.
Leadership
The research is clear: Effective school leadership is imperative to improve student
achievement (Bolman & Deal, 2013; Elmore, 2000; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Leadership is a
highly valued phenomenon that is very complex and has presented a major challenge to
26
practitioners who are interested in understanding the nature of leadership (Northouse, 2018). For
this purpose of this literature review, Northouse’s (2018) description of leadership as a process
whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal was used as
the operational definition. Elmore (2000) supported Northouse with the idea that effective
leadership is a process and not a trait and that it should be implemented in all aspects of an
organization. Leadership is never about the individual leader and his or her needs; it is about the
needs of the people and the organization. This type of thinking requires a sensitive understanding
of people and their reciprocal relationship with organizations and the core assumption that
people and organizations need each other (Bolman & Deal, 2013). The key personnel who set the
goals and practices of the school district are the superintendent and the board of education. While
independent leadership by both superintendent and board members is essential in reforming a
district, student achievement is elevated through the intentional relationship building and
collaboration between board and superintendent.
Effective leadership by both the superintendent and the school board is critical to operate
as a high-functioning governance team (Waters & Marzano, 2006). It is incumbent on the
leadership of both of these positions to commit to one set of goals and a path to achieve those
goals in order to improve student achievement. When organizations seek reform, leadership is at
the top of the valued skills sets.
Superintendent Leadership
The primary role of the superintendent is to function as CEO of the school board.
Fundamentally, the superintendent is accountable for successful fiscal and facilities management,
for developing and sustaining relationships with the school board, for district morale, and for
student safety (Brenner et al., 2002). Waters and Marzano (2006) held that the duties of an
27
effective superintendent are to set goals collaboratively for student achievement and teacher
instruction, to ensure that the school board’s goals align with those of the district, and to use
resources effectively to achieve district goals. Many consider the job of superintendent the most
important, as well as the most difficult, job in public education. The role of superintendent calls
for an educator who not only can raise test scores and operate within a specific budget, but who
can navigate the political nature of the school board.
The CSBA Superintendents Advisory Council and the Association of California School
Administrators (ACSA) superintendents committee jointly established a set of professional
governance standards for the position of superintendent. The joint commission recommended
that these standards be included as a part of the Professional Governance Standards (CSBA,
2019). The standards include promoting the success of all students and supporting the efforts of
the school board, serving as a model of life-long learning, working with school board members
and ensuring collective responsibility for building unity, respecting the role of the school board
as a representative of the community, communicating openly with trust and integrity with all
board members, and accepting leadership responsibility and accountability for implementing the
vision, goals, and policies of the school district (CSBA, 2019).
Waters and Marzano (2006) found that district leadership correlated with student
achievement when superintendents followed five leadership responsibilities: collaborative goal
setting, non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction, board alignment and support of
district goals, monitoring of achievement and instructional goals, and the use of resources to
achieve goals.
28
Collaborative Goal-Setting Culture
Waters and Marzano (2006) posited that the most effective superintendents include all
relevant stakeholders in establishing goals for their school districts. While the ability to establish
goals with input from all stakeholders is challenging at best, this is an essential component of
superintendent leadership. Furthermore, Waters and Marzano proposed that effective
superintendents ensure that school site administrators throughout the district are involved in
establishment of goals because they will be implementing the goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Non-Negotiable Goals for Achievement and Instruction
As the leader of a school district, it is imperative the superintendent and his staff establish
a hyper-focused culture for improving achievement by all students and establish learning goals
for all student groups (e.g., English learners, African Americans, low socioeconomic students).
Stakeholder buy-in and understanding of non-negotiables is a requisite for success. Bolman and
Deal (2017) suggested that people’s skills, attitudes, energy, and commitment are vital resources
that can make or break an organization. In a time when schools are held more accountable than
ever before for the success of students in the classroom, Waters and Marzano (2006) reported
that the most effective superintendents established non-negotiable goals in the area of student
achievement and classroom instruction and created stakeholder buy-in.
Board Alignment and Support of District Goals
An effective leader must possess a high level of comprehension of the interplay between
power and conflict while being skillful at building coalitions and dealing with internal and
external politics (Bolman & Deal, 2017). In order for a school district to continue to progress and
improve student achievement, superintendents and school board members must create a cohesive
relationship and establish congruent alignment in decision making (Peterson & Short, 2001). It is
29
vital that neither school board members nor superintendents detract attention or resources from
the non-negotiable goals of increasing student learning. It is then incumbent on the school
principals that this focus on increasing student achievement be the primary goal at each site
(Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Monitor Achievement and Instructional Goals
What gets monitored in an organization is what gets completed. Effective superintendents
continually monitor goals for student achievement and instructional goals to ensure that these
goals remain the primary drive behind the school district’s efforts. According to Waters and
Marzano (2006), if these goals are not monitored, the goals of the superintendent and school
become nothing more than educational fodder. Because instructional practices is the number one
determining factor in increasing student achievement (Land, 2002), effective superintendents
ensure that schools are constantly looking at achievement targets and addressing their
instructional practices.
Use of Resources to Support Goals
Effective superintendents ensure that resources such as time, money, staffing, and
materials are allocated and aligned with the district’s goals. Superintendents must look at all
available resources and determine their effectiveness in meeting the goals of the district. This
may require the superintendent to make cuts and drop initiatives that are not aligned to district
goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006). While this is one of the more difficult decisions that a
superintendent must make, it is critical for the leader’s success that decisions are transparent,
made public, and in the best interest of students and the district, even when they may create
conflict (Bolman & Deal, 2013).
30
Superintendent leadership matters and is correlated to student achievement. Effective
superintendent leadership can positively influence a multitude of areas, including governance,
finance, community relations, personnel management, curriculum, and board relationships.
Districts that have been successful in moving students forward in academic achievement have
exhibited trends in their practice. Taking measured steps in leadership performance is a
necessary piece of the effectiveness puzzle.
Theoretical Frameworks
Current research seems to indicate that specific variables contribute significantly to the
success of school districts: leadership, effective school governance, and school board training.
Definitions of these key variables such as school governance and leadership are often vague and
vary greatly among studies. In order to funnel the focus of this research, a synthetic framework
was developed. The framework focused on defining and organizing leadership regarding the
effective characteristics of school boards and superintendents and school board training. The
foundation of the framework was based on research by notable educational organizations and
authors of peer-reviewed articles. Bolman and Deal (2013) provided the theoretical framework
for leadership that was used to define the concept of effective leadership, the Lighthouse Study
(Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000) was used to define the most effective practices of the
school board, and CSBA’s (2007) effective governance guide was used to define school board
member training (as cited in previous sections).
Leadership Framework
Both as researchers and practitioners, Bolman and Deal (2013) constructed four lenses
through which to define leadership: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. They
suggested that each of these frames has distinctive characteristics with strengths and limitations,
31
but skillful leaders can work concordantly with each of them. It is through these frames that
Bolman and Deal provided organizational leaders with a map and tools to navigate the highly
complex world of leadership.
The primary concepts of the structural frame focus on the architecture of an organization
and the design of units, subunits, rules and roles, and goals and policies that promote a positive
working environment (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Leaders who use the structural frame develop
structures that allocate responsibilities to all members of the organization and establish policy,
procedures, and leadership gradation of all activities. Problems are often remedied through
analysis of structural deficiencies and solved through restructuring. Bolman and Deal (2013)
noted that a weakness of the structural framework is emphasized when the resources that are
required to support a structure are exhausted. Because these frames are interdependent and
reliant on one another to fulfill the assigned responsibilities, if expended resources cause one
structure to fail, the integrity of the organization is compromised. Looking at school boards
through the structural frame lens, the school board’s ability to establish a structure would support
the board’s ability to create a clear vision and develop strategic goals to achieve the vision while
still supporting internal/external accountability. Consequently, as new school boards are created
through elections, it is important that everyone understand the school board structure (i.e., well-
defined responsibilities).
The human resource frame emphasizes developing and understanding people, along with
their strengths and foibles, reason and emotion, and desires and fears (Bolman & Deal, 2013).
Leaders in this frame assume that the organization exists to meet the needs of the people; when
people and their jobs fit together, both the individual and the organization benefit. These leaders
often desire that individuals within the organization be fulfilled. They invest in their workforce
32
and they empower individuals in the organization. The fundamental principle of the human
resource frame is that, although people have a great capacity to learn, each individual comes with
particular skills and limitations. A limitation of this framework is that individuals come with
needs, feelings, and prejudices that encourage defense of old investments, ideas, and beliefs
(Bolman & Deal, 2013).
Bolman and Deal (2013) stated that organizations that operate in complex systems with
political dynamics, scarcity of resources, competing interests, and struggles for power and
advantage are affected by the political frame. Conflicts can arise in organizations due to limited
resources in the organization needed to promote the group or individual and inequitable
distribution/allocations of resources. Weaknesses of the frame are evident when there is an
imbalance of political influence in one specific area and other areas are neglected. Skilled
politicians use bargaining, negotiation, coercion, compromise strategies, and tactics to resolve
routine problems (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Looking at school boards through this lens, school
board members have constituents who elected them and whose expectations and demands must
be heard. Balancing this while navigating the political field internally within the board and
school district itself requires political savviness. Northouse (2018) contended that effective
leaders are friendly, outgoing, courteous, tactful, and diplomatic and create cooperative
relationships with their followers. Political frame leaders often network within the organization
to build coalitions to ensure adequate resource allocation, leading to a successful organization
(Bolman & Deal, 2013).
Culture, meaning, ritual, ceremony, and institutional stories are key concepts in the
symbolic frame (Bolman & Deal, 2013). The symbolic frame is often referred to as the culture of
the organization; it provides the purpose of why the organization exists. The symbolic leader
33
focuses on the belief and faith of people in the organization to bring cohesion, clarity, and
direction to the institution’s goals and objectives. As school board members carry out the various
decisions that they make as a board, their decisions in essence become part of the symbolic
frame. For example, when the board elects to adopt a mental health center at each secondary site,
this symbolizes support for student social emotional/mental health concerns; a vote for renewing
a superintendent’s contract symbolizes trust; and a vote to hire more reading teachers in
elementary schools symbolizes an increased focus on the importance of reading. Thus, the school
board itself serves as a symbol of local citizen democracy, accountability, and a governance
structure. A weakness of this frame occurs when neglecting roles undermine the goals and the
identity of the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2013).
Bolman and Deal (2013) argued that reframing leadership allows a broader view of the
subject. They suggested that leadership is not static and that the definition of leadership is
arbitrary and cannot always be adopted in the same context. Leadership requires flexibility and
situational understanding. Bolman and Deal contended that there is never one right way to lead;
each view or frame can lead to “compelling and constructive leadership” (p. 348). It is from this
leadership framework and understanding that school boards and superintendents should be
expected to operate.
Best School Board Practices Framework
“The Lighthouse Inquiry: School Board/Superintendent Team Behaviors in School
Districts With Extreme Differences in Student Achievement” by the Iowa Association of School
Boards (IASB; Rice et al., 2000) “indicates that school boards in high-achieving districts are
significantly different in their knowledge and beliefs from school boards in low-achieving
districts” (p. 4). The research identified and defined the knowledge, skills, and beliefs that
34
benefit the practice of school boards that seek to affect growth in student achievement
(Delagardelle, 2008). The findings described seven conditions of school renewal that influence
student achievement: emphasis on building a human organization, ability to create and sustain
initiatives, supportive workplace for staff, staff development, support for school sites through
data and information, community involvement, and integrated leadership (Rice at al., 2000).
Emphasis on Building a Human Organizational System
When looking at districts that focus on building human organizational capacity, the
Lighthouse inquiry found that higher-performing districts that continued to increase in student
achievement focused on collaborative decision making because of an internal consensus of
focusing on improvement. Board members in those districts did not allow excuses for a lack of
student improvement; instead, they believed that all students could learn and they promoted
initiatives that focused on increasing student learning. In contrast, districts that were
continuously lower achieving and did not improve student learning did not have a shared belief
that all students can learn and focused on external barriers such as a lack of parental involvement
and motivation as the causes for a lack of improvement (Rice et al., 2000).
Ability to Create and Sustain Initiatives
Higher-performing districts had a clear understanding of how to organize people and
programs to sustain improvement. Both the board and superintendent were involved in goal
setting and attended professional development together. In contrast, board members in lower-
performing districts were not able to articulate goals and initiatives that would lead to increased
student achievement.
35
Supportive Workplace for Staff
Higher-performing districts created an environment in which they were confident and
positive about their staff. According to the IASB (Rice et al., 2000), these board members
demonstrated appreciation for their staff and directly correlated their efforts to student
achievement. The lower-performing districts rarely recognized their staff or related their efforts
to student achievement and often looked outward to what would improve student achievement
(e.g., new teachers, increased parent involvement).
Staff Development
Consistent staff development focused on teacher instructional practices and increased
student learning was present in each higher-performing district. Board members of the lower-
performing districts viewed teacher professional development as the responsibility of the
teachers; board members failed to see the connection between professional development and
student academic achievement.
Support for School Sites Through Data and Information
The higher-performing school districts utilized data-informed decision making on a
consistent basis. Specifically, board members in the higher-performing districts received data
from multiple sources to identify the needs of the district to improve student achievement. Board
members in the lower-performing districts accessed data only from the superintendent and made
decisions on personal experience.
Community Involvement
Higher-performing districts demonstrated close community involvement by having close
connections with all stakeholders, including parents, community leaders, and staff. In addition,
they took pride in their district and community and sought opportunities to involve the
36
community. Boards in lower-performing districts focused on the lack of parent involvement as a
barrier to student success and did not seek initiatives to involve parents or community.
Shared Leadership
Higher-performing districts articulated a clear vision and high expectations. Moreover,
they were knowledgeable about classroom practices, improvement initiatives, district goals, and
their contribution to improved student achievement. In contrast, lower-performing districts did
not articulate district goals and did not believe that it was their job to be knowledgeable about
classroom instructional practices.
The Lighthouse Study revealed seven conditions of effective school board leadership.
Because accountability measures have continued to increase, it is important to reflect on the
practices of higher-performing districts that continue to improve. Although research has not
demonstrated a definitive direct link between school board practices and student achievement,
the CSBA has provided training in governance programs as a place to start.
School Board Training
Current research indicates that school board training substantially contributes to
successful school board governance. School board governance and leading change require skills
and knowledge that can be acquired only through formalized training, networking, and
professional learning (NSBA, 2015). Scholars have suggested that training programs clearly
define roles and responsibilities for school board members, build board-superintendent
leadership team relationships, and enhance content knowledge of school finance, collective
bargaining agreement, policy, human resource, and governance (Campbell & Green, 1994;
CSBA, 2007; Danzberger et al., 1987; Hess, 2002). However, the elected position of school
board member in California requires only a minimal level of education and no accompanying
37
formal training (CSBA, 2007). The vulnerability of this position produces board members who
have little to no knowledge of educational settings but hold enormous responsibility to a large
number of stakeholders. For this reason, it can take on average up to a year for a board member
to settle into the position and to understand how to serve in the role (Bianchi, 2003). This is due
to the fact that K–12 education is layered with intricacies of governance that include
commitments, practices, actions, accountability, and interactions with the community (Maricle,
2014). Another factor to consider that can add to the issues related to a lack of training are board
member motives for election and existence of personal and hidden agendas (Mountford, 2004).
This can influence a board member’s ability to serve the needs of all students. Roberts and
Sampson (2011) suggested that taking part in governance training can significantly reduce the
length of time required to acclimate to the position.
School board preparatory programs are neither universal nor standardized across the
United States, resulting in a wide array of expectations, from voluntary to mandatory. Roberts
and Sampson (2011) stated that 27 states did not require any formalized training for school board
members, although state board officials and school board associations maintain that professional
learning is essential for effective governance. Hess and Meeks (2010) stated that the number of
states that mandate school board training doubled in the previous 10 years. With increasing
internal and external accountability systems, school board members are faced with increasingly
complex challenges that include creating a district’s actionable vision, setting policy, providing
financial oversight, and building and sustaining systems of support that foster student success.
While different states offer different types of training, the CSBA offers optional MIG training to
both new and veteran school board members to equip them with best practices for effective
governance, including foundations for governance, policy and judicial review, school finance,
38
human resources, and community relations and advocacy (CSBA, 2019). The CSBA is available
to school districts and school boards to join if they wish to utilize its services.
There is consensus that school board members should receive formalized training in the
role in order to achieve effective governance (Canal, 2013; Gomez, 2013; Roberts & Sampson,
2011). The CSBA provides MIG professional learning seminars in California for school board
members and superintendents; it is recommended that both take part in the training
simultaneously. To date, more than two thousand school board members and superintendents
have taken advantage of the MIG training and 90% of the participants recommended the training
to colleagues (CSBA, 2019). Of that 90% of participants, all but 10% agreed that the training
provides essential information for effective governance (CSBA, 2019). MIG training equips
board members with a governance framework from which to operate that delineates roles and
responsibilities with a steadfast focus on student achievement (Richter, 2013).
Masters in Governance Training
The MIG training consists of 60 hours addressing five overarching courses that cover an
array of topics that hold a 2-year completion deadline (CSBA, 2019). The training is offered at
multiple times of the year to assist school boards and superintendents with scheduling due to
myriad calendar responsibilities that can conflict with training. The intent of the modules, in
addition to defining the roles and responsibilities of school governance, is to examine all issues
through the lens of students (CSBA, 2019). Five modules comprise MIG training: (a) The
Foundation of Governance module covers three areas of focus: include trusteeship, governance,
and vision setting; (b) the Policy and Judicial Review module addresses student learning, use and
development of policy, and judicial appeals; (c) the School Finance module consists of the
balance of achievement and budget, the process for budget development, and the monitoring and
39
auditing of finances; (d) the Human Resources module covers collective bargaining, employing a
superintendent and personnel responsibilities, and a culture of accountability; and (e) the
Community Relations and Advocacy module consists of community relations and advocacy,
which addresses community leadership, crisis management and media involvement, and building
community support.
The commitment and follow through of superintendents and school board members to
MIG governance training creates a solidified partnership that serves to define the roles and
responsibilities of both positions (Canal, 2013; Gomez, 2013). Through this process of learning,
student achievement is outlined as the foundational basis for the work where district goals are
aligned to a collective vision using data-informed decision making (Canal, 2013). The
collaborative relationship allows for acceptance of majority voting even when there is opposition
(Canal, 2013). This helps to maintain professional relations even when faced with complex
issues, keeping students as a top priority.
Districts with school board members who pride themselves on learning and who are
eager to acquire new information such as MIG training tend to experience higher levels of
student achievement (Maricle, 2014). Professional standards generated from collaborative
training create the focus, behavior, and practices needed to facilitate change (Canal, 2013). The
consequential positive relationship between superintendents and school board members after
investment in training can have a profound influence on the success of a school district (Center
for Public Education, 2011). This relationship between the superintendent and school board
members can best be described as shared leadership in service to a diverse set of stakeholders
(Waters & Marzano, 2006; Weiss et al., 2014).
40
Chapter Summary
In summary, research holds that school board members who engage in continuous
professional development exhibit characteristics of effective school governance (Dahlkemper,
2005; McAdams, 2003; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). With responsibilities such as ensuring the
district’s fiscal solvency, selecting a progressive curriculum, and staffing, the policy and
decisions that school board members make and implement have a significant impact on student
academic achievement. Therefore, it is imperative that school board members acquire sufficient
knowledge of school governance, the role that board members play on the school governance
team, and their role as it relates to the superintendent’s role as chief executive officer of the
school board (Delagardelle, 2008). If schooling in America is to be a social equalizer for all
students, it is imperative that school board members have the skills and knowledge required to
govern effectively.
41
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
As pressure to increase student achievement in the classroom continues to surge, so has
accountability in those who are responsible for leading in this educational process (Hess &
Meeks, 2010). Many of the most effective school board governance teams model the same traits
and characteristics and engage in similar practices (Ford & Irhke, 2016). Many of these
characteristics and practices may be established from the conceptual framework of leadership,
school governance and effective school board training. The research is clear that school boards
have a significant impact on the governance of their district and their district’s success (Maricle,
2014). A key component in effective school governance is governance training for school board
members. In California, the CSBA provides voluntary governance training for school board
members and superintendents. The governance training provides education on the five modules
that define the roles and responsibilities of school governance teams and support a focus on
improving student learning.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of MIG training
and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective
governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of school board
members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school governance
and student achievement.
42
Research Questions
The following research questions were developed to guide the research:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
These three research questions served two additional and essential functions: to assist in
the focus of the study and to guide how to conduct it (Maxwell, 2013). Using the researcher as
the primary instrument in the data collection, an inductive approach was employed to gather a
rich description of the events and the actors who were surveyed and interviewed (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Research Team
The research team for this study was comprised of 20 doctoral students from the
University of Southern California (USC) Rossier School of Education under the direction of Dr.
Michael Escalante. Under his guidance, the team employed a thematic group approach to prepare
for the study. Starting in spring 2019, the team met monthly to establish a knowledge base
related to the following key concepts: practices of the most effective school boards, MIG
training, developing school board and superintendent relationship, defining the roles and
responsibilities of school board members, and the accountability of school board members. In
fall 2019, the team began to focus on development of research questions to guide the study,
identification of the conceptual framework for the study, designing research protocols, and
logistical preparation for conducting research.
43
Because of the thematic group approach throughout the research process, there are
similarities among the team members’ respective dissertations. All of the protocols utilized in the
study were developed by the team. However, the conclusions drawn from the collected data were
independent of the team and unique to each individual researcher.
Research Design
After analyzing the appropriate theoretical frameworks of the study, as well as their goals
focused on interpreting, understanding, and describing how a situation or set of events influences
others, the research team decided to use a qualitative method approach for collecting and
analyzing data. Patton (2002) characterized qualitative research as an approach that uses data to
add depth, detail, and nuance to the research. Creswell and Creswell (2018) posited that a
qualitative approach to research is useful for exploring and understanding a central phenomenon.
Two qualitative approaches were utilized to establish the meaning of the phenomenon
under study from the viewpoint of the participants: narrative research and case study. These
approaches are known as strategies of interpretive inquiry as they provide structure to the
research design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As a result, an inductive stance was used to
analyze emerging themes in the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The narrative research and case
study approaches were utilized to develop an in-depth analysis of a case, event, activity, or
process (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Narrative research yields firsthand accounts through
interviews that provide rich descriptions of perceptions and opinions through personal accounts
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Similarly, the case study approach, which is bound by time and
activity, provides a means to engage in a detailed examination into participants’ experiences, as
well as the related contextual conditions (Maxwell, 2013). Consistent with Creswell’s (2011)
44
definition of qualitative research questions, the interview questions were open-ended and focused
on school board members’ and superintendents’ opinions regarding effective school governance.
The research team conducted the interviews to gain insight into individual perspectives
regarding school board governance practices and school board training. Surveys were mailed to
current school board members and superintendents who met the established criteria. Data
collection through closed-ended, Likert-type scale surveys generates data in a systematized
format and reveal trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a sample of that
population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Participants and Sampling
According to Maxwell (2013), decisions about where to conduct research and whom to
include in it are an essential part of a qualitative researcher’s methodology. Through purposeful
sampling, the researcher ensured that the respondents were information-rich cases from which
the researcher could learn a great deal about the issues that were of central importance to the
study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants in this study were board members and
superintendents from 12 California counties where the majority of the board members had
completed a module of the MIG training. The participants, diversity, and density of the districts
in the selected counties provided quality input for the study. In addition, the selection of counties
allowed probability-based random sampling. Surveys were mailed to all districts in the chosen
counties that met the established criteria. Once surveys were gathered and sorted, follow-up
interviews were scheduled.
Instrumentation
The research team used surveys and interviews as instruments for the study. The research
team met regularly during spring 2020 to develop and design the surveys and interview
45
questions, as well as the school board recruitment letters. Owing to the qualitative focus of the
study, the primary instrument for the collection of data was the individual researcher, allowing
for an inductive and interpretive investigation into the phenomenon under study (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). The purpose of the interviews was to add description to the survey responses
and to place them in context. The research team used the comprehensive review of literature and
conceptual framework discussed in Chapter Two as a foundation for designing the instruments.
The research instrument protocols were created through a collaborative process by all members
of the research team.
Prior to the team members conducting the research, participants were contacted via an
introductory recruitment letter (Appendix A). The purpose of this correspondence was to
introduce the researcher, explain the purpose of the study, ensure that recipients met the MIG
training criteria, request participation, and obtain consent. The research instruments that were
developed for this study were submitted to the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB) in spring
2020 for approval for field use with human participants.
Survey Protocols
Surveys provide the researcher with a means to describe and explore human behavior by
measuring the various views and opinions in a chosen sample (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
goal of survey research is not to detail concepts exhaustively for a theoretical domain but rather
to cover relevant diversity in an empirically defined population that provides the researcher with
a mechanism to generalize or draw inferences from that population (Maxwell, 2013). The
research team developed two surveys that contained similar questions for school board members
(Appendix B) and superintendents (Appendix C), aligned with the three research questions. For
example, school board members were asked, “To what extent has the MIG helped you to become
46
a more effective school board member?” and superintendents were asked, “To what extent has
the MIG helped your school board become more effective?” These questions allowed for
comparison of responses and improved reliability. Each question on either survey was linked to a
research question(s) to allow alignment of analysis. Recommendations and input from the entire
team were discussed regularly. Once the revisions were completed, the updated survey was
submitted to the dissertation committee for final approval. Survey items were aligned with the
research questions using a 4-point Likert-type response scale: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree. The surveys were administered electronically prior to the interviews.
Interview Protocols
The interview protocols were developed using a semistructured approach (Appendices D
and E). The protocols were developed to gain understanding of the effect of MIG training on the
governance of a district. Interview questions were formulated to minimize variation in the
questions posed to interviewees, and a standardized open-ended interview approach was used
(Patton, 2002). Standardized open-ended interview questions were developed to ensure that the
participants would be asked the same questions to increase comparability of responses and to
reduce interviewer effects and bias. Variation among interviewers is minimized, the interview is
highly focused, and analysis is facilitated by making responses easy to find and compare (Patton,
2002).
Collecting data via interview protocols is a valuable method of obtaining rich description
of actions and events; it is often an efficient and valid way of understanding someone’s
perspectives and experiences (Maxwell, 2013). Moreover, interviews provide additional
information that could have been missed during an administration of a survey, which could result
in a more comprehensive understanding of the issues being investigated (Maxwell, 2013).
47
The informed consent for participants was contained in Appendix F. The alignment of the
survey and interview questions to the research questions is presented in Appendix G.
Data Collection
Qualitative data were collected in California over a 3-month period through online
interviews and electronically administered surveys with persons in various school districts. Both
the interview questions and the survey questions were directly aligned with the three research
questions.
Surveys
A recruitment letter to school board members and superintendents and the informed
consent form were included with the survey instrument to provide an explanation of the research
and to elicit participation by school board members and superintendents. The survey was mailed
to all of the districts in the counties that met participation criteria. In an effort to increase the
response rate of online surveys, the deadline to submit the survey was emphasized. All data that
were captured from the surveys were stored and disaggregated using the online program
Qualtrics.™
Interviews
One-on-one interviews took place in the virtual setting through the Zoom platform. As
part of the interview protocol, the interviews were recorded and the researcher made field notes.
This process was necessary because what was written or mechanically recorded became the raw
data from which the study’s findings eventually emerged (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
interviews were professionally transcribed using the online program Rev to assist with
organizing and preparing the data for analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
48
Data Analysis
Because the data were gathered by multiple researchers using a variety of research
instruments, it was imperative that a standard process for collection and analysis be strictly
adhered to so that issues with validity and reliability would be minimized (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The research team elected to follow Creswell and Creswell’s (2018) model for qualitative
data analysis and interpretation, which entailed the following six steps:
1. Organize and prepare data for analysis.
2. Read and reflect on the data to identify emerging patterns.
3. Label and code the data into chunks to create meaning.
4. Utilize the codes to generate themes from the data.
5. Represent the emerging themes into a descriptive narrative.
6. Interpret the data. (p. 197)
The analysis process began when the research team had completed data collection,
starting with the sharing of the data collected by each research team member. The interview
recordings were then transcribed. Next, each researcher read through the data, synthesized and
reflected on the information, and developed tentative ideas about relationships, categories, and
patterns within the data (Maxwell, 2013). The third step in the analysis process was to code the
data. Categories and relationships were developed through the process of consolidating,
reducing, and interpreting what was said in alignment with the survey questions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The initial stage of this process began by generating an array of individual codes
associated with their respective data chunks (Miles et al., 2014). The fourth step entailed pattern
coding, whereby the segments of data were grouped or summarized into what Miles et al. (2014)
described as smaller categories, themes, or constructs. The categories were both responsive and
49
congruent to the orientation of the study. The results from this second cycle of coding were
categories that met the criteria described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) as responsive to the
research questions, mutually exclusive, exhaustive, and sensitive to the data. The fifth step of this
hierarchical process called for advancing how the description and themes are represented in the
narrative (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The narrative conveys the findings of the analysis
through a thick, rich description of the participants and the settings. The sixth and final step was
interpretive, as it entailed both making meaning of the data and comparing the data side by side
with the survey results. This step generated responses to the research questions to support
previous research and recommendations for future study.
To ensure that all data and related analyses were secure, well organized, and easily
accessible, an online database was established (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All members of the
research team had access to the database and assisted in developing an organizational scheme
that made sense to all members. All research team members participated in the ongoing
management of the database system.
Validity, Reliability, and Trustworthiness
Validity is a key issue in research design and refers to the correctness or credibility of a
description, conclusion, explanation, interpretation, or account contained within the study
(Maxwell, 2013). Reliability is achieved when the researcher’s approach is consistent across
researchers and projects and yields the same results (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Thus, a study
is considered to be trustworthy when there is evidence of both reliability and credibility (Patton,
2002).
To maintain validity and accuracy throughout the course of the study, the research team
actively incorporated multiple approaches to collection, analysis, and interpretation of data in
50
alignment with those recommended by Creswell and Creswell (2018). This process included the
following strategies:
1. Member checking with participants to confirm the accuracy of the data
2. Peer debriefing of the data collection process and accuracy of the data
3. Use of discrepant evidence and negative cases that run counter to the themes of
the data
4. Use of an external auditor to provide an objective assessment of the accuracy of
the data
5. Identification and explanation of any researcher bias. (pp. 201–202)
Reliability in a research design is based on the assumption that there is a single reality
and that studying it will yield the same results—specifically, that the results are consistent with
the collected data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The following measures, as delineated by Creswell
and Creswell (2018), were implemented to ensure reliability of the results: (a) Transcripts were
reviewed to make sure that no errors occurred during transcription, (b) codes were developed and
cross-checked with other research team members to confirm uniformity and consistency with the
definition, and (c) frequent and coordinated communication occurred among research team
members to share in the analysis of the data.
Ethical Considerations
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argued that, in all research, one has to trust that the study was
carried out with integrity and that it involved the ethical stance of the researcher. To ensure that
this study meets ethical standards set forth by the USC IRB, all members of the research team
completed the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) training in January 2020.
This training was necessary to ensure that all research team members had knowledge of the
51
historical development of human subject protections, ethical issues, and current regulatory
guidance. Following the CITI training, the research team was granted approval to complete an
expedited study under the guidance of Dr. Michael Escalante
Of paramount importance throughout the study is for research team members to be aware
of ethical issues that pervade the research process and that protect the rights of the participants
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To achieve that end, each participant received an informed consent
statement that detailed the purpose of the study and participants’ rights prior to beginning any
interview, observation, or survey. Consent not only ensures that participants are willing to
participate but contributes to participants’ feeling of empowerment (Glesne, 2011).
By applying these protocols, the research team made a concerted effort to reinforce the
voluntary aspect of each participant’s role in the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As
violations of privacy and confidentiality could be potentially damaging to particular individuals
or groups (Maxwell, 2013), steps were taken to prevent such incidents from occurring. Research
team members assigned pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of participants. In addition,
participants’ names were separated from individual responses. All data and related documents
were stored in a secure location in an established, password-protected database.
52
Chapter Four: Results
This chapter presents the findings from a qualitative descriptive study in California to
determine whether CSBA’s MIG training improves the relationship between school boards and
superintendents, its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit behaviors of
effective school governance, and its perceived impact on performance indicators for school
districts. Using the framework of Bolman and Deal’s (2013) theory of reframing organizations,
the Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice at al., 2000), and CSBA’s (2007) effective governance guide, the
research team applied the theoretical framework to guide the research. The research questions
derived from the theoretical framework served as the basis for the surveys and interview guide
for the school board members and superintendents who participated in the study. The research
data were compiled and triangulated from three sources—survey responses, individual
interviews, and the frameworks that guided the study.
The findings resulted in themes regarding the motivation for governance teams to
complete the MIG training, the effectiveness of the MIG training program, and whether MIG
training has an impact on student achievement. This chapter presents and examines the findings
of the study based on analysis of the data in reference to the three research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
53
Background Information of Sample and Population
Sixty-two school districts in 12 California counties were identified to meet the criteria
delineated in Chapter Three: (a) elementary, secondary, or unified public school district; (b) the
majority of the school board members and the superintendent had participated in CSBA’s MIG
training; and (c) the board members and superintendent had participated in at least three of the
five MIG training modules. The research team applied the purposeful sampling strategy defined
by Patton (2002) for selecting participants. Patton identified purposeful sampling as the study of
information-rich cases for the purpose of yielding in-depth perspectives into a particular
phenomenon of interest rather than empirical generalization. Consequently, 62 superintendents
and 180 board members were surveyed and interviewed (Table 1). Surveys were sent via email
and participants responded to the surveys prior to the interviews. Due to the Coronavirus
pandemic, interviews were held in the virtual setting through the Zoom platform. Pseudonyms
were assigned to protect the anonymity of participants when cited in this chapter.
Table 1
Summary of Participation
Participants
n
%
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses
62
100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses
180
97
Interviews 177 95
54
The survey respondents and interview participants for this portion of the study came from
three school districts in Los Angeles County: District A, District B, and District C. The
superintendents of all three school districts, as well as three board members from each district,
were surveyed and interviewed.
District A
District A consists of 15 schools: nine elementary schools, three middle schools, and two
high schools, and one continuation school, serving a total of 13,789 students. The student
population in District A is as follows: 59.2% Asian, 23% Hispanic, 6.1% White, 5.8% Filipino,
3.8% two or more races, 1.6% African American, <1% other. District A exceeds CAASPP
standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics. Further demographic information is listed
in Table 2.
Table 2
Demographics of the School Districts
Demographic District A District B District C
Special Education 7.7% 11.7% 8.7%
Low Socioeconomic 20.9% 48.0% 63.0%
English Learners 12.3% 3.4% 24.4%
Foster 0.2% 0.0% 0.4%
55
The Superintendent for District A has served as superintendent for 8 years. Working in
education for the past 28 years, Superintendent A has served as a teacher, principal, and district
administrator. He received his doctorate from a southern California university and has attended
MIG training twice with his board members.
School Board Member A1 was first elected as board member in 1994 and has served in
the following positions as a board member: member, clerk, vice president, and president. Board
member A1’s term is set to expire in 2022.
School Board Member A2 has served on the board since 2012 and is an alumnus of a
high school in District A. School Board Member A2 is self-employed, previously served on the
city council, and is a resident of the city. The member’s current term is set to expire in 2020.
School Board member A3 has been reelected as a board member several times. Serving
on the board since 2002 and a former educator for 25 years, Board Member A3 hopes to continue
his service following the election this fall.
District B
District B consists of one TK–8 elementary school serving 179 students. The student
population in District B is as follows: 65.4% White, 30.2% Hispanic, 1.7% African American,
1.1% two or more races, >2% other. District B meets CAASPP standards in English Language
Arts and nearly meets the standards in Mathematics. Further demographic information is listed in
Table 2.
Superintendent B has worked in education for more than 30 years in seven districts. Both
as a teacher and site administrator, she has worked only in the elementary setting. She received a
Master’ degree from a southern California university and has been the superintendent in District
B since 2014.
56
School Board Member B1 has served on the board since 2016. A current resident in
District B, Board Member B is a business owner in the community and has grandchildren
attending the school in District B.
School Board Member B2 has been a school board member for more than 9 years. He
was an educator for 18 years and has been retired for several years. His term is set to expire in
2022.
School Board Member B3 has been a lifelong resident of the city of District C and
attended school there. Board Member B3 grew up in a family of educators and currently works
as a paralegal in the county.
District C
District C consists of 18 schools: 13 TK–8 elementary schools, three high schools, one
continuation school, and one alternative school, serving a total of 16,278 students. The student
population is as follows: 50% Asian, 41.2% Hispanic, 2.8% two or more races, 2.3% Filipino,
2.1, >1% other. District C meets CAASPP standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics.
Further demographic information is listed in Table 2.
Superintendent C was previously an Assistant Superintendent in the same school district.
She has worked in education for nearly 33 years and has served as both a teacher and an
administrator in both secondary and elementary schools. She received a doctorate from a
southern California university and has been Superintendent since 2016.
School Board Member C1 was involved in the school district prior to his school board
service through participation on the district’s oversight committee and as a parent. He has served
on the governance team since 2008 and is up for reelection in November 2020.
57
School Board Member C2 has served on the board since 1998 and has served in every
position: member, clerk, vice-president, president (current). Along with serving on the school
board, he has been the Neighborhood Council chair. His term is set to expire in 2022.
School Board member C3 is a lifelong resident of District C and is an alumnus of a high
school in District C. A former educator in District C, he has also served on the City Council. His
term is set to expire in November, 2020.
Data and Analysis
In an effort to address the study’s three research questions, data were collected via two
research instruments: surveys and interviews. The interview protocols are shown in Appendices
B and C and the survey protocols are shown in Appendices D and E. Three web-based
application services were utilized by the team members to assist in analysis of the data. Rev
software was used to transcribe the interviews, Atlas.ti was used for the coding and tabulation of
the interview data; and Qualtrics™ survey software was used for collection and statistical
analysis of the survey data. The following sections report the common findings and emerging
themes related to each research question.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What factors impact the decision of school board members to
participate in the MIG training program? This question was intended to determine why some
school board members elected to participate in the MIG training while others did not. CSBA
(2007) posited that school board governance and leading change requires skills and knowledge
that can be acquired only through formalized training, networking, and professional learning.
The MIG training was designed to provide board members with understanding of their job
responsibilities and effective governance. After data were collected through surveys, interviews,
58
and the literature review, three major themes emerged related to why the participant school board
members had participated in the MIG training.
Theme 1: Culture of the District
CSBA (2017) proposed that the culture of a school district is directly related to the
success of improvement initiatives. Bolman and Deal (2013) suggested that the culture of a
district (e.g., habits, actions, group experiences) influences leaders as they work in the symbolic
frame. Superintendents and school board members in this study attributed a large portion of their
external motivation to the culture of the organization. School Board Member A2 declared, “I am
a senior school board member and I encourage all of our board members to take it [MIG
training] because I think they need to understand how the school district works.” Superintendent
C commented,
The key word for me is governance team. And when you’re leading a team and the focus
is governance, everyone has to go through that shared training and understanding of what
that role is. This is why I encourage all my board members to attend.
Analysis of the survey data confirmed this position. All superintendents responded
Strongly Agree/Agree that they would recommend attending MIG training to their governing
board and noted that their school board members encouraged other board members to attend.
When board members were asked the same questions, 97% Strongly Agreed/Agreed that they
would recommend attending MIG training to a governance team and 93% responded Strongly
Agree/Agree that their board encouraged board members to attend MIG training.
To understand how culture influences school board members to attend MIG training,
school board members were asked in the survey to identify the primary factors that influenced
school board member participation in the MIG training. The responses indicated three significant
59
influencing factors: (a) self-motivation, (b) increasing effective governance, and (c) school board
expectation (Table 3). Self-motivation (i.e., an intrinsic stimulus to attend or complete school
board training) was the primary influential factor, followed by effective governance (i.e., best
practices of highly effective governance teams) and school board expectation (i.e., the school
board’s belief or anticipation that members would participate in or complete the training in order
to build their capacity to perform their duties). Similarly, the superintendents’ top three
responses to this question were (a) self-motivation, (b) encouragement by their board members,
and (c) school board expectations. Five of the six top reasons school board members and
superintendents attend MIG training are directly related to the culture of the district.
Table 3
Primary Factors That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in Masters in
Governance Training
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f f
School board expectation 33 84
Self-motivation 37 133
Encouraged by board members 35 71
Increasing student achievement 9 53
Increasing effective government 31 128
Unable to determine 0 0
Other 3 10
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
60
Superintendent A endorsed this position:
When I began as superintendent in District A, four of my five board members had already
been trained in MIG and the fifth had just started. It was just part of the culture here. It is
expected as a new board member that you will attend MIG training.
School Board Member C2 also supported this finding: “When I first became a board member, I
did not know anything about how a district was run, so I wanted to attend. I wanted to
understand what the other board members were talking about.”
When asked whether MIG training should be mandated in California, 24% of the school
board members and 12% of the superintendents responded Strongly Disagree/Disagree. This
researcher’s results supported these overall data, with two of the three superintendents
responding that they would not support a mandate for MIG training in California. Superintendent
A said,
When people have the want and the need to get better at what they’re doing, then they’re
going to be more receptive to the training versus you have to do this. Culture trumps
structure (such as mandating MIG training), and to mandate something does not get the
same results.
Superintendent B offered a similar view:
I think that the buy-in, and the interest, and the passion for gaining the information, and
then learning more about what they’re involved in has a bigger impact than a mandate
would have. Also, with mandates, we get mandates all the time, but often we don’t get
funding for mandates, so that becomes another issue. If they mandate something, then
California should also supply the funding source for it.
61
While the research was clear that the culture of a district influenced school board
members to attend MIG training, many school board members and superintendents were not in
favor of mandating the training. The intrinsic desire to learn about the role of school board
members was critical to board members in their motivation to attend MIG training.
Theme 2: Building Capacity and Professional Growth
Districts with school board members who prided themselves on learning and who were
eager to acquire new information such as MIG training tended to experience higher levels of
student achievement (Maricle, 2014). CSBA’s MIG training was by and large seen in this study
as an effective training program for board members. As shown in Table 4, 70% of school board
members surveyed listed increasing governance effectiveness as a primary factor in attending the
MIG training. The researcher’s individual results supported this finding, with 100% of the board
members listing increasing effective governance as the primary reason for attending. School
Board Member A1 agreed: “A critical element to being an effective board member is
understanding their responsibilities, and learning about different aspects of a school district: from
talking about governance, to understanding finance, and learning about the Brown Act.” Equally,
School Board member C1 stated, “MIG training, created a foundation of skills for us to build
from.” The survey data supported this finding. When school board members were asked to rank
the five MIG modules in order of importance to their role as a member of the governance team,
the clear response was the module Foundation of Governance. CSBA (2019) defined its
Foundation of Governance module as a focus on trusteeship (roles and responsibilities), effective
governance, and vision setting (Table 4).
62
Table 4
School Board Members’ Rankings of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in Order of
Importance to Their Role as a Member of the Governance Team (N = 180)
Ranking
Module #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Foundation in Governance 119 34 9 10 8
Policy and Judicial Review 21 63 48 27 21
School Finance 30 56 57 26 11
Human Resources 2 10 33 67 67
Community Relations 8 17 33 50 72
The Lighthouse Study (Rice et al., 2000) suggested that successful school governance
teams learn together and build the capacity of the group, making school board training a
necessity for effective governance. This assertion was supported by School Board Member B2.
“It [MIG training] gives you a clear direction as a board member, can make your district
successful, and provides an understanding of how it (governance) works because coming in you
have no clue.” School Board Member C3 also affirmed this: “MIG is where you can receive
training so you can understand how to effectively govern.”
CSBA (2007) contended that school board members and superintendents should
participate in professional development and commit necessary time and energy to be informed
and effective leaders. An analysis of survey results from superintendents supported this, with
92% agreeing that they should attend the MIG training with their school board members. The
superintendent from District B affirmed this point:
63
I think it’s important for a superintendent to lead their board and to build a sense of team
with the board, to set clear expectations for the role of the superintendent versus the role
of the board members, and delineate what the responsibilities would be moving forward
in the organization.
The Superintendent from District C stated that attending MIG training allowed board
members and superintendents to be more accepting of the guidance and professional
development when the guidance came from a third party such as MIG.
I think it’s a great way to kind of broach a conversation without anybody getting
defensive or without people wondering why he or she is saying this to us. What are we
doing wrong? I just think it’s a good thing for boards and superintendents to participate in
MIG so that they have that common vision, then you can go back and build upon your
own organization.
The commitment and follow-through by superintendents and school board members to
attend MIG governance training served to support building the capacity of the district
governance team. Board members and superintendents alike supported this position.
Theme 3: Expenditures and Access to the MIG Training
Access is described as time scheduling, training location, and direct and indirect
monetary costs. Participants were asked in the survey whether the cost of the MIG training
program impeded school board members from participating; 42% of the board members and
23% of the superintendents responded Strongly Agree/Agree. Although these data did not
represented the majority of participants, seven of the nine board members and two of the three
superintendents who were interviewed by this researcher discussed how costs and accessibility to
64
MIG training influenced whether a board member attends MIG training. Board Member B1
provided context:
I think that there can be a way to deliver MIG at a cost-effective rate for districts if you
want. I think more online training would be beneficial or more local trainings because
when you talk about the travel, the airfare, the hotel, the food and stuff, like I said, when
you want to save money, this needs to be considered.
In the same vein, Superintendent C stated the following:
Definitely, the cost of that training would be one of the obstacles for board members
attending, and I won’t be surprised if a lot of smaller school districts, like ours, who want
to send a member to go out and do the training, but elect not to because of the cost factor.
This position was reflected in responses to the survey question that asked what platform
of the MIG training program would increase the chances of participation; 73% of the
superintendents and 69% of the board members listed holding the MIG training locally would
increase participation. Superintendents A and C suggested that MIG training would likely
increase if there were more flexibility in scheduling for board members and superintendents,
costs were reduced, and multiple local training opportunities were offered throughout the year.
When asked whether MIG training should be offered online, the majority of
superintendents and school board members did not advocate that move (Table 5). The common
response when questioned about moving MIG training online was that learning with one’s board,
in person, and having interaction with others during the training were as important as the actual
training content. Superintendent A supported this position:
I am not a fan of moving MIG online. The experience of going to a training with your
board and participation in the training with them is important. You are “leading the
65
learning.” Then when you come back from the training, not only do you have a similar
language to go by, but you have stories to tell; this contributes to the culture of your
governance team.
Several school board members also suggested that they would not attend online training because
it would not appeal to them to participate in an online class for hours.
Table 5
Responses to the Survey Item “What Platform(s) of the Masters in Governance Training
Program Would Increase the Chances of Participation?”
Response Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Online 14 54
Hybrid 29 105
Locally hosted 45 125
Other 2 4
Note. Some participants contributed mor than one answer.
66
Because of the current COVID pandemic, the majority of K–12 public schools in
California and all colleges and universities were required to move instruction to online learning.
Although MIG courses were not currently being offered during the pandemic, considering the
data that the research cohort received, it would be interesting to see whether CSBA would begin
to offer training modules online,
Summary
Collectively, the data from the surveys and interviews indicated that the culture of a
district had a strong impact on why superintendents and school board members attended MIG
training. Clearly, both groups valued the training, although the costs, location, and in-person
versus online modes could have an impact on their likelihood of attending.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, How does the MIG training program encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance? The objective of
this question was to determine whether MIG training provided school board members with the
tools and strategies to govern effectively. CSBA (2007) defined the school board’s primary role
as to establish and maintain the basic organizational structure for the school system, including
employment of a superintendent, adoption of governance policies, and creation of a climate that
promotes excellence. New board members had little to no experience or training with regard to
how to govern a school district effectively. CSBA (2007) and the Lighthouse Study (Rice et al.,
2000) suggested that training programs clearly defined roles and responsibilities for school board
members, built board-superintendent leadership team relationships, and enhanced content
knowledge of school finance, collective bargaining agreement, policy, human resources, and
governance.
67
Two themes emerged from the analysis of data related to this research question collected
via surveys and interviews with superintendents and school board members. The first theme was
that MIG training positively influenced school board members’ understanding of their roles and
responsibilities. The second theme was that MIG training provided an awareness of the
importance of effective governance and developing goals.
Theme 1: Understanding Roles and Responsibilities
Bolman and Deal (2013) recommended that organizations function through the
structural frame focus on the architecture of the organization and the design of units,
subunits, rules and roles, and goals and policies that promote a positive working
environment. CSBA (2007) suggested that unclear roles and responsibilities within the
school governance structure encouraged behaviors that were characteristic of ineffective
school governance. MIG’s course modules specifically addressed the structural frame to
inform school board members and superintendents of their roles and responsibilities. In
survey responses, the majority of superintendents and school board members Strongly
Agreed/Agreed that MIG training helped board members to distinguish differences between a
board member’s roles and responsibilities and those of the superintendent (Table 6).
68
Table 6
Reponses to the Survey Item, “School Board Members Who Are Masters in Governance Trained
Exhibit a Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and Responsibilities and
Those of the Superintendent”
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 1 2
Superintendent A agreed with these responses:
The real huge benefit of going through the Masters of Governance is that it clearly
defines the role and responsibility of the board member and the superintendent, where
they overlap, where the board starts to micromanage the superintendent, and where the
superintendent starts to micromanage the board.
Superintendent C stated, “Attending MIG is a great way to have new board members get caught
up with the role and responsibilities of a board member and philosophically learn how to behave
like a board member.” School Board Member A2 expressed the following:
What are expectations as a board member? What are the expectations of the
superintendent and his cabinet and staff? And so, the real huge benefit of going through
the Master of Governance, is that it clearly defines the role and responsibility of the board
member and the superintendent. So, it gives you a clear direction as to how you, as a
board member, can make your district successful and understand how it works.
69
School Board Member A2 stated, “MIG training answers these questions: What is it that are
expectations of a board member? What are the expectations of a superintendent and his cabinet
and staff, and what is my role in all this?” In summary, school board members expressed the
same sentiment as the superintendents (Table 7).
Table 7
School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item “The Masters in Governance Training
Clarified the Differences Between My Roles and Responsibilities as a School Board Member and
Those of the Superintendent”
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 117 65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly Disagree 1 1
70
A component of school board members’ understanding of the roles and responsibilities is
understanding the differences in policy, leadership, and management. School boards are
responsible to create and maintain structures that drive the district vision and empower district
employees. CSBA (2007) posited that highly effective boards are responsible for (a) setting the
direction of the school district, (b) establishing an effective and efficient structure for the district,
(c) providing support for the superintendent and personnel, (d) ensuring accountability to the
public, and (e) providing community leadership. All of these are under the umbrella of policy,
leadership, or management. Through two of the MIG training modules, Foundation in
Governance and Policy and Judicial Review, attendees were led to realize their roles in
developing policies, as district leaders, and their roles in management.
Table 8 shows that superintendents and school board members agreed that MIG training
helped school board members to differentiate among policy, leadership and management.
Table 8
Responses to the Survey Item “The Masters in Governance Training Helps School Board
Members to Differentiate Among Policy, Leadership, and Management”
Superintendents Board Members
(N = 62) (N =180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly disagree 26 42 100 56
Agree 35 56 75 41
Disagree 1 2 5 3
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0
71
School Board Member B2 affirmed this:
I think MIG really goes back to teaching roles and responsibilities and understanding the
importance of things like policy development, sharing data, goal setting for a district, and
informing your board about student issues around student achievement.
Superintendent B said, “MIG allowed board members to better understand their roles in regards
to how they can be an effective district leader as well as develop meaningful policy.”
The ability of board members to understand their roles and responsibilities is critical to
the effectiveness of the governance team. Board members must understand where their role
begins and ends to ensure that they do not try to micromanage the superintendent and his staff.
Theme 2: Effective Governance
With increased accountability for student achievement and scrutiny placed on educators
when student achievement goals are not met, it has become increasingly imperative that school
board members govern effectively. An examination of the school board and superintendent
survey and interview data revealed that MIG training positively affected their ability to govern.
As part of effective governance, the Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000) identified seven
conditions that effective governance boards operate under: (a) emphasis on building a human
organizational system, (b) ability to create and sustain initiatives, (c) supportive workplace for
staff, (d) staff development, (e) support for school sites through data and information, (f)
community involvement, and (g) integrated leadership. The survey and interview results
supported this framework. School board members addressed the majority of these conditions
when they Strongly Agreed/Agreed that, as a result of the MIG training, they (a) demonstrated an
increased focus on student achievement; (b) understood the importance of aligning the decision-
making process to the district’s vision and goals; (c) exhibited a clearer understanding of the
72
differences between their roles and responsibilities and those of the superintendent; (d)
contributed to the effectiveness of school board meetings (Table 9); (e) differentiated between
policy, leadership, and management; (f) increased their ability to govern effectively (Table 10);
(g) and improved school board members’ ability to accept the majority decision, even when they
held the minority view. Moreover, all three superintendents responded Strongly Agree/Agree on
each of these seven questions.
Table 9
Responses to the Survey Item “The Masters in Governance Training Encourages School
Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of Our School Board Meetings”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 30 48 104 58
Agree 30 48 72 40
Disagree 2 3 4 2
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
73
Table 10
Responses to the Survey Item “The Masters in Governance Training Impacts My Ability to
Govern Effectively”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 20 32 72 40
Agree 36 58 82 46
Disagree 6 10 20 11
Strongly Disagree 0 0 6 3
When School Board Member C3 responded to the question “How does MIG training
equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?” he said “So for
me, it was about seeing the bigger picture, working together as a team. . . how do we set the
direction as a whole and then have our superintendent carry that out?”
Bolman and Deal (2013) contended that organizations that operate in complex systems
with political dynamics, scarcity of resources, competing interests, different perspectives, and
struggles for power and advantage are affected by the political frame. The political frame was
affirmed in a statement by School Board Member A2:
It [MIG] has really opened my mind in terms of, now I can wear multiple hats and really
think through the different sides, perspectives, and different lenses. I also understand I
have to explain to others there’s always something behind it, and it’s not as simple as just
seeing things on the surface.
The data shown in Table 11 confirmed this when both superintendents and school board
members were questioned as to whether MIG training impacted their ability to govern
74
effectively. School Board Member B1 said, “MIG gives me my boundaries as a school board
member, and supports my relationship with my superintendent, as well specifically points out
things that I should be doing and asking.”
Table 11
School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item “As a Result of the MIG training, I
Understand the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With the District’s Vision
and Goals”
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 104 58
Agree 62 34
Disagree 13 7
Strongly Disagree 1 1
75
Theme 3: Goal Setting
Professional standards and goals generated from collaborative training create the focus,
behavior, and practices needed to facilitate change (Canal, 2013). CSBA (2007) suggested that,
in higher-performing districts, both the board and superintendent are involved in goal setting and
attending professional development together. Superintendent C agreed, “MIG provided board
members an understanding of what their role is in terms of shaping vision and direction for the
district, and developing goals, and I think it can be really powerful.” School Board Member C2
also supported this:
After attending MIG training, I clearly understood how important it was to develop goals
together with your governance team. I realized it was not about one person creating the
goals but about the rich discussions with your team about student achievement in order to
develop the appropriate realistic goals.
Tables 11 and 12 show that the majority of school board members and superintendents
responded Strongly Agree/Agree to the survey item that attending MIG training increased their
understanding of the importance of aligning the decision-making process with the district’s
vision and goals.
76
Table 12
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item “School Board Members Who Are Masters in
Governance Trained Understand the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process to the
District’s Vision and Goals
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 31 50
Agree 30 48
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 0 0
Thomas (2001) suggested, when school boards lack clarity regarding roles and
expectations and lack a laser focus on the goals of the district, board members seek to attain their
own goals rather than those of the entire board. It is with this understanding that school board
members were surveyed to determine whether attending MIG training affected their ability to
support the views of others even when they had the opposing view. Table 13 shows that the
majority of board members suggested that MIG training influenced their ability to accept the
majority decision even if they held the minority view.
77
Table 13
School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item “As a Result of the Masters in
Governance Training, My Ability to Constructively Accept the Majority Decision, Even If I Hold
the Minority View, Has Improved”
Response category
f (N = 180)
%
Strongly Agree 78 43
Agree 75 42
Disagree 26 14
Strongly disagree 1 1
Superintendent B affirmed this finding:
In order for a governance team to effectively govern, each board member must be able to
support the goals of a district once they have been established, even if they are not
entirely in support of them. District goals drive the focus of the district and the allocation
of resources and it is important the governance team collectively develops them.
School Board Member C1 stated, “I thought when I came in [as a board member], I was going to
change the world; but after I attended MIG training, I understood it is the goals of the whole
board that guide the district, not of one individual.”
Goals are critical to the growth of an organization and it is vital that they are clearly
articulated and foster commitment. When governance teams develop goals and dedicate
resources and funding collectively, districts are more likely to achieve those goals.
78
Summary
The survey and interview responses confirmed that MIG training encouraged and
equipped school board members to exhibit behaviors of effective governance. A central theme
that emerged from the data was the importance of school board members and superintendents
having a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities, a precursor for effective
governance. Attending MIG training provides a deeper understanding of the practices of highly
effective governing boards and emphasizes the importance of developing goals as a governance
team.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth? The purpose of this question was to determine whether attending MIG training
improved the perceived impact of the school governance team on student achievement. Waters et
al. (2003) found that student achievement was significantly correlated to the superintendent’s
and school board’s ability to govern effectively. With many school board members having no
experience in education leadership, the importance of school board members’ understanding of
how to improve achievement was a critical component to the effectiveness of CSBA’s MIG
training.
Upon reviewing the interview and survey data, three themes emerged. The first theme
was that MIG training promotes a focus on student achievement. The second theme was that
MIG training reinforces promoting equity and access to school programs. The third theme was
that allocation of resources affects student achievement.
79
Theme 1: MIG Training Promotes a Focus on Student Achievement
The Lighthouse Study (Rice et al., 2000) revealed that “school boards in high-achieving
districts are significantly different in their knowledge and beliefs from school boards in low-
achieving districts” (p. 4). Shober and Hartney (2014) also suggested that boards composed of
more members holding an academic focus are much more likely to govern districts in which
students show better academic achievement per dollar than similar districts. Through the Policy
and Judicial Review MIG module, board members are taught to develop a hyperfocus on
increasing student achievement and allocating resources to support students. Superintendent C
offered,
When we came back from MIG, one of the things that it reminded us of was that our
board meetings should have at least 50% of the time focused on teaching and learning.
When there are boards considering teaching and learning in their conversation, that can
only positively impact students.
Similarly, Superintendent A proposed,
The largest impact from MIG training has been, you should have the majority of the
percentage of your board agenda be on education and student achievement and student
related issues. Our board is constantly reminding us of that. Our board used to be heavy
on the logistics, and the management, and the procedures and not nearly as much
anymore.
Superintendent B declared, “An effective school board will, without question, impact student
achievement.” The superintendents’ survey responses clearly reflected this as well (Table 14).
80
Table 14
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item “School Board Members Who Have Earned
Masters in Governance Certification Demonstrate an Increased Focus on Student Achievement”
Response category
f (N = 62)
%
Strongly agree
14
23
Agree 44 71
Disagree 4 6
Strongly disagree 0 0
Rice et al. (2000) reported that higher-performing districts articulated a clear vision and
high expectations; were knowledgeable about classroom practices, improvement initiatives,
district goals; and contributed to improved student achievement. School Board Member C3
concurred. “I think it helps us to understand how important it is that we understand how
curriculum works and how programs work. This will allow us to better understand student
learning and achievement.” Board member A3 conceded, “Now, when you talk about the
achievement gap, I know exactly what that’s about.” Table 15 shows the impact of MIG training
on increasing the focus of board members on student achievement.
81
Table 15
School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item “As a Result of the MIG Training, My
Focus is on Achievement?”
Response category
f (N = 180)
%
Strongly agree
49
27.2
Agree 91 50.6
Disagree 39 21.7
Strongly disagree 1 0.6
The primary goal of public education is to ensure that all students achieve academic
success. The data indicated that the majority of superintendents and school board members
agreed that attending MIG training had affected student achievement (Table 16).
82
Table 16
Responses to the Survey Item “Attending Masters in Governance Training Has Positively
Impacted Student Achievement in My District”
Superintendents Board Members
(N = 62) (N =180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly disagree 8 13 39 22
Agree 46 74 89 49
Disagree 8 13 50 28
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 1
Theme 2: Promotes Equity and Access
When a board prioritizes increasing student achievement and develops a vision around
this goal, the board’s effectiveness in improving student achievement is increased (CSBA, 2007).
CSBA (2007) submitted that highly effective school boards keep learning and that
achievement is the primary focus. In a time when a student’s success in K–12 education will
determine future employment opportunities, economic earnings, and even life expectancies
(Mattos et al., 2016), it is imperative for board members to understand that school programs
should maintain equity and be accessible to all students. School Board Member C2 credited MIG
training with providing an understanding of the terms equity and access in education:
After attending MIG, I understood what equity and access meant. From open enrollment
for AP classes or honors, to how we place students in special education. It changed the
way we look at our kids: looking at who was being expelled, pushing for ethnic studies in
our schools, and also looking at inequities.
83
School Board Member A3 asserted that
after attending the MIG training, I began looking at how accessible our programs were. I
looked at it from that perspective of how we offer our AP classes. Now we have open
enrollment instead of requiring a score from an assessment. We also now have extended
daycare for kindergarten, and we now focus more on how we support our parents.
The Lighthouse study (Rice et al., 2000) confirmed that school board members in higher-
performing districts use data to identify the needs of students and to improve student
achievement by all students. Data-based decision making was a key component to ensuring
school programs maintained equity in their programs. The survey data from both superintendents
and school board members in this study confirmed that MIG training encouraged the use of data
in decision making to support student achievement (Table 17).
Table 17
Responses to the Survey Item “As a Result of the Masters in Governance Training, I Encourage
Governance Team Members to Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions Regarding
Student Achievement”
Superintendents Board Members
(N = 62) (N =180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly disagree 31 50 69 38
Agree 28 45 88 49
Disagree 3 5 21 12
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 1
84
Theme 3: Allocation of Resources
In order for a school district to continue to progress and improve student achievement,
superintendents and school board members must establish congruent alignment in decision
making and must not detract attention, funding, or resources from the nonnegotiable goal of
increasing student achievement (Peterson & Short, 2001). CSBA (2007) contended that
effective superintendents continually monitor goals for student achievement to ensure that
these goals remain the primary drive behind the school district’s efforts and distribution of
resources. School Board Member B2 declared, “After attending MIG training, I had a much
better understanding of how school budgets worked and how the primary purpose behind
funding (after salary allocation) should be to support student achievement.” Board Member A1
said, “What I learned about most from MIG training was how funding was allocated in a
district and budgets were maintained. This helped me to understand how the different funding
could be distributed in order to best support student achievement.” Superintendent A shared in
detail why he thought the School Finance MIG module was critical toward governance teams
understanding their role in increasing student achievement:
The majority of school board members do not have any understanding of how monies are
allocated and why. From understanding the LCAP, LCFF, as well as restrictive and
nonrestrictive funding, it is important board members have an understanding of how all
this works. Once they learn this, they then understand why certain monies can only go
toward supporting unduplicated students or special education students, etc. This also
helps them understand the limited supply of monies districts have and the importance of
allocating the majority of funding toward student achievement must be a priority. Until
85
they understand this though, they tend to think all money can be used for whatever they
deem as necessary.
School Board Member A2 may have summarized this best: “I constantly remember that I
am there for the kids, and that my first and foremost responsibility is to the kids. Every decision I
make in terms of allocation of resources is to support students and student achievement.”
The data clearly indicated that MIG training positively influences the focus of school
board training on student achievement, promotes equity and access for students, and supports
board members’ understanding of how funding supports student achievement.
Summary of Findings
Based on analysis of the theoretical frameworks, the survey responses, and the interview
data to triangulate the results, seven themes were identified.
Research Question 1
For Research Question 1, three themes emerged. The first theme was that the culture of a
district influences superintendents and school board members to attend MIG training. This was
demonstrated in both the survey and interview data. When school board members were
questioned about the primary reason for attending MIG training, two of the three top responses
were directly related to the culture of the district, self-motivation, and school board expectation.
The second theme related to Research Question 1 was that school board members and
superintendents attended MIG training to build capacity and to realize professional growth. This
was demonstrated when board members listed increasing effective governance as one of their top
reasons for attending MIG training. This was also revealed when the majority of superintendents
and school board members surveyed responded that superintendents should attend MIG training
with their board members in order to build capacity of their governing team.
86
The third theme related to Research Question 1 was that expenditures and access to MIG
training affected board members’ attendance. The majority of superintendents and board
members responded that MIG training attendance would increase if there were more local
training opportunities. They did not agree that offering online MIG training would increase
participation.
Research Question 2
For Research Question 2, three themes emerged. The first theme was that understanding
roles and responsibilities of board members was the primary way MIG training supported board
members to exhibit behaviors of an effective board. Both survey data and interview responses
from school board members and superintendents clearly supported this position. Results also
confirmed that attending MIG training supported school board members in their understating of
the differences in developing policy, effective leadership, and management.
The second theme was that attending MIG training provided attendees clear
understanding of effective governance. This was evident when both school board members and
superintendents responded with Strongly Agree/Agree to all seven survey questions related to
whether MIG training improved their understanding of effective governance.
The third theme was that goal setting was essential to effective governance. Many of the
superintendents and school board members responded that, because of MIG training, they better
understood that collective goal setting was critical to the success of the district in increasing
student achievement.
Research Question 3
For Research Question 3, three themes emerged. The first theme was that MIG training
promoted a focus on student achievement. The majority of school board members and
87
superintendents responded that it was due to attending MIG training that their board had an
increased focus on student achievement and that attending MIG training had had a positive
impact on the perception of student achievement in their district.
The second theme was that MIG training promoted equity in schools and programs and
provided context for increasing access by all students. Because the success of a student in K–12
schooling can have lifelong effects, it is critical that school board members understand how to
reflect on programs to determine whether the programs are equitable and accessible to all
students. Survey data and interview responses clearly indicated that MIG training positively
influenced school board members and superintendents’ understanding of how the use of data
could help in determining whether programs in their schools were equitable and accessible to
students and whether the programs could increase student achievement.
The third theme was that understanding how funding and resources are distributed is
critical to increase student achievement. School board members stated that, after attending MIG
training, they had a better understanding of the restrictions of monies and that, because of this,
the primary focus of allocating resources should be on improving student achievement and
growth.
Chapter Summary
Overall, the results of this study suggest that the culture of a district could influence
whether a school board attends MIG training and that attending MIG training has a positive
influence on governing practices of both superintendents and school board members. Moreover,
the findings indicated that attending MIG training positively influenced the superintendents’ and
school board members’ perceived impact on student achievement.
88
Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The accountability for students’ success in public schools is at an all-time high. As public
confidence in public education continues to decline, elected school board members,
superintendents, and teachers are all under the scrutiny of the public to ensure that schools
continue to improve student achievement. Still modeled after the school board of the 19th
century, requirements to become a school board member are greatly outdated and not sufficient
for effective school governance. Board members are often unqualified, unaware of their roles
and responsibilities, and unable to develop effective goals to guide their board. As federal and
state policies mandate more accountability measures and funding is attached to these measures,
school districts are forced to balance between these expectations and those of their local
constituents and community members. This wide range of issues provides a model with which
local school boards must contend but for which they may not be thoroughly prepared.
Consequently, school board members must understand how to navigate the growing complexities
of the job, along with challenges that have never before been seen.
Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and exerted an impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
89
Summary of the Study
The dissertation was divided into five chapters. The first chapter provided an overview of
the study including the statement of the problem and purpose and the three research questions
that guided the study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
The three research questions were grounded in three theoretical frameworks: Bolman and
Deal’s (2013) Reframing Organizations, The Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice at al., 2000), and CSBA’s
(2007) effective governance guide. Chapter One contained definitions of terms to provide
context and understanding of the study. The chapter also included a discussion of the limitations,
delimitations, and assumptions associated with the study.
Chapter Two presented a comprehensive review of the literature related to the study,
including the history of the school board, modern-day school board roles and responsibilities,
highly effective school board practices, school board member elections, accountability, school
board member and superintendent relationships, leadership, superintendent leadership, school
board training, and MIG training. The chapter identified the three theoretical frameworks that
grounded the study and assisted in analyzing the data collected from the school board members
and superintendents.
Chapter Three described the methodology of the study, including the research design,
participants and sampling, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, and a discussion of
90
issues related to validity, reliability, trustworthiness, and ethics. The focus of the study was on
school board members and superintendents in California who had participated in MIG training.
Although the researcher was the primary instrument in the collection and analysis of the data, the
research team employed a thematic group approach to pool the qualitative data collected through
the use of surveys and interviews.
Chapter Four provided a report of the data collected in the study and an identification of
the emerging themes associated with each research question. Included in the chapter was a
frequency and percentage analysis of survey results, along with an analysis of coded interview
transcriptions and observation notes. The thematic findings were summarized and conclusions
were drawn for each of the study’s three research questions. Chapter Five provides a summary of
the previous chapters and presents implications for current practice and recommendations for
future research.
Discussion of Findings
Nine themes emerged from the data analysis based on triangulation of the three
theoretical frameworks and on the findings from surveys and interviews. This section presents a
summary and discussion of the findings and themes related to the three research questions.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What factors impact the decision of school board members to
participate in the MIG training program? This question addressed the reasons school board
members elected to participate in CSBA’s MIG training. The data indicated that school board
members were motivated externally and internally to attend the MIG training. Three themes were
extracted from the findings: (a) The culture of a district impacts a school board member’s
willingness to attend training, (b) the intrinsic aspiration to grow professionally influenced
91
school board members’ readiness to attend training, and (c) the costs and access to attend
training affected school board members’ ability to attend training. These three themes were
supported by the three frameworks proposed in Chapter Two. Bolman and Deal’s (2013)
framework asserted that effective leaders create positive working cultures. CSBA (2007)
affirmed that the positive climate and culture of a school board encourage school board members
to pursue professional development, and the Lighthouse Study (Rice et al., 2000) posited that
highly effective governing boards have a higher number of board members with a desire to
improve professionally than the lower-performing school boards.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, How does the MIG training program encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance? The aim of this
question was to determine whether MIG training encourages and equips school board members
to exhibit behaviors of effective governance. The findings generated three themes.
The most prevalent data point in the study was that attending MIG training provided
school board members an understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Bolman and Deal
(2013) contended that a school board’s ability to identify roles and responsibilities of a board
member is a key component to becoming a highly effective governing board. The second theme
to emerge for this question was that MIG training provided a deeper understanding of the
practices of effective governing boards. Rice et al. (2000) reported that the governing practices
of higher-performing districts were different from those of underperforming districts. The third
theme related to this question was that goal setting is an essential component of effective
governance. CSBA (2007) reported that higher-performing districts articulated a clear vision,
92
developed district goals to achieve the vision, and maintained a focus on those goals until they
were met.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth? The intent of this question was to determine whether MIG training had a positive
impact on the perception of student achievement in the district. Three distinct themes emerged.
The first theme was that attending MIG training promoted a focus on student
achievement. This was supported by both survey and interview data. Rice et al. (2000) proposed
that attending school board training affects a school board’s effectiveness and the board’s
effectiveness plays a critical role in student achievement.
The second and third themes were that attending MIG training promoted understanding
of how to establish equity and access in schools and programs. CSBA (2007) proposed that
effective governing boards’ understanding of the allocation of resources to promote equity of
programs was critical to the success of all students.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of the study were dictated by the participants of the study. Only those
school boards and superintendents who had participated in CSBA’s MIG training were eligible
to participate, and only 12 counties in California were represented in the study. Also, the study
was limited to CSBA’s MIG training program and responses to the MIG training questions
reflected personal viewpoints based on their recollection of their school board training
experiences.
93
Implications for Practice
Current research indicates that school board training contributes substantially to
successful governance teams and that the ability to implement systemic change requires skills
and knowledge that can be acquired only through formalized training and professional growth
(NSBA, 2015). A goal of this study was to determine whether there was a direct link between
effective school board practice and school board members who had been trained in CSBA’s MIG
training. From this study, three implications for practice were derived.
The first implication for practice is that school board members should participate in
CSBA’s MIG training in order to understand their roles and responsibilities. The majority of
school board members who participated in the study responded that MIG training improved their
understanding of their roles and responsibilities as board members, which is a critical element in
effective governing practices. In contrast, when school boards lack clarity of roles and
expectations and lack a laser focus on goals, conflict among school board members and with the
superintendent ensues (Thomas, 2001).
The second implication for practice is that it would benefit governing boards to set an
expectation for all school board members and superintendents to attend MIG training. Maricle
(2014) posited that districts with school board members who focus on learning and who are
eager to acquire new information such as MIG training tend to experience higher levels of
student achievement. The culture and expectations of a governing board can greatly influence a
school board member’s willingness to attend MIG training and should be addressed by
maintaining high expectations.
The third implication for practice is that MIG training plays a critical role in a governing
board’s focus on student achievement, which can have a positive impact on the district’s ability
94
to increase student achievement. Shober and Hartney (2014) reported that effectively run
governing boards had lower dropout rates, higher percentages of students going to college, and
higher aptitude test scores, compared to districts with poorly run governing boards. Attending
MIG training can have a major influence on a governing board’s focus on student achievement,
which in turn can have a positive impact on student achievement.
Recommendations for Future Research
The data from the study provide compelling results related to school board training and
its impact on school governance. Despite the limitations of this study, the findings provide a
deeper understanding of effective school board practices. Because research in this area is limited
to a few key studies, there are aspects of the study that should be the focus of future research.
The first recommendation for future research is to determine whether making MIG
training more accessible to school board members by offering more local sessions or offering
online sessions increases school board member participation. A key finding from the study was
that an increase in participation would occur if more MIG programs were offered locally to
reduce the cost of attending the training. Although many school board members responded that
they would prefer not to attend MIG training online, this format could be offered at the lowest
price to a school district; research could determine whether this format would increase school
board member participation while maintaining effectiveness.
The second recommendation for future research is to determine whether school board
members who have served on their governing board longer than 10 years attend MIG training for
a second time and whether that second participation influences their governing practices. As
federal and state mandates continue to increase and the focus of public education continues to
evolve, this could be an important data point. Most school board members attend MIG training
95
when they first begin as school board members. It would be important to learn whether attending
MIG training a second time updates and influences governing practices.
The third recommendation for future research is to determine whether mandating training
for all school board members in California would increase effective governing practices.
Although many superintendents responded that they would prefer not to mandate MIG training,
if all school board members in California had a common understanding and language related to
effective governing practices, this study could include data points from the entire state on
whether MIG training improves governance and achievement.
Conclusion
With the impact of student achievement on future success, it is critical that school board
governing teams operate at the highest level and understand how to improve school systems to
support student achievement. The research findings from this study clearly identified that
attending CSBA’s MIG training program increased school board members’ understanding of
their roles and responsibilities and influenced their focus on student achievement. Moreover, the
culture of a district influences a school board member’s willingness to attend training and should
be addressed by the superintendent and board members. Through triangulation of the data, the
findings of this study are insightful and should be acknowledged when determining best
practices of highly effective school boards.
96
References
Agron, P., Berends, V., Ellis, K., & Gonzalez, M. (2010). School wellness policies: Perceptions,
barriers, and needs among school leaders and wellness advocates. Journal of School
Health, 80(11), 527–535. 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00538.x
Alsbury, T. L. (Ed.). (2008a). The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation.
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Alsbury, T. L. (2008b). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 7(2), 202–229. 10.1080/15700760701748428
Bianchi, A. B. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast, 1(3), 1–4.
https://www.nyssba.org/news/2003/10/01/forecast/school-board-training-mandatory-vs.-
voluntary/
Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). The school district superintendent
in the United States of America. http://ecommons.udayton.edu/eda_fac+pub/13
Blumberg, A., & Blumberg, P. (1985). The school superintendent: Living with conflict.
Columbia University, Teachers College.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(6th ed.). Wiley.
Brenner, C. T., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school boards:
Linking local governance with student academic success.
http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=iped_techrep
97
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. (2020). California testing
overview. http://www.caaspp.org/administration/about/testing/index.html
California Department of Education. (2020a). Local Control Accountability Plan.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
California Department of Education. (2020b). Local Control Funding Formula.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards.
https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/chBrdLeadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2017). The school board role in creating the conditions
for student achievement.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/~/media/CSBA/Files/Governance
Resources/Reports/201705BoardResearchReport.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2018). Masters in Governance: Governance education
for school board members and superintendents.
https://www.csba.org/en/TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance
California School Boards Association. (2019). Effective governance: Resources, training and
support. https://www.csba.org/en/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 391–395.
Canal, S. A. (2013). California school boards: Professional development and the Master’s in
Governance training (Publication No. 3563807) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
98
Center for Public Education. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards: Full report.
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-education/Eight-
characteristics-of-effective-school-boards/Eight-characteristics-of-effective-school-board
s.html
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative. Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Dahlkemper, L. (2005). Making the grade: School board members navigate education
challenges. SEDL Letter, 17(2). http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v17n02/school-
board.html
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring the local
school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 67–73.
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(1), 53–59.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted, a national teacher supply policy for
education: The right way to meet the “highly qualified teacher” challenge. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v11n33.2003
Delagardelle, M. L. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board leader-
ship in the improvement of student achievement. In T. L. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of
school board governance: Relevance and revelation (pp. 191–223). Rowman &
Littlefield Education.
99
Education Writers Association. (2003). Effective superintendents, effective boards: Finding the
right fit (ED526911). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED526911.pdf
Ehrensal, P. A., & First, P. F. (2008). Understanding school board politics: Balancing public
voice and professional power. In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds.),
Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 87–102). Routledge.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., & Foleno, T. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the game:
Superintendents and principals talk about school leadership. Public Agenda.
Fleming, N. (2013). Districts abandoning at-large school board elections.
https://www.f3law.com/downloads/schoolboard2.pdf
Ford, M. R., & Ihrke, D. M. (2016). Do school board governance best practices improve district
performance? Testing the key work of school boards in Wisconsin. International Journal
of Public Administration, 39(2), 87–94.
Fraga, L., Krimm, D., Neiman, M., & Reyes, B. (2010). Examining Latino representation on
California’s school boards: Their impact on perceptions about district problems,
priorities and policies. Public Policy Institute of California.
Fusarelli, B. C. (2006). School board and superintendent relations: Issues of continuity, conflict,
and community. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9(1), 44–57.
Gemberling, K. W., Smith, C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key work of school boards
guidebook. National School Boards Association.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson Education.
100
Gomez, M. (2013). Impact of the Master’s in Governance training program on effective school
board leadership and governance [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of
Southern California.
Goodman, R. H., & Zimmerman, W. G., Jr. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for
21
st
-century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for high
student achievement. Education Research Service and New England School Development
Council.
Grissom, J. A. (2007). Who sits on school boards in California? Institute for Research on
Education Policy & Practice.
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of
district governance. National School Boards Association.
Hess, F. M., & Meeks, O. (2010). School boards circa 2010: Governance in the accountability
era. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., Campbell, C., McElroy, M., & Munoz-Colon, I. (2002). Big city
school boards: problems and options. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/pub_crpe_bigcity_doc02_0.pdf
Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, T. (2014). School and system
improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 25(2), 257–281. 10.1080/09243453.2014.885452
Johnson, S. (2011). Turning schools around. Principal Leadership 11(5), 40–43.
Kirst, M. W. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5),
378–381.
101
Kirst, M. W. (2008). The evolving role of school boards: Retrospect and prospect. In T. L.
Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 37–
60). Rowman & Littlefield.
Kirst, M. W., & Wirt, F. M. (2009). The political dynamics of American education (4th ed.).
McCutchan.
Klein, A. (2019, April 3). States, districts tackle the tough work of making ESSA a reality.
http://edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/04/03/states-districts-tackle-the-tough-work-
of.html?platform=hootsuite
Korelich, K., & Maxwell, G. (2015). The board of trustees’ professional development and effects
on student achievement. Research in Higher Education Journal, 27, 1–15.
Kowalski, T., McCord, R., Petersen, G., Young, I., & Ellerson, N. (2011). The American school
superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Lake, R. J., & Hill, P. T. (2009). Performance management in portfolio school districts: A report
from the Doing School Choice Right Project and the National Charter School Research
Project. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229–278.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543072002229
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27–42.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543072002229
102
Maricle, C. (2014). Governing to achieve: A synthesis of research on school governance to
support student achievement. California School Boards Association.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/~/media/CSBA/Files/Governance
Resources/GovernanceBriefs/201408GoverningToAchieve.ashx
Mattos, M. W., DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. W. (2016). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Solution Tree Australia Pty
Limited.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
McAdams, D. R. (2003). Training your board to lead. School Administrator, 60(10), 7.
McGuinn, P. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy,
1965–2005. University Press of Kansas.
Means, B., Padilla, C., DeBarger, A., & Bakia, M. (2009). Implementing data-informed decision
making in schools: Teacher access, supports and use. U.S. Department of Education.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
Morehouse, W. R. (2001). Training for my board colleagues? You bet. School
Administrator, 58(2), 68–70.
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school
board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 704–
741. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X04268843
103
Muhammad, A. (2018). Transforming school culture: How to overcome staff division (2nd ed.).
Solution Tree Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Number of public school districts and public
and private elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2015-
16. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_214.10.asp
National School Boards Association. (2015). The key work of school boards guidebook (2nd ed.).
https://tsba.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Key-Work-Cover-and-Text-20Jan15.pdf
National School Boards Association. (2019). About. https://www.nsba.org/About
Neff, T., & Citrin, J. (2005). You’re in charge—Now what? Crown Business.
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Sage.
Pardini, P., & Lewis, A. C. (2003). Effective superintendents, effective boards finding the right
fit. Education Writers Association.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Peterson, G. J., & Short, P. M. (2001). School board presidents and district superintendent
relationships: Applying the lens of social influence. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 37(4), 533–570.
Petronis, J., Hall, R. F., & Pierson, M. E. (1996). Mandatory school board training: An idea
whose time has come? https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED400625.pdf
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and tomorrow’s
promise (ED433611). Education Commission of the States Distribution Center. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED433611.pdf
104
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Bruce, J., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2000, April 10–14). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/
superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student
achievement (ED453172). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. ERIC https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED453172.pdf
Richter, L. A. (2013). The impact of the Masters in Governance training program on California
school board governance (Publication No. 3563990) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management,
25(7), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/095135411111.7210
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Doubleday.
Shober, A. F., & Hartney, M. T. (2014). Does school board leadership matter? Thomas B.
Fordham Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560010.pdf
Simon, M., & Goes, J. (2013). Transcribing interview data. http://www.dissertationrecipes
.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Transcribing-interview-data.pdf
Stecher, B. M., Kirby, S. N., Barney, H., Pearson, M. L., & Chow, M. (2004). Organizational
improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors. RAND.
Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining
school improvement. Harvard Education Press.
105
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The quest to
define effective leadership (ED460219). U.S. Department of Education, Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED460219.pdf
Thurlow Brenner, C., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. IPED Technical
Reports (Paper 15).
Timar, T. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Peabody
Journal of Education, 78(4), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7804_09
Wallace Foundation. (2003). Effective superintendents, effective boards: Finding the right fit.
https://www.ewa.org/reporter-guide/effective-superintendents-effective-boards
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for
Education and Learning. http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-
prep/ASC/4005RR_superintendent_ Leadership.pdf
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement: A working paper.
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days. Harvard Business School Press.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308330970
106
Weiss, G., Templeton, N., Thompson, R., & Tremont, J. W. (2014). Superintendent and school
board relations: Impacting achievement through collaborative understanding of roles and
responsibilities. School Leadership Review, 9(2), Article 4.
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol9/iss2/4?utm_source=scholarworks.sfasu.edu%2Fslr
%2Fvol9%2Fiss2%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan.
107
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
108
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
109
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
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
110
❏ 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
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
❏ Strongly Agree
111
governance team members to use data
consistently to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
❏ 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
112
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
8
School board members who are MIG certified
actively engage the community and utilize a
variety of communication methods (email, town
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
113
hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ 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
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
❏ Strongly Agree
114
governance team members to use data consistently
to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement.
❏ 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
115
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?
116
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?
117
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: _______________________________________________________________________
118
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
Rapidly changing global demands on the education system require school board members to be knowledgeable about the role of their leadership in the complexities of informed decision making that influences the quality of public education. This qualitative study examined the impact of the California School Board Association (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training program on school board members’ governing practices, what attitudes and behaviors support school board members to attend MIG training, and whether attending MIG training has a perceived impact on student achievement. Data from surveys and interviews were triangulated with three theoretical frameworks: The CSBA professional governance standards, Bolman and Deal’s framework for leadership and management, and the Lighthouse Inquiry by the Iowa Association of School Boards. The findings indicated that MIG training clearly identified school board members’ roles and responsibilities, influenced their governing practices, and improved their focus on student achievement. The culture of a district should be considered when determining why school board members attend MIG training. The participant pool in this study was restricted to 12 California counties in which the majority of a district’s school board members and the district superintendent had participated in MIG training. This study highlights the importance of school board members attending school board training to build capacity and understand characteristics of effective governance.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
School board governance training and student achievement
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
PDF
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
PDF
Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
PDF
K−12 school board training in California
PDF
Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness
Asset Metadata
Creator
Rose, Devon Lee
(author)
Core Title
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/15/2021
Defense Date
01/29/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,school board training
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael (
committee chair
)
Creator Email
devonros@usc.edu,devonrose51@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-443310
Unique identifier
UC11668638
Identifier
etd-RoseDevonL-9387.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-443310 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RoseDevonL-9387.pdf
Dmrecord
443310
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Rose, Devon Lee
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
school board training