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 governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
(USC Thesis Other)
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
School Board Governance Training and Its Impact on School Board Efficacy
by
Linda Kay de la Torre
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 Linda de la Torre 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Linda de la Torre certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Rudy Castruita
Alexander Cherniss
Gregory Franklin
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
The rapidly changing global demands on public education agencies require school board
members to be well informed about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of
informed decision making that influence the quality of public education. In this study, the
researcher examined the benefits of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters
in Governance (MIG) training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit
the characteristics of effective governance. The purpose of this study was to research the
perceptions of school board members and superintendents on factors that motivated them to seek
out training, to examine whether the MIG training improved the relationship between school
boards and superintendents, and to determine what impact they perceived it had on effective
governance and student achievement. The study employed Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s 4
frames, and Peter Northouse’s leadership approaches. The characteristics of effective board
governance were measured against the standards of effectiveness outlined in the Lighthouse
Inquiry conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards. Qualitative methods of research
design included surveys and interviews with three primary research questions: (a) what factors
impacted the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG training program, (b)
how the MIG training program encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit
behaviors of effective school governance, and (c) whether MIG training had an impact on
student achievement and growth.
Respondents were 180 MIG-trained school board members and 62 superintendents in 12
California counties. The importance of this study is linked to providing policymakers, the CSBA,
and school board governance teams with additional data on the perceived relationship between
increased school board efficacy and student achievement. The findings from this study indicated
v
that MIG training promotes and encourages board members to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance by identifying role clarity and teaching the tenets of a shared moral
imperative, unity of purpose, and the importance of coherence and a governance mindset. This
study supplements existing research regarding the role that MIG training plays in strengthening
governance team effectiveness and informed decision making—thus leading to enhanced
outcomes.
vi
Dedication
To my incredible family: Angel, Nathaniel, Ariel, Damien, Bashie, and especially my first-born
grandson Damien Grayson De La Torre—whom I would hold in my arms and bounce on my
knee while writing Chapters Four and Five: I am eternally grateful for their love, patience, and
support throughout this journey of enlightenment.
To my former superintendent, boss, mentor and friend, Jack Reed Rose, who always believed in
me and encouraged me to continue my education in pursuit of making a positive difference in the
lives of children. My promise to all of the aforementioned is that I will pay it forward and do my
best forthwith to serve the needs and interests of all the incredibly diverse children in the world
who have unlimited potential and just need someone to inspire and believe in them.
vii
Acknowledgements
The dissertation process requires a tremendous amount of effort, investment of time away
from loved ones and endless support. I wish to express a sincere debt of gratitude to Dr. Michael
Escalante, Dissertation Chair, who guided and encouraged me from start to finish, as well as
committee members Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. Alexander Cherniss, and Dr. Greg Franklin, for
their sage advice, encouragement, mentorship, and support throughout the dissertation process. I
especially acknowledge my husband Angel, who supported, encouraged, and kept me fed
throughout the writing process. Thanks to my amazing superintendent, Dr. Jeffrey Wilson, who
has assisted, encouraged, and inspired me throughout this journey. Special thanks to my amazing
Trojan friends and classmates—Hedieh Khajavi, Gloria Olamendi, Maricela Ramirez, Elias
Miles, and Eric Guerrero— for making me laugh, for challenging me, and for being the absolute
best research team that I could ever hope to part of. Thanks to my former superintendent, Dr.
Alexander Cherniss, and to Dr. Issaic Gates, both of whom inspired, supported and encouraged
me to pursue my doctorate at USC. Finally, I would be remiss in not acknowledging Davis
Campbell, author and former executive director of the California School Boards Association, for
sharing his book, The Governance Core, with me and for taking the time to personally help me to
better understand the importance of school boards, superintendents, and schools working
together to achieve better results.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 3
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 7
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 7
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 8
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 9
Delimitations ....................................................................................................................... 9
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 10
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 15
Historical Framework ....................................................................................................... 17
History and Developing Role of Superintendent .............................................................. 21
School Board Training and Effects on Student Achievement .......................................... 25
Governance Standards and Accountability ....................................................................... 29
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 33
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 42
ix
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ........................................................................................ 44
Purpose of the Study Restated .......................................................................................... 44
Research Team .................................................................................................................. 44
Qualitative Design ............................................................................................................ 45
Sampling Strategies and Participants ................................................................................ 45
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 46
Data Collection and Analysis............................................................................................ 48
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 49
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 49
Chapter Four: Research Results and Findings .............................................................................. 51
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 52
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 74
Results for Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 91
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 103
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 106
Findings Related to the Research Questions ................................................................... 109
Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................. 113
Delimitations ................................................................................................................... 114
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 115
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 116
Conclusion to the Study .................................................................................................. 117
References ................................................................................................................................... 119
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails .................................................................... 129
x
School Board Member Recruitment Email ..................................................................... 129
Superintendent Recruitment Email ................................................................................. 130
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey .............................................................................. 131
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 134
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ........................................................... 137
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ....................................................................... 138
Appendix F: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 139
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix .................................................................................. 140
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participants 53
Table 2: Summary of Study Participation: Superintendents and School Board
Members
54
Table 3: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Culture
Encouraged Participation in the Masters in Governance Program
59
Table 4: Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to
Participate in the Masters in Governance Training
60
Table 5: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Believed That All
California School Board Members Could Benefit From Masters in
Governance Training
66
Table 6: Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the Masters
in Governance Program Would Increase Chances of Participation
70
Table 7: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether the Current Cost of
Masters in Governance Training Impeded School Board Members
From Participating
71
Table 8: School Board Members’ Responses Regarding Whether Board
Members Who Were Masters in Governance Trained Understood
the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With the
District’s Vision and Goals
77
Table 9: Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board
Members Who Were Masters in Governance Trained Understood
the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With
the District’s Vision and Goals
77
Table 10: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance
Training Encouraged School Governance Teams to Contribute to
the Effectiveness of School Board Meetings
81
Table 11: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance
Training Impacted Their Ability to Govern Effectively
84
Table 12: Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training
Helped School Board Members to Differentiate Among Policy,
Leadership, and Management
85
xii
Table 13: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in
Governance Training Clarified the Differences Between the Roles
and Responsibilities of a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent
87
Table 14: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members
Who Were Masters in Governance Trained Exhibited a Clearer
Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and
Responsibilities and Those of Their Superintendent
90
Table 15: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members
Who Had Earned Masters in Governance Certification
Demonstrated an Increased Focus on Student Achievement
94
Table 16: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of
Masters in Governance Training, Their Focus Was on Student
Achievement
96
Table 17: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in
Governance Training Had Positively Impacted Student
Achievement in Their District
99
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bolman and Deal’s Four Leadership Frames 62
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Public school education in the 21st century demands strong local governance and
leadership. School boards are elected to provide this local oversight; and they, in turn, hire
superintendents to administer and manage school operations. Changing demographics, increased
accountability in exchange for local control, declining enrollment, and inadequate resources pose
unprecedented challenges to current superintendents and school board members as they attempt
to create the conditions that develop and sustain high levels of student achievement (Petersen &
Fusarelli, 2001). In the past, education reform efforts paid very little attention to school district
governance as a matter of practice. After conducting a study on whether school board members’
professional development had an effect on student achievement, Roberts and Sampson (2011)
contended that professional development for board members is essential if schools are to
improve. According to Leithwood et al. (2004), much of the research conducted on effective
schools has ignored the role of district-level leadership, including school board governance.
Although the responsibilities of school board members include developing policies and
regulating resources provided to schools to directly address teaching and learning, there are no
education prerequisites necessary to be eligible to run for, and be elected to, serve on a school
board. Positions within the education system often require advanced degrees and teaching
credentials, yet school governance is an exception making professional governance training for
school board members exceedingly important.
Research related to the nexus between school board governance and student achievement
has previously been described as uncharted territory (Iowa Association of School Boards
[IASB], 2000). Emerging evidence has demonstrated that school boards may, in fact, have an
influence on student achievement. Leithwood et al. (2004) found evidence that effective district-
2
wide leadership has the greatest impact on those school systems in which it is most needed. As
stated by former U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige (as cited in McAdams, 2000), school
boards are close enough to communities and schools to see what needs to be done and are
powerful enough to do it; however, research substantiating the connection between school board
governance and students’ academic outcomes is extremely limited (Land, 2002). Moreover, very
few studies associated with school board governance exist that incorporate quantifiable and
reliable measures of student achievement (Delagardelle, 2008).
To better understand the need for school board member governance training in
California, it is important to examine the availability and adequacy of such training. The
California School Boards Association (CSBA; 2018b) provides a voluntary governance program
comprised of five accelerated modules. Modules cover such topics as Foundations of Effective
Governance, Policy and Judicial Review, School Finance, Human Resources, and Community
Relations and Advocacy. This training is provided to give board members the foundational
knowledge to develop and sustain an effective governance structure.
This study distinctly focuses on school board members in the state of California for
whom training is available but not mandatory (National School Boards Association [NSBA],
2019). It examines the motivation of school board members for engaging in voluntary
governance training. More specifically, this study concentrates on those board members who
have been through the CSBA’s (2018b) MIG training to analyze their perceptions related to the
impact of that training on their efficacy as board members. Finally, the study will evaluate and
analyze board members’ perceptions on the impact of training on student achievement.
3
Background of the Problem
Local public-school boards have been the hallmark of American education for over 200
years (Land, 2002). However, in recent decades school boards have been the subject of sharp
criticism by individuals who view boards as an antiquated and bureaucratic body, incapable of
effectively reforming education to improve student achievement (Danzberger, 1992, 1994).
According to Land (2002), school boards in the United States work to maintain local
control and strive to address the specific preferences and needs of the local community. They
concentrate on policymaking and provide oversight of a professional superintendent for
administration services. They are modeled after corporate boards with a chief executive officer
and constitute democratic representation of all citizens through at-large elections.
According to Resnick (1999), there are approximately 95,000 school board members
serving on 15,000 local public-school boards in the United States. The majority of those school
boards have five to seven board members. Urban boards are more likely to have seven or more
members (Robinson & Bickers, 1990). The primary agenda for school boards today is to focus
on student achievement and community engagement (Gemberling et al., 2000). According to
Land (2002), school board experts claim that in order to be effective, school boards must focus
on developing policy and improving students’ academic achievement as opposed to
administration and must maintain positive relations with the superintendent, community
agencies, state and local governments, and the general public. In addition to these critical
components to success, experts advise board members themselves to practice effective
policymaking, to actively practice the tenets of quality leadership and budgeting, to engage in the
superintendent’s evaluation, and to undertake training and professional development. Research
substantiating the nexus between the aforementioned school board characteristics and students’
4
academic achievement is sparse, yet the concept that school boards may play an important role in
ensuring student achievement has been gaining momentum—as evidenced by the more recent
efforts of school boards and educational governance organizations to focus school boards
directly on students’ achievement (Land, 2002). Researchers have begun to present evidence of
an association between school boards and students’ academic achievement (Goodman &
Zimmerman, 2000; IASB, 2000; McAdams, 2000). Researchers are producing multimethod
bodies of research that clearly identify key characteristics of the links between effective school
board governance and student achievement.
Due to education policy modifications over the years, boards have gone from strict local
control to centralized control and then back again to local control. The Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA; U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], n.d.a) was signed into law on December
10, 2015, by President Obama. This law included provisions designed to help ensure success for
all students and schools. This law advances equity by upholding critical protections for
America’s disadvantaged and high-need students. It requires that all students in the nation be
taught to high academic standards that will prepare them to succeed in college and careers. It
ensures that vital information is provided to educators, families, students, and communities
through annual statewide assessments that measure students’ progress toward the standards while
helping to support and grow local innovations, including evidence-based and place-based
interventions developed by local leaders and educators. The law sustains and expands the U.S.
government’s historic investments in increasing access to high-quality preschool. It maintains an
expectation of accountability to effect positive change in the country’s lowest performing
schools, where groups of students are not making progress and where graduation rates are low
over extended periods of time (USDOE, n.d.a). This legislation emphasizes the need for equal
5
opportunity for all students (Dahlkemper, 2005). In order to balance the need of increased
accountability and reduced funding in many areas, the expectation for school board members to
be highly skillful has increased.
The state of California has reverted to local control and accountability, a product of
which is the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF; California Department of Education [CDE],
2020c). Districts must develop a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP; CDE, 2020b) with
stakeholder input in exchange for local control over the funds received from the state. Under
school board governance frameworks, board members have multifaceted roles and
responsibilities. School board members are tasked with a large scope of responsibilities: adopting
budgets, enacting policy, and establishing expectations—among many other duties. It is often a
difficult job; but according to the NSBA (2019), most board members would say that the
intrinsic rewards of preparing students for success in life are enormous.
These roles and responsibilities have evolved over time; despite this, the criteria for
eligibility for a board member position has remained relatively stagnant (Hess, 2002). This
situation has increased the need for boards to engage in professional development and training.
According to Hess (2002), only 50% to 75% of all board members have been trained in the areas
in which they are expected to govern, thus implying that there exists a lack of expertise in school
board governance nationwide. The absence of mandatory training in all states throughout the
nation leaves the decision to engage in training up to the individual board members. The
knowledge and skill level of all board members may adversely impact student achievement and
will continue to be a concern voiced by the public (Gemberling et al., 2000).
At a time in history when the focus is on a systemwide approach to providing high-
quality service to all students, improving uniformity in curriculum nationwide, and developing
6
systems to support the social and emotional well-being of all students, there is very little known
or discussed about the impact of effective governance training on the aforementioned outcomes.
According to Campbell and Fullen (2019), “the education research and reform communities have
seriously neglected the potentially powerful role of governance in sustaining long-term
improvement” (p. 2).
School boards and superintendents are on the front lines of state and federally mandated
education changes, and it is imperative that the work they perform together to govern the districts
they serve be better understood and applied to achieve optimal results. The impact of governance
training in relationship to the efficacy of board and superintendent outcomes associated with
student achievement is surprisingly understudied, yet the research that has been done indicates a
positive correlation.
The United States is a democracy where average citizens may be elected by the people to
govern the education system. Once elected, board members are charged with establishing
strategic directions and outcomes, providing ongoing policy direction, supporting the work of the
district, oversight and accountability, and community leadership (Campbell & Fullen, 2019). The
relationship between the board and the superintendent is the cornerstone of effective governance.
In the state of California, there are no requirements that newly elected board members receive
governance training, and there are no eligibility prerequisites (i.e., experience in education or
advanced degrees). With the rapidly changing educational system, school board members must
be knowledgeable about how their position plays a role in the complexities of informed decision
making impacting the quality of public education. Common sources of conflict between
superintendents and board members are undefined roles, misaligned values and goals, and
micromanagement of the superintendent (Fusarelli et al., 2011; Grissom, 2010). Through this
7
study, the research team will explore whether commitment to initial governance training and
ongoing professional development for school board members is important in establishing a
perceived positive relationship with the superintendent and is the impetus for more effective
governance overall.
Statement of the Problem
The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of
informed decision making that influence the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on performance
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.
Research Questions
Three research questions guided this study:
8
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?
Importance of the Study
The importance of this study is linked to providing school board governance teams,
policymakers and the CSBA with data identifying the perceived relationship between (a) school
board members’ MIG training and efficacy and (b) student achievement. According to the
literature, research validating the nexus between governance training and increased student
achievement is sparse; however, emerging evidence has demonstrated that school boards may
indeed have an important influence on student achievement. Interestingly, Land 2002 asserted
that the concept that school boards play a critical role in student achievement has been gaining
momentum. Most research conducted to date has failed to address board members’ perceptions
related to the importance of governance training related to efficacy in practice and improved
student outcomes. This study will focus on the perceptions of school board members who have
participated in the MIG training specifically related to the perceived impact that the training has
had on their practices and student achievement. In an age of increased accountability, it is critical
to better understand whether MIG training provides board members with the education and tools
they need to govern effectively, with a focus on student achievement. California is one of the
states that does not make training mandatory; therefore, this study will also assist policymakers
in assessing the potential benefits of MIG training.
9
Limitations
The limitations of this study included the scope, time frame, resources, the CSBA’s MIG
training program, and the number of available participants. This was a qualitative study;
therefore, the scope of the study focused on the perceptions of participants, and the data collected
relied on the accuracy of participants’ survey and interview responses. The fact that this research
was conducted in the spring of 2020 impacted the quantity of data that could be gathered.
Moreover, targeting board members and superintendents and board members who had
participated in the CSBA’s MIG training excluded those superintendents and board members
who had participated in alternate governance training programs. Some superintendents and board
members had elected to participate in governance training provided by consultants not affiliated
with the CSBA, and this study focused exclusively on those who had been trained through
CSBA’s MIG program—thus potentially limiting the number of available participants.
Due to the coronavirus pandemic, in March of 2020, school closures and safer-at-home
orders required Californians to practice social distancing. This unprecedented crisis required the
researchers to modify the manner in which research was conducted. Surveys were emailed to
participants, and interviews were conducted virtually using the Zoom™ application as opposed
to doing them in person.
Delimitations
Due to the aforementioned limitations, the study was conducted primarily in southern
California in 12 counties (Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura). Research participants
were limited to public unified, public elementary, and public high school districts. Restricting the
study to 12 California counties limited the pool of participants. This study was focused
10
exclusively on school board members who had participated in CSBA’s MIG training courses.
Alternative training courses or programs were not considered for the study. Participation was
limited to districts where the majority of board members had participated in CSBA’s MIG
training courses. Purposeful sampling was conducted to include as many eligible participants as
possible.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the terms are defined as follows:
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 exams.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): A state
assessment consisting of the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment System and the
California Alternate Assessments (CAAs), including the CAA for Science, the California
Science Test, and the California Spanish Assessment (California Department of Education
[CDE], 2019).
California School Boards Association (CSBA): According to the CSBA (2018a),
the CSBA is 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
11
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. (para. 1)
DataQuest is the CDE’s web-based data reporting system for publicly reporting
information about California students, teachers, and schools.
DataQuest provides access to a wide variety of reports, including school performance,
test results, student enrollment, English learner, graduation and dropout, school staffing,
course enrollment, and student misconduct data. (CDE, 2020a, para. 1)
Effectiveness: The degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result.
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through the
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000).
Growth: The act or process, or a manner of growing; development; gradual increase.
stage of development.
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 [local education agencies] to share their stories of how, what, and
why programs and services are selected to meet their local needs. (CDE, 2020b, LCAP
Overview section, para. 1)
12
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): The law enacted in 2013–2014 to simplify how
funding is provided to LEAs (local education agencies). Previously, funding included over 50
categorical funding lines designed to give targeted services based on student demographics
(CDE, 2020c).
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: An official order or commission to do something.
Masters in Governance (MIG): A training program sponsored by the CSBA consisting of
five modules designed to define roles and responsibilities, improve governance and leadership
through increased knowledge and skills to support an effective governance structure, and
maintaining a focus on student learning.
National School Boards Association (NSBA): A nonprofit educational organization
operating as a federation of state associations of school boards across the United States (NSBA,
2019).
Public school: A school supported by public funds.
13
School board or board of trustees: 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).
School board member or trustee: Members of the public who are elected to govern
schools and comprise the public portion of a school district’s governance team. Elected by the
public, these members bridge the public’s values and the values of the district, and their
decisions have a long-term impact on their communities and schools (Roberts & Sampson,
2011).
School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding over the
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.
Student achievement: The performance by students on the annual summative assessment
given by the state of California.
Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district with
oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter One introduced the research study,
presented the statement of the problem addressed and the purpose of conducting the study, listed
the research questions, addressed the significance of the study, and provided an exhaustive
definition of terms used throughout. Chapter Two examines the literature related to the topic in
review. It provides comprehensive information related to the history, roles and responsibilities,
and training of both board members and superintendents. Chapter Three describes the research
14
methodology used along with the research design. It also details the context for the selected
sample and participants, instruments used, and data collection techniques. Chapter Four provides
the findings and analysis of the study based on each research question. The analysis identifies the
impact of MIG training on board efficacy and the perceptions of the impact of governance
training on student achievement. Chapter Five serves as a summary of the study and includes the
implications of this research and suggestions for future research.
15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
In the United States, public school systems endeavor to epitomize the idea of equity,
equality, and opportunity for every child without regard to such descriptors as race, ethnicity,
religion, economic status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. In this multifaceted,
highly bureaucratic system of compulsory education, school boards have a long-standing history
of providing much-needed governance and oversight in diverse districts. Often this governance is
accomplished under intense scrutiny, with scarce resources and under challenging circumstances.
Despite this situation, the literature available on school boards as exemplars of leadership
through governance is sparse (Hopkins, et al., 2007). Moreover, statistical data is scarce on the
effectiveness of school board governance (Hess 2002; Hopkins et al., 2007).
According to Griffin and Ward (2006), who convened a panel of educators from across
the country to explore the role of school boards, effective school boards are thought to possess
five characteristics: (a) they focus on student achievement; (b) they allocate resources to needs;
(c) they oversee the return on public investments; (d) they rely on information to make important
decisions; and (e) they engage the communities they serve. Griffin and Ward argued that even
when boards do not meet all five characteristics, they are best positioned to advocate for
education initiatives when their members are trained to exercise responsibility, possess a vision,
demonstrate progressive leadership, and provide accountability. The importance and impact of
training on board member efficacy is clear throughout the literature, yet many states do not
provide necessary funding for school board members’ professional development and few of them
mandate board governance training.
Commencing with the adoption of the ESSA (USDOE, n.d.a, 2015), school choice and
local control over monetary resources have been received by districts in exchange for heightened
16
accountability. During this period of time, the significance of school board governance has
emerged as a critical issue as it pertains to school effectiveness. According to Campbell and
Fullen, (2019), it is a mistake for school boards to undervalue the educational training
opportunities provided by the state and national professional associations. As emphasized by
these authors, “professional development is an accepted necessity for supporting growth and
development with the administration and instructional functions; why not with governance” (p.
143)? Increasing complexities require school boards to have interpersonal and individual
leadership skills (Hopkins et al., 2007).
This literature review concentrates on key areas related to the impact of school board
governance training on the efficacy of school boards. The first section will review the history of
school boards, followed by the evolution of the position of superintendent. The review examines
the many important aspects of the continuously developing role and related responsibilities
associated with this key position. To further study the effects of board governance training on
school boards and school districts, this chapter examines the relationship between school board
effectiveness and student achievement. Additionally, this chapter reviews the literature as it
relates to leadership theories and frameworks, standards and accountability, and alternative
structures and explores the governance training models available to both newly elected and
experienced school board members.
Qualitative studies and related data were primary sources for studying the efficacy of
school boards and superintendents. While the data on this topic falls short of directly connecting
school board governance training to board outcomes and effectiveness, there are strong links
attaching school board efficacy with high-performing districts (IASB, 2000; Thurlow Brenner et
al., 2002).
17
Historical Framework
School boards are one of the most highly revered public governing bodies in the United
States. The history of school boards can be traced back to colonial times when there existed a
prevailing distrust of nonlocalized government. During this period, governments ruled
Americans from a geographical distance and possessed very little first-hand knowledge of the
colonial experience, especially as it pertained to information related to local living conditions
(Danzberger, 1994). After food, safety, and religion, education was the settlers’ next priority. For
young children of both genders, there was the Dame School, the English writing school, and the
school of the three R’s. For older boys who had achieved mastery of reading and writing, there
was grammar school. For generations, from 1642 onward, representatives of the people
controlled such schools.
Town officials, better known as selectmen, first took on the responsibility of running the
schools themselves. As the population expanded, selectmen detached educational governance
from local governance and appointed committees in various towns to oversee education
(Danzberger, 1992, 1994). Selectmen, struggling to keep up with multiple town management
issues, discovered that they had neither the time nor the inclination to balance the demands of the
schools while managing the responsibilities and concerns of the local community. From this
situation was born the school committee, a group of lay persons identified and then selected by
fellow town members who became responsible for the oversight and governing of the local
schools. All matters related to the school and their staffs were brought before such groups for
consideration and deliberation (Knezevich, 1984).
In an effort to accommodate continuing population growth, local districts were formed as
more schools were built (Danzberger, 1992). Massachusetts established the first state board of
18
education in 1837 to expand the state’s role in education; however, school boards exerted control
over local schools due to the public’s distrust of a distant political body to address local needs
(Danzberger, 1992, 1994). In 1891, Massachusetts enacted legislation that provided each district
with administrative and financial authority over its schools (Danzberger, 1992). The
Massachusetts separate educational governance system became popular throughout the colonies
and became a model for today’s governance by local school boards (Carol et al., 1986;
Danzberger, 1992).
From the mid-1800s through the early 1900s, local school boards expanded; and while
there were some differences in governance structures, local school boards continued to focus on
the oversight and management of public education systems (Carol et al., 1986; B. L. Johnson,
1988). In the late 1800s, urban school board members were elected by local wards—a situation
that entangled the school board members in local ward politics (Danzberger, 1992; Urban &
Wagoner, 1996). Perceptions were formed that connection to ward politics subjected school
boards to corruption.
In the late 19th century, there was a sense that schools were not properly educating a
growing and diverse student population. Professional, business, and education reformers worked
on ways to improve local educational governance (Danzberger, 1992, 1994; Kirst, 1994). During
the first 2 decades of the 20th century, efforts to centralize local government were undertaken to
develop a smaller city school board system comprised of amateur citizens through citywide
elections—in contrast to the former system that which distributed those vested with this authority
among multiple, larger ward school boards (Danzberger, 1992; Iannaccone & Lutz, 1994; Kirst,
1994; Rothman, 1992; Urban & Wagoner, 1996). The new centralized city school board system
was modeled after corporate boards and charged with the responsibility of focusing efforts on
19
policy development as opposed to district and school administration (Danzberger, 1992;
Danzberger & Usdan, 1994; Urban & Wagoner, 1996).
According to researchers, the last major reform of school boards was the aforementioned
shift to a centralized, policymaking school board comprised of locally elected citizens
responsible for the hiring and oversight of a superintendent as its chief executive officer
(Danzberger, 1994; Danzberger & Usdan, 1994; Iannaccone & Lutz, 1994; Kirst, 1994). Since
this final reform, local school boards in the United States traditionally demonstrate the following
characteristics: (a) local control to meet the specific needs of the population they represent; (b)
separation of educational from general governance; (c) large districts with small boards; (d)
concentration on policy-making and reliance on a professional superintendent for the
administration of the district through leadership and management, modeled after corporate
boards with a chief executive officer; and (e) democratic representation of all citizen
stakeholders through at-large elections rather than subdistrict elections or appointments.
In some cases, these practices have not been uniformly followed or implemented by all
states and school boards (Carol et al., 1986; Danzberger, 1992; Urban & Wagoner, 1996). As an
example, Hawaii does not have local school boards; the State Board of Education assumes
primary responsibility for establishing and adopting district policies. In Virginia, a system was
created where the appointment of school board members was mandatory until the General
Assembly of Local School Boards Under Review in 1992 passed legislation permitting public
elections. Moreover, school boards historically have had flexibility in how they govern and have
engaged in the operational oversight, management, and development of key goals and objectives
in response to their community’s economic, political, social, and religious pressures (Danzberger
et al., 1987; B. L. Johnson, 1988; Olson & Bradley, 1992; Resnick, 1999). Urban school boards
20
typically operate and approach governance differently from school boards elected to serve in
affluent communities. The size of the district and the distinct needs of the student population
served are key factors that account for some of the unique differences among school boards
(Resnick, 1999). According to Hess and Meeks (2010), schooling today looks remarkably like it
did in 1910.
One wouldn’t say that about medicine or engineering, or about commercial sectors such
as air travel, farming, or auto manufacturing. In each of these cases, dramatic shifts in the
labor force, management practices, technology, and communications transformed familiar
institutions and comfortable routines into more efficient and more effective versions of
themselves. Many of these shifts resulted from “unbundling,” a process in which
innovators deconstruct established structures and routines and reassemble them in newer,
smarter ways. (p. 1)
The literature on the history of school boards addresses many models of governance and
questions the effectiveness of each. As referenced by Hess and Meeks (2010), education has not
progressed at the same rate as other institutions and organizations.
Today, more than 90,000 men and women are members of local school boards in the
United States, all serving as trustees of the nation’s public education systems. According to the
NSBA (as cited in Dervarics & O’Brien, 2019), these public officials serve on 13,809 elected or
appointed boards in this country.
Campbell and Fullen (2019) asserted that governance is often misunderstood as a
function within an organization. Defining the term is not simple due to the complexity of the
subject. The word governance is derived from the Greek word kubernesis, which means “to steer
a ship” (McAdams, 2000). McAdams (2000) added that “simply put, governance is steering;
21
management is rowing” (p. 9). The generally accepted practice is that boards govern and
superintendents manage and oversee administration. According to Campbell and Fullen (2019),
governance is the process where the direction of the organization is set, the structure is
established and accountability both fiscal and programmatic is assured.
History and Developing Role of Superintendent
The role of superintendent, which in the mid- to late 1800s had been largely focused on
instruction and strictly governed and circumscribed by school boards, has expanded
significantly. The position expanded to include management responsibilities and became
professionalized, thus requiring formalized training and support (Danzberger, 1992; Urban &
Wagoner, 1996).
Since the 1980s, the position of superintendent has undergone a periodic cycle of public
skepticism and criticisms focused on the efficacy of public education accompanied by steep
demands for major change and improvement (Björk et al., 2005). Wiles and Bondi (1986)
asserted that the role of superintendent evolved over the years as follows: 1955–1965, focus on
supervision and curriculum improvement; 1965–1970, focus on clinical administration; 1970–
1980, focus on clinical administration; 1970–1980, focus on supervision as management; and
1980–present, focus on supervision of instruction, oversight of fiscal resources, school
construction, and public relations. Although the superintendent serves as the most visible and
highest-ranking administrator in a school system (Daresh & Playko, 1992), leading one of the
most prominent public institutions within the community, this position is marked with steady
tensions and continual conflicts (Fenn & Grogan, 2002). According to Bruce (1895), “the
superintendent’s position is a difficult one. He is a ready target for unreasonable parents,
22
disgruntled teachers, and officious school board members. In a vortex of school board quarrels,
he is the first to become crushed” (pp. 36–37).
The literature reveals that superintendents are often in difficult and challenging positions;
therefore, the relationship they have with their boards is of paramount importance. The myriad
duties and responsibilities accompanied by political uncertainty in the superintendency have
resulted in many scholars and practitioners concluding that potential candidates are disenchanted
with this position as a career aspiration (Chion-Kennedy, 1994). Houston et al. (2000) explained
that “administrators considering the superintendency observe incumbents at work, notice how
unbalanced their lives often are, and say ‘Thanks, but no thanks!’” (p. 8). As noted by Norton et
al. (1996),
the second half of the twentieth century has seen the role of the superintendent undergo
considerable change. No longer is the superintendent viewed as the expert on schools in
the community. Rather, he or she is often the target of criticism and at the center of
controversy, forced to become the defender of policy and the implementer of state and
federal mandates, and the orchestrator of diverse interests seeking to influence the
schools. (p.21)
Some questions appear as themes throughout the literature. Myers (1992) indicated the
following questions are important in considering the role and effective school initiatives:
• Are there any similar identifiable characteristics that all or most successful
superintendents possess?
• Have the board and community expectations for the position of superintendent
changed from that of instructional leader and business manager?
• If so, what are the new demands and are they achievable?
23
• Is the superintendency vulnerable to outside pressures from unhappy parents,
teachers and unions?
• Are contemporary superintendent training and preparation programs designed to
adequately prepare superintendents for modern day challenges?
• Are these programs making a difference in contributing to successful outcomes?
(p. 1)
In the mid-1940s, studies related to administrator training focused on the traits of school
leaders and superintendents; however, Myer’s (1992) findings maintain that physical
characteristics are irrelevant as they relate to the ability to lead in an organization. The findings
of 200 studies conducted between 1900 and 1950 found no correlation between aptitude and
leadership skills. Conversely, there was a high correlation between the leader’s status and
enthusiasm, persistence, emotional stability, strong communication skills, and ability to clearly
identify and articulate strategies, ideas, values and goals and objectives.
Gross (1958) asserted that “the relationship between the board and superintendent
deserves intensive study . . . because they are at the heart of any educational problem and its
solution” (p. 2). Research conducted by Burlingame (1977) indicated that smaller districts had
higher rates of turnover among superintendents. Additionally, small districts tended to hire
superintendents who had no prior experience and used the district as a stepping stone to a larger
and higher paying position. A lack of continuity and stability created uncertainty among
employees and tends to reflect poorly on the board. Districts without sufficient funds to
compensate superintendents at the fair market rate tended to have higher rates of turnover as
well.
24
Murphy et al. (1986) concluded that in highly effective districts, superintendents were
accessible and visible. They walked school campuses, visited classrooms, and made their
presence known. During these school visits superintendents regularly engaged in the following
activities:
1. Consistently reviewed the implementation of school wide goals.
2. Evaluated synthesis between state standards, adopted curriculum, and lessons
taught in each classroom.
3. Observed teaching strategies and practices for feedback on best practices.
4. Reviewed site administrator’s skills and practices related to site-based leadership,
management, and instructional evaluation.
5. Evaluated student engagement rates in different classroom settings.
6. Reviewed principal’s competencies in curriculum and instruction and level of
knowledge in areas for improvement on the campus supervised. (pp. 80–81)
These six activities made a significant difference in how superintendents were perceived by their
constituents.
The demands of the job are becoming increasingly more complex with state and federal
mandates, LCFFs with heightened accountability, the integration of technology in almost every
aspect of education, and decreased state and federal funding. With the passage of the California
Public Records Act, superintendents are spending more time responding to requests for public
records that require lengthy explanations for requesters who do not have training in public
education administration and public-school budgeting and finance (California Department of
Community Services and Development, 2020). Superintendents must wear many hats while
effectively managing relationships and remaining at the center of community involvement.
25
Carter and Cunningham (1997) held the position that while the expectations for superintendents
are higher than for most executives, there remains very little trust and confidence from the public
for this important position.
The literature examines the many leadership styles that may be successfully employed by
superintendents. Transformational leadership is one that Northouse (2019) asserted a general
way of thinking about leadership by accentuating ideas, innovation, and individual concerns.
One noted weakness for superintendents seeking to adopt this style is that transformational
leaders may not connect well with faculty who are millennials, known for their individualistic
orientation. They may have difficulty persuading this particular cohort to work collaboratively in
teams to accomplish goals. The literature supports the belief that principle-centered leadership
assists superintendents to become more effective leaders. Other commonalities in the readings
indicate that the most effective superintendents are considered trustworthy and have the ability to
align ideas with vision. They are highly effective communicators in both oral and written forms,
and they tend to have high levels of emotional intelligence. Successful superintendents put the
need of the students first in addition to expertly navigating the political environment externally
and internally, while effectively managing the administrative responsibilities.
School Board Training and Effects on Student Achievement
Throughout the literature, there are examples of the importance and significance of
professional development for board members. It was assumed that if boards received high-
quality training, that would lead to excellence in schools and better performance by students.
Several states have recognized this need. For example, Texas requires 18 hours of in-service
training within the 1st year of service. After the completion of the 1st year, each board member
26
must complete 8 hours of professional development. Topics covered in this training are as
follows:
• Local district orientation;
• Texas Education Code;
• Team building;
• Open Meeting Act;
• Public Information Act; and
• Updates to the Texas Education Code after each legislative session. (Texas
Association of School Boards, 2010, p. 1)
Arkansas requires all school board members who have served more than one year to
receive at least six hours of professional development training. Moreover, all new board
members must complete nine hours of in-service training. Topics covered in these professional
development trainings are the following:
• School laws and regulations
• Improving student achievement
• School finance
• Community relations
• School operations
• The powers, duties and responsibilities of school board members (Arkansas
School Boards Association, 2020, p. 1)
These requirements were implemented at a time when schools were being held more accountable
for increased student achievement.
27
Roberts and Sampson (2011) emphasized that because board members are elected and
there are no prerequisite education or degree requirements to serve, professional development is
necessary to provide the skills, information, and behavior necessary to run a district effectively.
Roberts and Sampson’s study asked whether school board professional development had an
effect on student achievement? They sent out 50 questionnaires to directors of state school board
associations and had 26 respondents. The researchers found that most states did not require
professional development for school board members. State school board directors perceived that
professional development for school board members had a positive effect on student
achievement. Those states with professional development requirements received an overall rating
of B or C according to the Education Week 2009 rating, whereas, those states not requiring
professional development received C or D ratings.
Dillon (2010) reported that more people are beginning to understand the role that board
members play in advancing student learning. Dillon further asserted that Mary Delagardelle,
Executive Director of the Iowa School Boards Foundation, had noted that there is little research
that ties student learning to the board, because many see it as too far removed. She summarized
that in high-performing districts, goal setting, providing support, and accountability are the traits
of school board members. Louis et al. (2010) found that educational leadership is linked to
student achievement.
Many scholars in years past have lamented over the absence of empirical research
connecting school board performance with student achievement. However, today there exists a
growing number of qualitative and quantitative studies that demonstrate the school board’s
governance role in contributing to creating and sustaining the conditions necessary for improving
student achievement. While it is factual that school boards do not directly cause students to
28
improve learning, Delagardelle (2008) stated that “there is a growing body of research that the
beliefs, decisions, and actions of school boards directly impact the conditions within schools that
enable district efforts to improve achievement to either succeed or fail” (p. 202). Moreover,
Anderson and Togneri (2005) concluded that “there is substantial research that does associate
variation in teacher, student, and school performance with differences in district policy
orientations, decisions, and actions” (p. 176).
P. A. Johnson (2012, pp. 90–91), through a literature review, identified 12 essential board
governance principles associated with enhanced levels of student achievement, despite the
demographic characteristics of school districts: (a) “creating a vision,” (b) “using data,” (c)
“setting goals,” (d) “monitoring progress and taking corrective action,” (e) creating awareness
and urgency,” (f) “engaging the community” (g) “connecting with district leadership,” (h)
“creating climate,” (I) “providing staff development,” (j) “developing policy with a focus on
student learning,” (k) “demonstrating commitment,” and (l) “practicing unified governance.”
The findings of the aforementioned studies beg the obvious question of why board
efficacy is important. According to McAdams (2000), “if school systems improve, it will be
because boards make them improve. No one else can” (p. 262). School board members do not
typically have the expertise of a professional educator; however, they have an important role in
shaping the policies and culture that provide for teaching and learning, curriculum and
instruction, and the educational environment. It is mission critical that they develop a deep
understanding, competency, and belief that it is possible to develop the conditions within the
system to ensure that educators and students have all the resources and expertise they need to
create and sustain continuous growth and positive change (p. 58).
29
Governance Standards and Accountability
Governance of local school districts by average citizen boards is a basic tenet of
American democracy. Due to the increased accountability and pressure on public school districts
throughout the nation to perform well, there has never been a time when highly effective board
governance has been more in demand. The federal government has delegated the responsibility
of education to the states who have, in turn, delegated it to local school boards and, as such,
boards serve as cornerstones in ensuring that students receive a high-quality education. How well
boards work together and with their superintendents can make a significant difference in
executing this goal and may determine the outcomes of the quality of education provided to the
children they serve (Campbell & Fullen, 2019).
In contemporary times, school district boards govern within a system that has
increasingly higher and higher student performance expectations, with fewer resources provided
from the federal and state governments while being held accountable for addressing the
educational, social, emotional, and—in some cases—the basic needs of a highly diverse
population of students. Year after year, the student population served includes an increasingly
high number of students identified as special needs without adequate funding, as originally
promised under the provisions of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA;
USDOE, n.d.b, n.d.c).
According to Campbell and Greene (1994), most education reformers agree that effective
school boards today are more important than ever before. They engage the community and
parents and understand that they are vital to the successful implementation of reforms, as they
have the largest investment in positive outcomes.
30
According to Campbell and Greene (1994), in the mid- to late-1980s, the West Virginia
School Boards Association (WVSBA) worked alongside state policymakers in a partnership to
implement its vision of change. In 1990, the state appropriated $100,000 to fund training and
self-assessments for board members throughout the state. Approximately 55 boards of education
participated in the Institute of Educational Leadership Board’s self-assessment and training and
development program. This school board improvement initiative culminated in a governor and
state legislature bill supporting a second phase of improvement efforts, which required school
board training on “boardsmanship and governing effectiveness” (p. 391). Shortly thereafter,
House Concurrent Resolution 30 was passed unanimously by the West Virginia House of
Representatives, which researched the ability to make school boards more effective. Four studies
were undertaken in that vein. Different methodologies were employed to determine (a) how
boards used their time, (b) in which of their roles and responsibilities they evaluated their
strengths and weaknesses, (c) citizens and state policymakers’ views on the roles and
effectiveness of boards, and (d) what changes were necessary to restructure boards to overcome
those deficiencies identified in the first three studies. In 1994 legislation was implemented that
avowed developing boards to become well-informed, responsive policymaking bodies (Campbell
& Greene, 1994).
The above-referenced literature emphasized the need for board members to apply what
they had learned to be successful in their endeavor to achieve their goals. The WVSBA listened
to the critics and set out to become part of the solution. The legislation requires local school
boards to develop connections with their external and internal constituencies (i.e., school staff
members) and to design and adopt policies that are grounded in the data that these constituencies
produce related to specific district needs. The strategies embraced by the WVSBA illustrates its
31
profound commitment not to just be a bystander but to actively address the needs of education
through its efforts to identify the challenges that exist and in establishing much needed
partnerships with policy makers to improve the efficacy of school boards through governance
training and internal and external community alliances (Campbell & Greene, 1994).
The CSBA (2018b) provides a MIG program that trains school board members and
superintendents with the knowledge and skills to create and support an effective governance
structure. This accelerated five-course program includes the same core governance principles
that have become standard for board members’ professional development across the country. The
CSBA offers a convenient format and program flexibility for busy professionals. The current
program format allows board members and superintendents to complete the program at their own
pace. Program modules are offered statewide throughout the year.
More than 2,000 board members and superintendents have participated in CSBA’s
highly-acclaimed Masters in Governance program. Ninety percent of graduates strongly
recommend this program for governance teams; and more than 80% reported that the overall
program gave them the knowledge base needed to perform their governance responsibilities.
(CSBA, 2018b, para. 5) The program’s five courses are described as follows:
1. Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• In Foundations of Effective Governance develop insight into the roles and
responsibilities of the governance team and focus on the core concepts of
the Masters in Governance program: trusteeship and governance.
• In Setting Direction learn how to create a vision that best describes the
district’s direction, focus, commitment and beliefs; engage stakeholders
32
into the vision setting process; and focus all efforts on student learning.
(CSBA, 2018b, MIG Course 1 section, paras. 1–2)
2. Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review | Student Learning and Achievement
• In Policy and Judicial Review learn the purpose, types and use of policy
and the policy development process; understand the role of the board,
community and district personnel in policy development; and develop an
understanding of the board’s role in the judicial appeals process.
• Student Learning and Achievement drives everything the district does and
is constantly evolving. Discover how to meet the demand for higher
academic achievement by aligning the board’s responsibilities to support
student learning through policy, setting expectations for student learning;
and using data to make sound decisions. (CSBA, 2018b, MIG Course 2
section, paras. 1–2).
3. Course 3: School Finance
• In School Finance learn how to achieve a balance between district goals
and student achievement by establishing budget priorities; developing
appropriate processes for budget development, adoption and revision;
implementing the budget; and monitoring and auditing the district’s
finances. (CSBA, 2018b, MIG Course 3 section, para. 1)
4. Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Human Resources explores the board and superintendent relationship;
elements of employing the superintendent; the board’s responsibility to
33
other personnel; establishing a framework for evaluation; and fostering a
culture of accountability for sound personnel practices across the district.
• Collective Bargaining provides insight into the board’s role in collective
bargaining and the collective bargaining process including building a
positive climate, monitoring the process, understanding stressful
situations, and effective communication strategies. (CSBA, 2018b, MIG
Course 4 section, paras. 1–2).
5. COURSE 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
• In Community Relations and Advocacy, deepen your understanding of
community leadership by applying theory to everyday situations. This
session explores the role and responsibilities of the board, effective
communication, working with the media, managing crisis; and building
community support by informing and engaging while being responsive to
community concerns and interests.
• Governance Integration integrates the concepts of trusteeship and the
governance team with the jobs of the board. At the end of the session,
graduates of the program receive the Masters in Governance certificate, an
honor recognizing dedication to your role as a school governance leader
and demonstrating to your community your commitment to education.
(CSBA, 2018b, MIG Course 5 section, paras. 1–2)
Theoretical Framework
The literature review identified three key theoretical frameworks applied to leadership,
governance training, and the impact on school board efficacy. These theoretical frameworks will
34
serve to predict, explain, and understand the implications of the study. Throughout the literature,
leadership, training, and the components of effective school boards are identified as themes. To
effectively analyze school board leadership, governance training, and school board efficacy, this
section will delve into identifying the characterization of board leadership using (a) Bolman and
Deal’s (2017 four frame model, (b) the CSBA’s (2018b) MIG training program and Professional
Governance Standards (CSBA, n.d.) to study school board member training, and (c) the
components of research-based best practices provided by the Lighthouse Inquiry by the IASB
(2000; Rice et al., 2000).
Reframing Organizations: Four Frames
The four-frame model by Bolman and Deal (2008) identifies how organizations and their
leaders use the structural, political, human resources, and symbolic frames to conceptualize and
make decisions. This framework provides a variety of options for assessing situations, asking the
right questions, and making sound decisions. Leaders have the ability to reframe how they see a
particular situation to more effectively address organizational challenges. The literature provides
guidance on using one or more of the frames at a time to shift perspective and make more
balanced decisions.
Each of the frames is used to serve multiple functions. Bolman and Deal (2017) asserted
that by mastering the approach to using multiple perspectives, leaders will have a much clearer
understanding of what they are doing and why they are doing it. To better understand each of the
frames and how they are applied in the context of board governance and superintendent
leadership practices, each frame will be discussed individually.
Bolman and Deal (2017) describe frames as being a coherent set of ideas or beliefs
forming a prism or lens that allow one to understand and interpret, with clarity, what is
35
happening in the world around them. The structural frame emphasizes the architecture of the
organization and argues for placing employees in the right roles. Designed appropriately, the
structural perspective accommodates both individual and collective differences. Following are
six perspectives that support the structural frame:
1. Organizations exist to achieve established goals and objectives and devise
strategies to reach those goals.
2. Organizations increase efficiency and enhance performance through specialization
and appropriate division of labor.
3. Subtle forms of coordination and control ensure that diverse efforts of individuals
and units mesh.
4. Organizations work best when rationality prevails over personal agendas and
extraneous pressures.
5. Effective structure fits an organization’s current circumstances (including its
strategy, technology, workforce, and environment).
6. When performance suffers from structural flaws, the remedy is problem solving
and restructuring.
The structural frame looks beyond the workforce itself to evaluate the social construct of work.
(p. 69).
The human resources frame concentrates on the psychology of understanding the people
within the organization. It focuses on the relationship between the human needs of employees
and how both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards may influence the energy and effort put forth on
behalf of an employer (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
36
The political perspective focuses on the organization as a competitive environment where
one is faced with limited resources and encounters struggles between people for power. The
following are five assumptions supporting this frame:
1. Organizations are coalitions of different individuals and interest groups.
2. Coalition members have enduring differences in values, beliefs, information, and
perceptions of reality.
3. Most important decisions involve allocating scarce resources—deciding who gets
what.
4. Scarce resources and enduring differences put conflict at the center of day-to-day
dynamics and make power the most important asset.
5. Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining and negotiation among competing
stakeholders jockeying for their own interests. (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 184)
Organizations are viewed as arenas for competition between internal politicians who have their
own agendas, resources, and strategies. Bolman and Deal (2017) emphasized that organizations
may succeed by adapting to larger and more powerful political forces and by responding to the
needs and request of constituents.
The symbolic lens provides insight into the organization’s meaning with a focus on
culture, rituals, and history. There are five primary assumptions that reflect this important frame:
1. What is most important is not what happens but what it means.
2. Activity and meaning are loosely coupled; events and actions have multiple
interpretations as people experience situations differently.
3. In the face of uncertainty and ambiguity, symbols arise to help people resolve
confusion, find direction, and anchor hope and faith.
37
4. Events and processes are often more important for what they express or signal
than for their intent or outcomes. Their emblematic form waves a tapestry of
secular myths, heroes and heroines, rituals, ceremonies, and stories to help people
find purpose and passion.
5. Culture forms the super glue that bonds an organization, unites people, and helps
an enterprise to accomplish desired goals. (pp. 241–242)
The symbolic frame is important because it draws from several disciplines and ideas including
sociology, organization theory, political science, and neurolinguistics programming (Bolman &
Deal, 2017). Collectively, the four frames make it possible to look at the same situation from
different perspectives. Reframing was described by Bolman and Deal as a powerful tool for
clarity.
CSBA: Roles and Responsibilities of School Board Members
According to the CSBA (2018a), there are five major functions of school boards. The
first and most central function of the board is to establish a long-term vision. The vision must
represent a unified perspective among the entire board, superintendent, district staff, and
community. The mission and vision of the board should drive the decisions made at the district
and site level and should consistently reflect the needs of the students in order to realize their full
potential.
The second major responsibility of a board is to create an effective and efficient
organizational structure that includes hiring a superintendent, developing and adopting policies,
adopting curriculum and providing direction for implementation, adopting the budget and setting
budget priorities, and the LCAP (CSBA, 2018a).
38
A board’s third major governing responsibility is supporting the superintendent and staff,
through its behavior and actions, in the implementation of its mission and vision. CSBA (2018a)
has asserted that this responsibility is evident by:
• Acting with a professional demeanor that models the district’s beliefs and vision;
• Making decisions and providing resources that support mutually agreed upon
priorities and goals;
• Upholding district bylaws and policies that the board has approved;
• Ensuring a positive personnel climate exists; and
• Being knowledgeable enough about district efforts to explain them to the public.
(p. 2)
According to Wirt and Kirst (2005), the role of the board in exercising this responsibility, has
shifted from the pre-1960s approach of mediating conflicts related to policy in response to
community concerns to that of a co-leadership model and increased involvement in critical
decisions within the districts served.
The fourth critical responsibility of a school board is ensuring accountability to the
community. As elected officials, the board is accountable to the public for the overall
performance of the district. CSBA (2018a) illustrates that in order to meet this standard, the
board must perform the following tasks:
• Evaluate the superintendent;
• Monitor, review, and revise policies;
• Serve as a judicial and appeals body;
• Monitor student achievement and program effectiveness;
• Monitor district budget and finances;
39
• Monitor the collective bargaining process; and
• Evaluate its own effectiveness through self-evaluations. (p. 2)
The CSBA (2018a) makes the case that board members must understand that their role must be
responsive to the beliefs, values, and priorities of the community that they represent.
The fifth and final responsibility of a board is demonstrating community leadership.
Board members are elected to be advocates for students. There is an inherent expectation of the
community that board members will create ways to engage the community in conversations and
activities supporting the educational programs in schools. Board members must ensure that
diverse community members are represented and engaged in the LCAP process. Moreover, it is
important that board members represent the schools by attending many public functions
throughout their communities.
The aforementioned five responsibilities are critical indicators of success in a democratic
society. Board members establish credibility as a governance team by working with their
superintendents to make good decisions grounded in the belief that their decisions are made
based on what’s best for students (CSBA, 2018).
The Lighthouse Inquiry
The Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB, 2000; Rice et al., 2000) is one of three frameworks
employed in this study. This study examined whether or not school board members in high- and
low-performing schools exhibited patterns of organizational behavior that resulted in successful
student outcomes, and if so, could that behavior be described and learned by others? In the
background section of the report, the IASB (2000) maintained that until the late 1950s the public
generally believed that socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic factors largely predetermined the
potential for educational achievement. There was a strong belief that historically marginalized
40
students would be far less likely to achieve. The schools studied served similar demographics to
ensure that the differences between the schools’ achievement could not be attributed to
demographic characteristics.
According to Dervarics and O’Brien (2019), through the use of rigorous qualitative
research methods, this three-phase study has provided one of the most comprehensive
investigations into the impact of board members’ roles on students’ achievement. The study
considered whether some school boards intentionally or unintentionally created the conditions
for higher student achievement than did others. It spanned 3 years and examined districts with
either very high or very low standardized test scores over this period.
Delagardelle (2008) contended that the original Lighthouse Inquiry was designed to
collect targeted information on practices in a southern state with exceedingly high levels of
student achievement. The second phase evaluated the conditions that must be present in order for
boards to have an impact on students’ success. The last phase of the study was conducted in
several states across the nation and was designed to identify best practices for leadership
development by identifying and contrasting the behaviors exhibited by board members in both
low- and high-achieving districts.
The IASB’s (2000, p. 44) researchers identified seven conditions for school renewal
based on the board and superintendent perspective: (a) “a sense of building a human
organizational system—a self-renewing professional community with appropriately shared
decision making”; (b) “a perspective on how education gets better—how to make initiatives and
support them”; (c) “a sense of how to create support around personnel as they carry out their
roles”; (d) “a sense of the role of staff development in productive change”; (e) “a sense of how to
support school sites in the renewal process”; (f) “a sense of how to generate lay community
41
involvement”; and (g) “a sense of integrative leadership—direction and focus from a realistic
perspective and the nature of strong but sensitive leadership.”
The IASB (Rice et al., 2000) found that the beliefs of the school board members in high-
achieving districts and the presence of the seven conditions for productive change differed
significantly from the school board members in low-performing schools. Districts were
categorized as either “moving districts” or “stuck districts,” and consistent differences were
identified between the two types. The greater the student achievement differences, the greater the
board– superintendent differences related to the presence of conditions for school renewal.
In the study (IASB, 2000; Rice et al., 2000), the researchers labeled the patterns of belief
among board members in moving and stuck districts as “accepting” and “elevating.” In an
accepting viewpoint, students were accepted by the board, superintendent, and staff “as is”; their
capabilities were seen as a product of their race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status—among
other related characteristics. The programs, procedures, curriculum, and personnel were not
viewed critically and were considered as typical and unrelated to student achievement.
Therefore, the focus was on managing rather than changing the environment and conditions upon
which the students were receiving educational services.
In the elevating view (Rice et al., 2000), students were seen as malleable and emerging
learners, and the responsibility of the school was to nurture their growth potential. The schools
were continuously analyzed and scrutinized with a growth mindset and an eye for ongoing
improvement. Students with social and economic challenges were afforded the same
opportunities to grow and succeed. Respondents from moving districts consistently exemplified
an elevating view of students and teachers along, with the belief that districts had the ability to
continuously improve learning for all students. Conversely, respondents from stuck districts
42
expressed an accepting view of students, educators, and parents and consistently made excuses
for all the reasons why the district was unable to make improvements and favorably affect
student learning.
The study’s findings suggest that the attitudes and beliefs that policymakers hold,
although distal in nature, make a positive difference in the culture of the organization overall.
According to Bolman and Deal (2017), there is a growing body of psychological research that
shows that reframing can improve performance across a range of tasks. Reframing is vital for
effective leadership and involves evaluating complex situations quickly, synthesizing
information in a manner that produces new ideas and creating teams that produce innovative
scenarios that appear different than they look today. Board members in the districts categorized
as moving (Rice et al., 2000) were highly skilled at reframing. They believed that students in
their schools would achieve and, therefore, they did. These board members were able to take the
information presented to them, reframe it using the symbolic and human resources frames and
create more favorable outcomes for their students.
Chapter Summary
The literature review implies that the role of school board members and superintendents
is highly complex and vital to the overall success of school districts as important community
organizations. Based on the research reviewed and analyzed, it is suggested that trained school
boards practicing effective governance strategies are often associated with high-performing and
successful school districts. While there are only 24 states presently mandating school board
member training (Alsbury, 2008), the literature suggests that governance training for school
board members makes a positive difference when evaluating and measuring student achievement
overall. Adopting and engaging in best practices and effective leadership strategies equips school
43
board members and superintendents with the knowledge and expertise that they need to focus on
student achievement and to engage in reframing situations to better understand their students and
to support higher achievement (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Public school education must remain a
priority for the nation’s leadership, and it is a moral imperative that schooling provide equal
opportunities for all students enrolled. Equipping school board members with governance
training is vital to achieving the goal of focusing on, supporting, and increasing student
achievement. This is an important and necessary investment in our future.
44
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
In order to evaluate the elements of this study, the research team, under the direction of
the dissertation chair, Dr. Michael Escalante from the University of Southern California’s (USC)
Rossier School of Education met regularly to collaborate in designing research questions,
discussing research literature, constructing operational definitions and conceptual frameworks.
These processes culminated in the research methodology adopted by the research team. This
chapter outlines the research team, research design, sample and participants, instrumentation,
data collection and analysis, and ethical considerations.
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 affected the 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.
Research Team
The research team was comprised of 20 doctoral students under the direction of Dr.
Michael Escalante of the EdD Educational Leadership program within the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California (USC). The research team began working
together in 2019 and met monthly to collaborate, plan, and examine current research and
practices. The team developed the research design, created study instruments, and outlined a time
line for completion.
45
Qualitative Design
To advance the researchers’ understanding and to develop practical learning that could be
applied, this study utilized qualitative methodology and was descriptive in design. This formative
approach served to analyze the impact of MIG training on boards and superintendents related to
student achievement and to review and assess the CSBA training. The following design-based
research questions measured and assessed whether school board training had improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and had affected the impact on
performance indicators for school districts:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Sampling Strategies and Participants
This study concentrated on school districts where a majority of the board had participated
in CSBA’S MIG training program. The researchers focused on districts in 12 California counties:
Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura. Based on the survey responses, the following
groups were established: (a) full participation, defined as a majority of school board members
having received MIG training; (b) partial participation, defined as less than half of the board
members and superintendent who had not received MIG training; and (c) nonparticipants,
defined as districts with no trained school board members or superintendents. Upon collecting
46
the data and analyzing it, the study concentrated only on the school districts that met the
established criteria for the study.
Districts that met either full or partial participation were studied. The following
characteristics either included or excluded the five following conditions: (a) 2,000-50,000
average daily attendance (ADA); (b) elementary, secondary, county office, or unified school
district; (c), no consideration regarding socioeconomics, (d) CAASPP scores, and (e)
participation in MIG training. The districts selected for study were identified based on their
region and the number of board members within the district who had attended MIG training.
Instrumentation
A total of three data sets were used for study: surveys, interviews and various documents.
Surveys and interviews were utilized by this researcher in two districts and one county office.
The use of multiple data collection methods was employed to triangulate evidence collected and
to avoid focusing on insubstantial information. To support and affirm the results of the surveys,
participating individuals were interviewed. The purpose of the interview was to expand on the
survey responses and give them perspective. The research team met regularly with the
dissertation chair to collaboratively refine the instrumentation to be used for this study.
Moreover, the research team utilized the literature review and conceptual framework defined in
Chapter Two as a basis for the instrument design.
The doctoral cohort, excluding the dissertation chair, established teams of researchers.
Each team selected regions of focus from the designated research areas. The teams assembled
survey materials to email to the individuals identified for participation. These materials included
board member and superintendent recruitment and information letters and surveys.
47
Surveys
Board member and superintendent survey instruments were guided by multiple
frameworks to respond to survey questions. MIG training topics, best practices, and Bolman and
Deal’s (2017) leadership traits were methodically scaffolded into the survey questions. Surveys
were emailed to superintendents and board members in the chosen counties (Alameda, Los
Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa
Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura) where a sufficient number of school board members had been
trained through CSBA’s MIG training program.
The research team developed recruitment letters (Appendix A), surveys (Appendices B
and C), and interview protocols (Appendices D and E) during the winter of 2020. The
superintendent and school board surveys were developed as Likert-type scale instruments along
with multiple-choice responses in addition to open-ended response questions. Superintendent and
board member recruitment letters accompanied each survey. Surveys were developed
electronically through the use of a program called Qualtrics™, and a line was provided for ease
of response by the participants. The informed consent for participants is contained in Appendix
F; Appendix G shows how the survey and interview questions were aligned with the research
questions.
Interviews
Surveys were emailed to all districts in the selected counties that met the established
participant criteria. Interviews were scheduled virtually via Zoom™ (due to the restrictions
imposed by COVID-19 pandemic), and follow-up survey links were provided electronically for
those individuals who had had either full or partial participation in the MIG training. Those
identified as nonparticipants were excluded from the distribution process. Purposeful interview
48
strategies were employed utilizing sampling that identified data-rich circumstances in which
respondents added to the depth of understanding of the research conducted (Patton, 2002).
Qualitative interviews involved unstructured and general open-ended questions that were few in
number and elicited views and opinions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Data Collection and Analysis
Research Question 1 asked, “What factors impact the decision of school board members
to participate in the MIG training program?” To address this question, responses to specific
questions from the survey were analyzed to determine internal and external influences on school
board members’ motivation for participating in MIG training. Interview questions were used to
determine specific examples of motivation causes.
Research Question 2 asked, “How does the MIG training program encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?” To address this
question, CSBA documents were reviewed, survey questions were developed, and interviews
were conducted. The documents were reviewed to assess which board members had been
trained, when they received training, and which materials were used during training. Interview
questions were developed to assess whether board members’ practices reflected the MIG training
that they had received and to analyze school board members’ use of acquired knowledge and
enhanced best practices.
Research Question 3 asked, “Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth?” This question was addressed on the surveys on which school board members and
superintendents recorded their perspectives on whether or not MIG training had an impact on
student achievement and growth. This survey question was followed up with an interview
49
question asking for information on why these individuals believed it did or did not have an
impact.
Ethical Considerations
All members of the research team completed USC’s IRB process including the
Collaborative IRB Training Initiative (CITI). The CITI is provided online and is essential for
establishing the foundation for ethical considerations. The CITI training includes modules and
quizzes on human research ethics, principles, and laws and regulations designed to advance the
highest possible standards for ethical conduct and serve to certify researchers in conducting
research involving human subjects. The primary objective of the IRB is to ensure that
researchers are cognizant of and equipped to implement practices ensuring the physical and
emotional wellbeing of the study participants. To ensure the ethical research design, the research
team worked extensively with the dissertation chair to develop research questions and work on
the overall design of the study. Researchers have agreed to refrain from studying their own
districts to avoid conflicts of interest. Moreover, before each interview, the concept and context
of the study will be presented to participants along with contact information for the chair, the
purpose of the study, and the research questions. Creswell and Creswell (2018) asserted that “the
ethical consideration that need to be anticipated are extensive, and they are reflected throughout
the research process” (p. 90). It is for this reason that attention was paid to ethical considerations
prior to the development and design of this research study and continued to be at the forefront of
this study until its completion.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has identified the methodology to be used in the study of superintendents
and board members in various California school districts in 12 counties. The focus of this study
50
was to examine the effect of school board training on the efficacy of school board members in
practice. Emphasis was placed on the MIG training provided by the CSBA itself. This study also
analyzed whether superintendents and board members believed that the MIG program
encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance. Finally, this study solicited responses on whether or not MIG training had an impact
on student achievement and growth.
51
Chapter Four: Research Results and Findings
The objective of the research study was to understand and explore the relationship
between the CSBA’s MIG training and the efficacy and impact that training had on K-12 public
school board governance, student achievement, learning, and growth, utilizing a deductive
approach. The IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry study (Rice et al., 2000) was used to guide the
researcher’s definition of school board efficacy based on the aforementioned study’s seven
conditions for school renewals, as follows:
1. Emphasis on Building a Human Organizational System
2. Ability to Create and Sustain Initiatives
3. Supportive Workplace for Staff
4. Staff Development
5. Support for School Sites Through Data and Information
6. Community Involvement
7. Integrated Leadership (p. 7)
The researcher also relied on the Lighthouse Inquiry study in examining the links between what
school boards are called upon to do and the achievement of students in schools (Rice et al.,
2000).
Notably, there are a variety of governance training opportunities available to K-12 public
school board members (NSBA, 2020); however, this study concentrated on the CSBA’s MIG
training provided in California. The MIG training program provides professional development to
school board members and superintendents through five modules focusing on their major areas
of responsibility (i.e., governance, student learning and achievement, school finance, human
resources, community relations, and advocacy). These modules are typically offered in person at
52
various locations throughout the state, but due to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, courses have
been offered virtually.
This chapter describes the results of the qualitative study conducted in 62 districts located
in 12 California counties. Through the use of interviews, surveys, and the literature review, the
concentration was on the impact of CSBA governance training on the efficacy of school boards
and board members’ perceived influence on student achievement. Districts were initially selected
for study based upon the number of superintendents and school board members who had
received the CSBA’s MIG training. The researchers identified elementary, high school, unified,
and county school districts that were chosen to participate.
The findings led to the materialization of three major themes connected to each of the
research questions. The findings and supporting data are systematized according to and in the
same order as the study’s guiding research questions are listed below:
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?
Participants
The initial component of research undertaken included each researcher conducting virtual
Zoom interviews with at least three school board members and one superintendent from the same
district to assess their perceptions of the MIG training and what, if any, impact it had on the areas
identified in each of the research questions. The interviews were designed to collect
supplemental data to address and support the three research questions.
53
The second phase of research was conducted with the research team surveying a total of
62 superintendents and at least three school board members in each district across 12 counties in
California: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura. All 62 superintendents
responded to the initial survey, and 180 of the 186 identified school board members responded to
the survey. Table 1 summarizes the composition of the number of superintendents and board
members identified for participation and the number of those who actually participated in the
surveys and the interviews.
Table 1
Summary of Participants
Participants
n
%
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses
62
100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses
180
97
Interviews 177 95
54
Out of 62 superintendents and 180 school board member research study participants,
three superintendents and nine school board members were selected by this researcher for
individual study. One district was selected from San Bernardino County; the other two districts
were selected from Los Angeles County. For each superintendent interviewed, there were three
CSBA MIG-trained board member participants. Table 2 illustrates the number of superintendents
and board members personally interviewed and surveyed by the researcher as compared to the
total group data collected by other researchers in the cohort.
Table 2
Summary of Study Participation: Superintendents and School Board Members
Item
Researcher
totals
Group
totals
Number of superintendents surveyed 3 62
Number of school board members surveyed 9 180
Number of superintendents interviewed 3 62
Number of school board members interviewed 9 177
Total survey and interview responses 12 481
55
Los Angeles County is one of the nation’s largest counties and has the largest population
of any county in the nation. It is located in southern California between San Bernardino and
Ventura Counties and has 80 school districts and over 2 million preschool and school-age
children within its boundaries. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2019), the population was
estimated to be 10,039,107, with the average household income estimated at $64,251 and 78.7%
of students graduating with a high school diploma or higher.
San Bernardino County is located in southeastern California, with Inyo and Tulare
Counties to the north, Kern and Los Angeles counties to the west, and Orange and Riverside
Counties to the south. The population is estimated at 2,180,085, with an average household
income of $60,164 and 79.5% of students graduating with a high school diploma or higher).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2019), the population density of the two counties was
2,491 people per square mile in Los Angeles County and 105 people per square mile in San
Bernardino County.
The researcher interviewed one superintendent and three school board members in each
of the districts, for a total of three superintendents and nine board members. The three
superintendents who were interviewed had tenure in their positions ranging from 3 to 17 years;
the three school board members in each of the three districts had served in their respective
districts from 9 months to 16 years.
For the purpose of this study, the districts, superintendents, and board members are
referenced using pseudonyms as those from St. Regis County Schools, Langham Union High
School District, and Pelican Hill Elementary District. All three districts were distinct from one
another in that St. Regis was a county district; Langham, a high school district; and Pelican Hill,
56
an elementary school district. At the time of this study, all three were considered successful
districts.
St. Regis County Schools provided support and services to 414,000 students enrolled in
33 K-12 districts, with 530 schools spread across the county. Superintendent Monroe was a male
superintendent in his second term as an elected superintendent. He had completed the CSBA
MIG program. Board Member A was a female trustee who had served for 10 years. Prior to her
most recent election, she had served on a different district’s governing board for 17 years and
had taken the MIG training several times. Board Member B was a male trustee who was new to
the board; Board Member C was a male trustee who had served on the board for over 14 years.
Langham Union High School District was comprised of six high schools and one adult
school. The district boasted a 96.7% attendance rate and had an 85.8% graduation rate.
Established in 1901, the district provided a high school education to approximately 8,888
students and adult education services to approximately 11,000 students at the time of this study.
Superintendent Martinez was a male superintendent who began his career as a teacher at one of
the high schools within the Langham Union High School District. He then became a high school
principal, assistant superintendent of human resources, and was serving in his 3rd year as
superintendent.
Board Member D was a male trustee who had served for 3 years and was currently the
board president. Board Member E was a female trustee who had served on the board for 5 years;
she was currently serving as the board vice president. Board Member F had served for 3 years.
All three trustees had completed the MIG training.
Pelican Hill Elementary School District was comprised of 12 schools spread out over 346
square miles. This district prided itself as a district of choice, with more choice-based programs
57
than any other district in the area; it provided service to approximately 9,000 students.
Superintendent Roberts was a female superintendent who had spent her entire career within the
district in which she currently served. She experienced the traditional trajectory to the
superintendent position by working her way up from a teaching position to an assistant principal,
to principal, and then to superintendent. She had been the superintendent of Pelican Hill
Elementary School District for 17 years. Board Member G had served on the board for 3 years
and was currently serving as board president.
Board Member H had served as a trustee for over 10 years and was currently the board
vice president. Board Member I served as a trustee for 8 years and was preparing to retire. All
board members in this district had completed the training as required by their board policy.
Results for Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What factors impact the decision of school board
members to complete the MIG training program?” According to Roberts & Sampson (2011),
providing professional development for board members is how public schools back are led
collectively to excellence. Roberts and Sampson (2011) opined:
From the review of data, it seems that professional development is needed and essential
for student learning, but it is not altogether conclusive. Common sense should tell us that
a better educated board will have a positive impact on our schools. If we are truly in
education for student learning, then our school boards need to know what they are doing
so they can make the best-informed decisions possible for student education. (p. 709)
Arkansas and Texas are two of 24 states in the nation that mandate school board training;
and while training for board members is not mandatory in California, nor is it mandatory in most
states within the nation, the data reviewed supports the notion that if there are educational
58
prerequisites that must be met for teachers and administrators, board members should participate
in professional development as well in order to be forward thinking and to increase their
knowledge and skills.
The first research question was designed to investigate what led school board members to
participate in the MIG training program. Three major themes emerged from responses related to
this research question: (a) self-motivation, (b) increasing effective governance, and (c) cultural
expectation. Board members indicated that they must be self-motivated to seek out and obtain
training opportunities even when MIG training was a cultural expectation within the governing
body. Additionally, increasing effective governance and cultural expectation were factors among
board members. Finally, the matter of accessibility (i.e., location, affordability, and time away)
were discussed by both board members and superintendents as a factor in the decision whether to
participate or not to participate. These dynamics affected the decision of board members to take
the MIG training and may have dissuaded some board members from participating. Of the 242
participants, 100% (N = 242), 55% (n = 34) of the superintendents and 59% (n = 107) of the
board members strongly agreed that their school board culture inspired participation in MIG
training (see Table 3).
59
Table 3
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Culture Encouraged Participation in
the Masters in Governance Program
Superintendents Board Members
(n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 34 55 107 59
Agree 28 45 60 33
Disagree 0 0 12 7
Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 1
School board members establish district goals, provide for program development, oversee
the financial affairs of the district, adopt operating policies, assure systematic review and
evaluation, advocate on behalf of students and schools, and hire and fire the superintendent
(Texas Education Agency, 2010). In order for school board members to be effective and astute,
they need professional development opportunities (Dillon, 2010).
Self-Motivation
Self-motivation was a central theme for the first research question. Table 4 illustrates that
out of 180 school board respondents, 133 indicated that self-motivation was the primary factor
that influenced school board members to participate in MIG training. Superintendents did not
feel quite as strongly as board members did; 37 of 62 superintendents indicated that self-
motivation was the primary dynamic in influencing participation in MIG training. Of the 62
superintendents surveyed, 35 responded that they were encouraged by board members to attend
MIG training. Of particular interest was that 128 out of 180 board members responded that
60
increasing effective governance was also a determining factor that influenced them to participate
in MIG training.
Table 4
Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the 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.
During the interviews, all nine school board members and the three superintendents
reported that their motivation to participate related to increasing their understanding of the role
of governance and to learn as much as possible about the various components of board
governance so as to be effective in their respective roles. Board Member A noted, “They do give
you the frameworks of what a good board member looks like and should act like.” Similarly,
Board Member B said, “It shows what should and shouldn’t be done in a meeting.”
Superintendent Martinez remarked that it was important for me to work alongside the board
president and alongside our administration to support the board in common practices. Common
61
guidelines and common procedures and to have an open forum in a structured setting for each
board member to not only express himself, but also learn about other board members and their
tendencies and their priorities.
Self-motivation, such as the desire to perform their duties responsibly and the aspiration
of working collaboratively with their peers, was the predominant reason for participation in MIG
training.
As illustrated in Figure 1, Bolman and Deal (2017), provided four frames grounded in
social science research and managerial experience through which to filter information and to
solve problems as effectively as possible. The structural approach is the design of the
organization around policies, procedures, goals, and roles. The human resource frame places
emphasis on the people within the organization. The political frame accentuates power,
advantage, and competing interests. Finally, the symbolic lens concentrates on culture, rituals,
ceremonies, and meaning. These frames were part of the theoretical framework used to
triangulate the data findings.
62
Figure 1
Bolman and Deal’s Four Leadership Frames
Note. Based on Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (6th ed.), by L. G.
Bolman and T. E. Deal, 2017, Jossey Bass.
Congruent with Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames of leadership, structural leaders
do their homework and focus their efforts on implementation. In the instance of school board
member training, both school board members and superintendents ascribed self-motivation as the
reason that they participated in an MIG training program. The board member survey respondents
attributed their desire to participate to their aspiration to learn as much as possible so as to be
adequately prepared for their role as board members. They described their thought process as
“I’m going to do this the right way” (Board Member C) and “I wanted to make sure that I was
63
prepared and had the knowledge to make the best possible decisions that I could” (Board
Member A). The interviewed superintendent participants attributed their motivation to
participate in MIG training to “a need to learn how to guide the board to be their best”
(Superintendent Monroe) and “I felt it was important to master the principles of good
governance” (Superintendent Martinez).
According to Northouse (2019), the skills approach to leadership suggests that acquired
knowledge and learned abilities are essential for effective leadership. The author contended that
there are three characteristics to motivation, all essential to building strong leadership skills:
willingness, dominance and social good. Superintendents and school board members repeatedly
reported their desire for social good, which appears as a factor in their motivation to receive MIG
training.
Increasing Effective Governance
Pursuant to Northouse (2019), standards of excellence are clear norms of conduct critical
for team functioning. Team members should be aligned in order for actions and performance to
be aligned. The author further contended that it is vitally important that the team establish
standards of excellence in order for members to feel pressure to perform at their highest levels.
When asked what the primary factor was that influenced participation in MIG training, 26.72%
(n= 128) of school board member participants responded increasing effective governance. This
was the second highest response just below self-motivation. When superintendents were asked
the same question, 31 out of 62 superintendents responded that increasing effective governance
was the primary factor influencing participation. Congruent with this data, Superintendent
Monroe said:
64
I think the board members really, you know, appreciate the information. They appreciate
the dialogue and they appreciate being educated, so they can do their jobs the way that
they should from a legal perspective, but also be more effective as a board member,
because I think every board member that gets elected, doesn’t know, but the vast majority
of them really want to do well for their communities and they don’t want to make
mistakes, and they certainly don’t want to break the law. So, I think if they get those
opportunities, it just helps them, you know, move forward in a more effective manner.
Board Member D said, “To me it was important to make sure that I was not only educated in our
own policies, but also in proper and effective governance standards.” Board Member E
commented that,
participants get a well-rounded program about the different components to governance
and being very unfamiliar especially with financing, you know. I love basic numbers,
that’s fine; I know household budgets, but when you’re talking about millions of dollars
and all the different funding codes, I think that even after 5 years, you don’t have
everything memorized, but at least through MIG you get a good all-around preparation.
Board Member F said, “As one of the new members, I think not coming from, you know,
directly from education, but from the nonprofit sector, it is important for me to have a good
understanding of the educational budget.”
Increasing effective governance by bridging knowledge gaps were also factors in the
motivation of board members and superintendents to participate in MIG training. Board Member
I remarked, “I think we’re all in it for effective governance and you know, we’re in it for the kids
to further the education of all socioeconomic statuses.”
65
Campbell and Fullen (2019) studied five examples of high-performing superintendents
who were exemplars of what the authors referred to as having “governance success” with their
boards. They found that what these superintendents had in common was that they viewed
governance as an integral and essential component of the work of the districts they served. These
superintendents consistently sought out ways to involve their boards in improving the effective
governance of their districts.
In response to whether or not MIG training should be encouraged for school governance
teams by the local district policy, 64%, (n = 116) of board member respondents answered
affirmatively. As illustrated in Table 5, the majority of school board survey respondents strongly
agreed or agreed that school boards in California could benefit from MIG training. It is worth
noting that all of the superintendents surveyed either strongly agreed or agreed that all California
school board members could benefit from MIG training. This finding was in contrast to 4% of
board members who disagreed and 1% who strongly disagreed. According to the CSBA (2018b),
the MIG program equips superintendents and board members with the necessary knowledge and
skills to create and sustain a highly effective governance structure.
66
Table 5
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Believed That All California School Board
Members Could Benefit From Masters in Governance Training
Superintendents Board Members
(n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 47 76 124 69
Agree 15 24 47 26
Disagree 0 0 7 4
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1
Cultural Expectation
Northouse (2019) defined idealized influence as leaders who serve as strong role models,
with high standards of ethical and moral conduct. They are trustworthy, respected by their
followers, and provide followers with a sense of vision and mission. While the survey data in the
present study indicated that only 17.54% (n = 84) of respondents attributed school board
expectation as the primary factor influencing participation in a MIG training program and only
14.82% (n= 71) of respondents declared that they were encouraged by school board members to
participate. the interviews conducted by this researcher suggested that cultural expectation was
for some a contending factor in the decision to participate. Board Member A noted that “there
was a little bit of peer pressure from other board members doing it. So, I felt like I needed to do
it.” Board Member D said:
First and foremost, I think it was the discussions I had with my colleagues before joining
the board. I had known about the MIG program from two of my colleagues who were
67
elected in 2015, and they recommended it to me. In fact, one of them told me almost as
soon as I was elected in 2017 that I needed to take the program.
Board Member H commented that “they passed a board policy so that whenever a new board
member comes on board, the whole board will attend together.”
When asked what factors influenced his participation in MIG, Superintendent Monroe
replied that,
once elections are completed for a cycle, then we reach out to all of the newly elected
board members and ask them to participate in a series. So, we’ll have some leaders that
are school board leaders in our county that are really connected and experienced that have
been through four or five or six elections and have been reelected. So, they really know
the position well—they’re kind of role models. We have some simulated kinds of events
and activities and scenarios, and they then kind of share with others how they would
approach it and how they dealt with it, and just kind of have that interactive dialogue
with, I think you know, real-life situations and make it really engaging for new board
members and even experienced board members that have come and make it relevant. So,
our attendance is usually pretty strong at those because they like that kind of format. So, I
think any time a board member can get educated on key issues, it’s helpful to them.
According to Bolman and Deal (2017), symbolic leaders use symbols to capture
attention, and they frame experience by offering plausible ways of getting things done. The
practice of stories and consequent expectancy theory are used in these districts to create an
increase in participation. Bolman and Deal’s (2017) symbolic frame derives meaning from
organizational actions. Events, procedures, and processes gain importance based on meaning
rather than outcome. Symbols arise to constructively address confusion and conflict and to
68
provide direction and inspiration. Board member survey respondents were asked whether their
school board culture encourages participation in MIG training. Overall, 92.77% either strongly
agreed or agreed; only 7.23% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Notably, all Pelican Hill
Elementary District board members remarked that their district enacted a board policy requiring
every new board member to be trained and that the full board and the superintendent would
accompany the new member, even if he or she had been previously trained.
Board Member I remarked:
The governance training is really the instrument that pulled our board together and kept
our board together because we went through that program more than one time and we
ended up adopting it as a policy in our district. It became a policy, and any new
candidates and any new board members that came on were required to attend; and when
we did our board training again, that came out of our board training in the form of board
protocols.
Board Member H commented:
I think almost 15 years ago, the board apparently was a little contentious and there was a
lot of things happening—a lot of personality conflicts—and so they had decided to do
this training all together, and they just realized that it was a good bonding experience.
And so, they passed a board policy that whenever a new board member comes on board,
that the whole board together would attend this training together. So, I of course—I was
appointed in 2017 so, the whole board attended with me. Then we had another new board
member come on the end of the year. He was elected, and so we went through it again.
Now we have a third new board member and some of us were scheduled, but you know,
it’s interesting how the dynamics change on a board. But we do have a new board
69
member that started last summer, and he was scheduled [for the training]. But then of
course COVID hit. So, we haven’t been able to do that with him. So hopefully we’ll be
able to get back to normal soon.
Board member H appeared enthusiastic about the training and informed the researcher that it
made a positive difference in how the board interacted and made decisions.
In the case of Pelican Hill Elementary School District, there was a very strong cultural
expectation that MIG training would occur, so much so that a board policy was adopted to
mandate the training. Leadership within the district valued the training and fostered an
environment where it became a cultural norm. Participants in this study revealed that they were
motivated to attend, in part, due to the expectation within the organization that they would.
Although in both St. Regis County Schools and Langham Union High School District,
there was no board policy mandating the training, several board members reported that they were
motivated to participate in the training as a result of external pressure to participate due to
cultural expectation. Board Member C was motivated to take the training in part due to the
“expectations and recommendations of other board members.” Board Member A commented that
she felt she needed to participate in the training because there was peer pressure from other board
members doing it. According to Bolman and Deal (2017), within the symbolic frame, ritual
provides meaning and structure to individuals and organizations. Enacting a ritual, such as board
member training, connects a group to something more than words.
These findings suggested that professional development and shared learning experiences
were a cultural expectation in some districts. Therefore, professional development was deeply
grounded in the culture of those organizations.
70
Accessibility
The MIG program has five full-day courses and, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they
are all presently offered exclusively online. There are pre-class assignments that must be
completed by participants prior to attending the full-day module (CSBA, 2018b). Preceding the
COVID-19 pandemic, these five courses were offered in person, separately, at different locations
throughout the state. One of the survey questions asked of both superintendents and board
members was what platform(s) of the training program would increase the chances of
participation. Notably, even though a pandemic is still going on, Table 6 demonstrates that the
majority of superintendent and board members agreed that hosting these courses locally, in
person, increased the chances of participation. Hosting hybrid courses online in combination
with in-person classes was the second choice that would increase the chances of participation by
superintendents and board members.
Table 6
Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the Masters in Governance Program
Would Increase 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.
71
Board Member A responded:
Affordability and flexibility, like online and in person, because everybody’s different.
Some people—some people like to travel. They have the budget to do it. They, you know,
they like the networking with other board members—I mean, that’s part of the allure. I’m
sure that’s why they did it the way that they did, so you realize it’s not just you. Right. So
the . . . idea that they’re making it more accessible in different ways.
Board Member A also emphasized the need for flexibility as well as the desire to network with
other board members as factors to consider when evaluating accessibility.
In addition to considering the location and platform of the training, the researchers asked
if the current cost of the MIG training impedes school board members from participating (see
Table 7).
Table 7
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether the Current Cost of Masters in Governance
Training Impeded School Board Members From Participating
Superintendents Board Members
(n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 3 5 14 8
Agree 11 18 62 34
Disagree 35 56 89 49
Strongly Disagree 13 21 15 8
72
According to the CSBA (2018b), the current cost of each course is $399. The total cost
for the entire program, including all five modules, is $2,000. Survey results indicated that 77% of
superintendents either disagreed or strongly disagreed that cost was a factor impeding
participation and 57.5% of board members either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the notion
of the current cost being a deterrent.
Board Member H said:
The only downside of online is that you don’t get the interaction or see the people’s body
language. Sometimes it’s helpful being with other districts. So, I think in-person
[training] is still the best, but sometimes that doesn’t work for most people. Some
districts don’t have the money to travel logistically, so the ones that are the poor districts
or the ones that are more remote like ABC District among others. I think even online
would be a very good choice for the rural or if they don’t have the budget to travel.
When asked what would make the training more accessible, Board Member I said, “to
make it more accessible, just offer it online.” He added:
How can I disagree? I mean, attending in person is good and hybrid is good with online. I
don’t know about exclusively online. I think maybe, for once, I need to catch up with
some people; but I think online would be great. I think for a cost benefit, too, they
probably can keep the material more easily up to date.
In contrast, to the majority of respondents indicating that cost was not a factor impeding
participation, Board Member I stated:
The cost was the biggest issue—particularly, you know, coming through economic
downturns. We were going through that because we got hit with the first shutdown. Sorry,
the economic downturn. That was a really a difficult time for us. However, the training—
73
it was a priority. So, we made it a priority in our budget to still participate. But for a lot of
smaller districts, you know, when you talk about taking an entire board, you know, every
time they have an election because maybe they have a higher turnover, it gets expensive.
The money was an issue because they didn’t do the front end for us. We did it with
candidates coming in, and so candidates knew coming in the importance because they
had experienced it. So, coming on the board, we had to make difficult decisions on
whether or not we were going to attend the conference this year. “I do this, whatever
else.” It wasn’t easy. They, they saw the benefit of it, and so it wasn’t easy. Okay, we’re
going to do this; but for other districts, because they didn’t have an orientation, they
didn’t see the importance of it. It was just another cost issue, and so cost was a big issue
for a lot of districts.
Although Board Member I’s district found it challenging to fund the cost of MIG training, the
district made MIG training a priority. While not easy, the district governing team believed it was
important enough, despite the expense, to support the training. It should be noted that the policy
of this particular district, which requires every board member and the superintendent to attend
the training with whomever is newly elected to the board, inherently drives the cost of training
up. It is assumed, based on the data, that this was the reason that the district found the cost to be
a deterrent.
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
Overall, despite any external factors, board members revealed that self-motivation was
the primary factor in choosing to participate in the MIG training rather than someone else
influencing or pressuring them. Board members wanted to perform well. Even when completing
the MIG training was a cultural expectation, newly elected school board members are not
74
required in California to complete any training to acquire essential knowledge and skills to
understand their responsibilities and fiduciary duties. Moreover, once elected or reelected, they
are not required to keep up with current educational trends or to earn continuing education units.
The interview data suggested that self-motivation led school board members to participate in the
MIG training.
Further review of data suggested that even though being trained in the MIG modules was
a cultural expectation within a governing board and board members encouraged fellow board
members to participate, self-motivation was the ultimate factor that led a board member to
participate in MIG training. Additionally, there were data that suggested that some accessibility
issues might impede board members from taking the MIG training. Currently, the COVID-19
pandemic requires that MIG training courses be provided exclusively online as opposed to in
person. Thus, the cost for some districts, whether the training is in person or online, may be
excessive, especially if superintendents and board members are required to take the training
together as a group and if they are required to travel.
Results 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?” School board
members are elected by the people to be the leaders of the organization, and it is crucial that they
understand the scope of their duties and that they be able to function as a team. School board
members are responsible for hiring and evaluating superintendents; student safety, wellness,
learning, and achievement; oversight of the budget; and discussing, evaluating, and adopting
board policies that address legal matters, human resources, and facilities.
75
The purpose of this research question was to examine how the MIG training program
prepared school board members to be effective in their respective roles and to demonstrate
effective governance behaviors. Because training and ongoing professional development are not
mandatory in California, the researchers sought to examine whether the MIG training prepared
school board members to be more effective. In other words, this research question focused
primarily on whether or not school board members demonstrated the characteristics of effective
governance due to their participation in MIG training.
The MIG training program exists to provide school board members with the tools and
strategies they need to practice effective governance behaviors through five separate and distinct
courses: Foundations of Effective Governance, Policy and Judicial Review, School Finance,
Human Resources, and Community Relations and Advocacy. School board members who
participated in MIG training were asked to consider how the effects of MIG training influenced
their practices and behaviors while functioning in the role of board members.
Analysis of the data collected from the survey completed by 62 superintendents and 180
school board members, responses from three individual superintendents and nine individual
school board members along with the literature reviewed, led to three key themes:
1. The MIG training equipped and encouraged board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance as the training emphasized the importance of
aligning decisions with the district’s vision and goals, provided them with the
skills necessary to engage in problem solving, as well as the social judgment and
knowledge to make responsible decisions and to hold themselves accountable as a
group.
76
2. The MIG training impacted their ability to contribute to the effectiveness of
school board meetings, thereby enabling them to govern more effectively.
3. The MIG training provided board members with the skills necessary to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance by distinguishing the differences among policy,
leadership, and management and, in so doing, clarified the separation between the
responsibilities of the superintendent and those of board members.
Aligning Decisions With the District’s Vision and Goals
Northouse’s (2019) skills model of leadership describes leadership based on a construct
of the necessary skills required to manifest in organizational efficacy. This approach illustrates a
framework for understanding the basis of effective leadership. In order for effective leadership to
exist leaders must have problem-solving skills, social judgment skills, and knowledge.
Board member respondents who participated in MIG training acquired the skills to align
their decision-making processes with the district’s vision and goals. Table 8 demonstrates that of
the 180 board members participating in the survey, 92% (n = 166) strongly agreed or agreed that
school board members who were MIG trained recognized the importance of aligning their
decisions to the district’s vision and goals. Similarly, of the 62 superintendents surveyed, 98% (n
= either strongly agreed or agreed with the aforementioned question (see Table 9).
77
Table 8
School Board Members’ Responses Regarding Whether Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Understood 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
Table 9
Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With
the District’s Vision and Goals
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 31 50
Agree 30 48
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Disagree 0 0
78
Northouse’s (2019) skills approach competencies are largely attained through
participation in MIG training. Problem-solving skills are reviewed in Course 1, Foundations of
Effective Governance; social judgment skills, in Course 5, Community Relations and Advocacy;
and knowledge is acquired in all five courses (CSBA, 2018b)—thus leading to the attainment of
all competencies necessary to perform effectively as leaders in education.
The analyzed data affirmed that the MIG training had a positive impact on a school board
members’ ability to understand the value of aligning decisions with the organization’s vision and
goals. When asked how the MIG training helped to equip board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance, Board Member D asserted, “So, the MIG training really
reinforces the governance team concept, and it forces you to learn and to understand that it’s
more than just you as the individual; they really teach the transition from the ‘I’ to the ‘we.’”
Board member B stated:
It helps to organize school board members so that they don’t walk in with a political
agenda. And I think that, you know, some school board members come in and what they
want to focus on is education, and other school board members come in and this is a
stepping stone to larger seats [in government], and so they try to make a political
statement on the backs of students. And that right there is wrong. So, you know,
hopefully, we’ll lower that mindset, and those who are just using it for the political
purposes.
Board member F declared:
We have an interesting collection of folks [serving on the board], and so I think that, in
particular, as it comes to governance, for the most part, the majority of the members just
face that there’s like rules and policies, procedures to follow. And I think that sometimes
79
creates frustration when one of the board members in particular continues not to follow
those guidelines, you know, and so I think amongst the four that understand and respect
this collaborative process, I think it’s really helped.
According to Katzenbach and Smith (2005), “a team is a small number of people with
complementary skills, who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals and
approach for which they hold themselves accountable” (p. 205). They further asserted that high-
performing teams shape purpose, translate common purpose into manageable and measurable
goals, develop the right combination of needed skills and expertise, foster a common
commitment to professional relationships, and hold themselves accountable as a team.
Social judgment is emphasized in MIG’s Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy.
According to Northouse (2019), social judgment skills are delineated into three categories:
1. Perspective taking is empathy applied toward problem solving. It is a skill linked
to social intelligence and relates to being sensitive to others’ perspectives.
2. Social perceptiveness is an awareness and insight into understanding the unique
needs of others and how they function.
3. Social performance is the ability to persuade others to move in a particular
direction. It also provides individuals with the ability to constructively address
interpersonal conflicts and the skills to figure out how their ideas fit in with those
of others both internally and externally. School board members are taught to
perform these tasks in MIG training that, in turn, equips them to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance.
80
Ability to Contribute Positively to School Board Meetings and to Govern Effectively
The second theme to emerge from Research Question 2 was the ability to contribute
positively to school board meetings and govern effectively. Pfeffer (1978) provided a political
conception as an alternative to the political frame:
Since organizations are coalitions and the different participants have varying interests and
preferences, the critical question becomes not how organizations should be designed to
maximize effectiveness, but rather, whose preferences and interests are to be served by
the organization. What is effective for students may be ineffective for administrators. The
assessment of organizations is dependent upon one’s preferences and perspectives. (p.
223)
Schools are designed to serve the interests of its students. School board members who
have unity of purpose and a shared moral imperative practice effective governance (Campbell &
Fullen, 2019).
School boards are elected by their community members and are therefore political by
nature. Understanding this concept, the researchers examined the relationship between the MIG
training and board members’ ability to effectively participate in school board meetings and to
govern effectively. Table 10 illustrates that 98% (n = 176) of school board members and 97%
(n= 60) of superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that MIG training encouraged school
governance teams to contribute to the effectiveness of school board meetings. Education is an
example of a highly complicated political ecosystem. Most people agree that good schools are a
critical component of American society, yet there is an ongoing narrative that schools in the
nation must be improved. There are arguments on both sides of the charter schools, vouchers,
and grants movements, yet with charter schools, on average, student learning outcomes are no
81
better or worse than in conventional public schools (Bolman & Deal, 2017). These political
conversations can exploit school board meetings, thereby distracting the board from important
topics such as student learning and achievement. This situation elevates the importance of MIG
training resulting in school board members who contribute more effectively to school board
meetings.
Table 10
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Encouraged
School Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of School Board Meetings
Superintendents Board Members
(n = 62) (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
82
When asked how MIG training equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors
of effective governance, if at all, Superintendent Roberts replied:
I think it depends on the mindset the board member comes with. If they come [to
training] with a mindset that they’re going to get educated on how to be a board member,
I think it’s tremendously effective. If they come with the idea that CSBA is not an
advocate group for school board members but an adversarial group, they seem to come
with an attitude of whatever they’re told doesn’t really help them. What I’ve seen work
the best is when everybody comes as a group and the whole group is willing to do it. That
way everybody gets a chance to hear from other school boards.
Board member F said:
It’s like you’re saving dollars during board meetings learning from MIG about finance
and what works right. How can we make these two things [saving money and purchasing
environmentally friendly products] come together with synergy which ultimately make
you a better person? It’s a better argument when you’re advocating for this type of thing
if you can say, like, “Here’s where I know this is going to help,” and then you can speak
to your colleagues in terms of things that they’re interested in as well, so you can mesh
all those things together. So, you can, you know, get support on this effort. This is how
MIG helped me learn how to govern more effectively.
Board Member I commented:
Oh, my goodness! Like I said, it put us on an even keel from the standpoint of our focus
was not like when you’re campaigning. Mm hmm. That’s one thing. But when you start
working once you get elected and you’re on the board. It’s about governance, and the
campaign, and all of those things that got you elected—that’s not front and center. It
83
really focused us in terms of again giving me the tools to be able to look at it from a
systems standpoint and focus on a relationship between me as a board member building
collaboration among all the other board members and working with our superintendent to
really kind of, you know, put the district and the needs of the district front and center. The
MIG training, particularly in the area of finance, you know, was helpful because when I
was a union member I knew, and I was a teacher, I knew the teacher side, I knew about
unions and collective bargaining from the side, from the union standpoint. But it really
kind of gave me that balance and helped me understand the challenge and the balance.
The majority of board members and superintendents informed the researcher that the MIG
training helped them to better understand the separation between their duties and the
superintendent’s, which subsequently led to more cohesion and understanding.
Campbell and Fullen (2019) took the position that board members and superintendents
must examine their core governance responsibilities closely so as to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance. Taking time to work together in examining the governing core is essential
to the success of the organization. These authors described the importance of coherence through
a unified board that is comprised of individuals, complete with different beliefs, styles, and
personalities, who are working together with a shared moral imperative in a collaborative,
cooperative fashion toward a common goal. MIG training addresses the concept of board
cohesion and professionalism generally in Course 1, Foundations of Governance. Table 11
shows that 86% of board members (n = 154) and 90% (n = 56) of superintendents either strongly
agreed or agreed that the MIG training impacted their ability to govern effectively.
84
Table 11
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Impacted Their
Ability to Govern Effectively
Superintendents Board Members
(n = 62) (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
Clarification of Roles and Responsibilities
The final survey questions aligned with Research Question 2 asked whether MIG training
provided board members with the skills necessary to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance by distinguishing the difference among policy, leadership, and management and, in
so doing, clarified the separation between the responsibilities of the superintendent and those of
board members.
The data suggested that MIG training differentiated among policy, leadership, and
management and clarified the separation between the roles and responsibilities of the
superintendent and the board. More than 96% (n = 175) of board members and 98% (n = 61) of
superintendents strongly agreed or agreed with the survey question that MIG training helped
school board members to differentiate among policy, leadership and management (see Table 12).
85
Table 12
Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Helped School Board
Members to Differentiate Among Policy, Leadership, and Management
Superintendents Board Members
(n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 26 42 100 56
Agree 35 56 75 42
Disagree 1 2 5 3
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
When asked during the interviews if MIG training helps differentiate between policy,
leadership and management, Superintendent Martinez responded:
I believe it provides them with the holistic view of the responsibility that board members
have, and it distinguishes their responsibilities compared to that of the superintendent or
the management here at the district office. From what I’ve been part of in this district for
the past 8 years, I find something, sometimes interesting that it could overlap as far as
what the board member believes what their responsibility is versus what the
superintendent or cabinet members’ responsibility is, so it really provides a bit of
structure and it’s reassuring that every district and every board member can benefit from
going through this process and have a better understanding and begin to see how they can
better support the district and also ensure that they want to continue that they stay in their
lane. To provide their best decision making, based on their responses to your
responsibilities, and allow the district and the superintendent to manage and also to make
86
recommendations . . . Sometimes I’m left with the understanding that board members
have the tendency to rely on their political leanings or their constituencies to push
agendas when, in fact, it takes five board members to work together hand in hand to, you
know, move the district forward and make decisions as the entire body. So, I think that
[MIG training] really helps the board member to understand their role.
Board Member H noted:
I think one of the very first classes or sessions is about what high-achieving school board
members look like. This is what a high-achieving board that has high test high scores in
their school districts—they have, you know, really high marks—look and act like. And
so, what are the characteristics of those boards? Like what did they do? It really shows
that a really cohesive high-achieving board has certain qualities that they follow, so it
helps you really kind of take a look, and I think it’s great to because it’s an opportunity to
grow.
Board Member E stated:
Those [MIG] presenters will say this is the most important part of governance, and so in
each section they all say that, and the reality is that every piece is a part to that big
puzzle; and without any one of those courses, it’s not a complete puzzle. And so, you
know you need that to be able to really understand all the different components, and I
believe that it helped me also to remember my role as a board member, and that is to
govern.
The principal functions of management are planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing,
controlling, and problem solving, whereas the functions of leadership are establishing direction,
aligning people, motivating, and inspiring. The intersection between the two concentrates on the
87
commonality of involving the use of influence of individuals to reach a particular goal or goals.
(Northouse, 2019).
Governance is not just completing the task of developing and passing policies; it is what
boards and superintendents do together and how they do it (Campbell & Fullen, 2019).
Congruent with the research literature, analysis of the responses to the survey question, “The
MIG training clarified the differences between my roles and responsibilities as a school board
and those of the superintendent,” 95% (n = 171) of board member respondents either strongly
agreed or agreed that the training clarified the difference between the superintendent’s roles and
responsibilities and those of the board. Table 13 illustrates that board members surveyed
overwhelmingly agreed that the MIG training had effectively clarified the separation between
governance and administration.
Table 13
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Clarified the
Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of 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
88
When asked whether the training helped to clarify the separation in roles between the
board and superintendent, Board Member E responded:
It’s all about the what do we want to do. And then we leave it to them [staff] to do the
“how”—you know, let them figure out how it is that they’re going to get there. And so,
just remembering that that that’s my role, I believe in not micromanaging. I think there
might be times where I want to get a little more excited about certain things, but yes. So,
I think it [MIG training] does prepare us for that.
Board Member I said:
You know, the primary thing is, it focuses you on your role: the role of governance as
opposed to politics. It gives you tools to basically be able to first primarily understand
what your role and your responsibilities are, along with the superintendent—basically
identifying what your role is and what the superintendent’s role is and then what your
role is together in working to develop—to basically, you know—your primary thing is to
set the direction for the district and then kind of to create the conditions in terms of
setting policies in terms of, you know, decide where you’re going to go. So, you know
that it just kind of refocused us and gave us the tools to basically do our job—you know,
if you don’t know what your role is, it is kind of hard to do your job, and if you don’t
have the tools to do that, then again, just kind of separates you out from politics. It really
puts good governance, front and center.
Board Member D asserted:
I think the MIG courses really reinforced that you are a team. No one board member
makes decisions. You have to come to a consensus, and you have to have those
discussions so that you take in all the input and everyone’s ideas and points of view. And
89
you kind of consolidate everything so that it’s not just about what you want. But what the
entire board and the governance team and what it is that the community is looking for as
well. Many people start off their political careers at the school board level and you really
don’t know where to start. You sometimes—you have an idea or people run on a
particular issue. But you don’t understand what it entails to govern a school district, and I
think training is important because for a lot of people, it helps you get a better grasp of
what it is that you’re supposed to do. I might be jumping ahead a little bit here. But so
many people think that when you’re a school board member that you run the schools, and
in fact that’s not true. You’re a governance board. You’re not a working board. You know
you’re there to set policy and goals, and then you trust your staff with doing that. So, I
think training like this is very much instrumental in helping people understand what it is
your purpose is as a board member, as opposed to an administrator or another staff your
purpose is as a board member, as opposed to an administrator or another staff member.
Survey data along with information collected from the interviews indicated that the MIG
training did, in fact, clarify the differences between the role of the board and the role of the
superintendent. Table 14 illustrates that 96% (n = 60) of the superintendent respondents either
strongly agreed or agreed that board members who were MIG trained exhibited a clearer
understanding of the difference between their roles and responsibilities and those of the
superintendent. This clarification provided an important foundation that allowed board members
to maintain their role as the policy makers of the district and, as well, supported the
superintendent in assuming responsibility for the operational management and administration of
the district.
90
Table 14
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles
and Responsibilities and Those of Their Superintendent
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Disagree 1 2
Summary of Results of Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was asked to examine whether MIG training for school board
members encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance. Utilizing survey data, interviews, and literature, the data results suggested that the
MIG training did encourage and equip school board members to exhibit behaviors of effective
practice. The MIG training equipped school board members in several areas cited in the research
as necessary to be present in effective school boards. Therefore, superintendents and school
board members concurred that these fundamentals of MIG training affected the practice of board
members who had attended the training. The key themes that emerged based on responses to this
research question are as follows:
1. The MIG training emphasized the importance of aligning decisions with the
district’s vision and goals and provided them with the skills necessary to engage
in problem solving, social judgment, and knowledge, thereby leading to
91
responsible decision making and to holding themselves accountable as a board
through the use of performance evaluations.
2. The MIG training had a positive impact on their ability to contribute to the
effectiveness of school board meetings.
3. Another important finding was that the MIG training provided board members
with the variety of skills needed to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance
by distinguishing the differences among policy, leadership and management and,
in so doing, clarified the separation between the responsibilities of the
superintendent and those of board members.
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth?” According to Land (2002), school board organizations such as the CSBA, experts,
and school board members have acknowledged and identified characteristics that they regarded
as necessary for effective governance that led to improvements in student achievement.
However, little qualitative and/or quantitative research could be found to demonstrate that these
characteristics are indeed essential for students’ academic achievement. Characteristics
commonly identified as essential for boards were as follows: (a) a focus on students’ academic
achievement and attention to policy, not administration; (b) a positive and collaborative
relationship with the superintendent, among board members, with other local agencies, and with
the public and state; (c) effective performance in the areas of policymaking, leadership, and
budgeting; and (d) adequate evaluation and training. Research was analyzed where possible;
however, the preponderance of findings concluded that many school boards did not personify the
characteristics that had been expressed in the literature as crucial to effective governance as
92
opposed to demonstrating that these qualities actually are critical for efficacy and, more
importantly, for students’ growth and academic achievement (Land, 2002).
Research Question 3 was put forward to acquire insight into whether school board
members exhibiting the behaviors of effective governance had an impact on student achievement
and growth. In a comprehensive survey of school board members, Hess (2002) discovered that
“no matter what kind of district they serve, today’s board members put a high priority on student
achievement” (p. 41). According to Johnson (2012),
in order to be effective, school boards must practice cohesive governance in which the
board and superintendent have separate and distinct roles that work in harmony relating
to policy development and implementation of policies that focus the parties on achieving
the district’s vision and goals. (p. 99).
Goodman and Zimmerman (2000) contended that “strong, collaborative leadership by
local school boards and school superintendents is a key cornerstone of the foundation for high
student achievement” (p. 7). To function effectively, Goodman and Zimmerman observed that
“first and foremost, the board and superintendent must become a unified governance and
leadership team, with a unity of purpose, a clear mission, and a shared sense of responsibility for
action to achieve a long-term vision” (p. 15). Moreover, these authors found that districts labeled
as effective tended to foster a higher degree of collaboration between each member of the school
board and the superintendent, who jointly were identified as the “school district governance team
for higher student achievement” (p. 23).
Marzano and Waters (2009) observed that it is essential that school boards work to adopt
and establish a commitment to a few goals for student achievement for an extended period of
time. Student learning and academic goals may become less important and therefore
93
unachievable if there are continuous modifications and shifts in the focus of school improvement
efforts.
The results of the surveys and interviews completed by 62 superintendents and 180
school board members culminated with the emergence of three key themes. The first theme
resulted in the majority of superintendents surveyed expressing their belief that school board
members who had earned their MIG certification demonstrated an increased focus on student
achievement.
Goodman et al. (1997) discerned that effective school boards concentrate their efforts on
“establishing school district policy, including stating their goals and vision for the schools, with a
focus on improving student achievement” (p. 15). The second key theme that emerged was that a
majority of board members agreed that as a result of the MIG training, their focus was on student
achievement. Finally, the third central theme that materialized was the indirect positive impacts
that effective governance has on student achievement.
MIG Training and Increased Focus on Student Achievement
The survey results for the survey question regarding whether MIG training had an impact
on student achievement and growth aligned with the research question and suggested that
superintendents believed that MIG-trained board members did, in fact, have an increased focus
on student achievement. Table 15 supports this finding by illustrating that MIG-trained board
members had an increased focus on student achievement. The responses received indicated that
94% (n = 58) of superintendent respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that MIG-trained
board members had an increased focus on student achievement.
94
Table 15
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Had Earned Masters in
Governance Certification Demonstrated 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
Delagardelle (2008) declared that effective boards discovered that increasing student
achievement was directly related to their support of quality professional development focused on
the improvement of academic instruction” (p. 213). Additionally, she reported that,
effective boards of education found that it was exceptionally important to create time to
learn together as a board team and participate in extensive dialogue with each other in
order to establish consensus and to prioritize what was most important to accomplish, to
understand what it would take to succeed, and to determine at what cost they were willing
to pursue it. (p. 212)
When asked what improvements in student achievement and growth could be attributed
to the board member’s experience with MIG training, Board Member I responded:
The training emphasizes that we’re in it for effective governance; and they said to be a
truly effective board member, the majority of your time should be spent on education for
the students, not other stuff. So, I think they emphasize how to be effective in various
95
publications. Effective boards focus on student learning. So that’s where the majority of
time should be spent.
Superintendent Martinez noted:
I think that training is invaluable when board members have a thorough understanding
that their role in creating and carrying out policy definitely is matched to fit in with
student achievement. And they are advocates for children. So, using their advocacy
through policy is reflective of achieving an outcome utilizing our budget and our
resources to drive instruction and drive you to achieve. It is critical; and having that in
mind when they are making decisions or bringing programs forward or policy forward, I
believe—having a thorough understanding of what it takes is important.
Superintendent Roberts said:
I think that there was some really good information provided to some of our trustees
about some of the measuring tools that are used in the testing when the Dashboard came
out. They did a very thorough job of training board members to understand the
Dashboard. I think those things help you focus on instruction. I think it also talks about,
you know, that you need to spend some time going in the classroom. You need to ask
questions and try to make yourself informed. Again, we do a lot of training with our
board in terms of understanding all of our measuring instruments, and I think training
helps them to know what questions to ask.
The aforementioned responses from a board member and two superintendents supported the
survey results that are illustrated in Table 15.
96
MIG Training and Board Member Focus on Student Achievement
According to the CSBA (2017), student learning and achievement drives everything the
district does and is constantly evolving. Course 2 of MIG training emphasizes how to meet the
demand for higher academic achievement by aligning the board’s responsibilities to support
student learning through policy, setting expectations for student learning; and using data to make
sound decisions. When board members were asked on the survey whether, as a result of MIG
training their focus was on student achievement, the majority either strongly agreed or agreed.
Table 16 shows that 77.5% (n = 140) of school board members either strongly agreed or agreed
that as a result of participation in MIG training they were focused on student achievement.
Table 16
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,
Their Focus Was on Student Achievement
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 49 27
Agree 91 51
Disagree 39 22
Strongly Disagree 1 1
97
When board members were asked during the interviews how MIG training impacted
student learning and achievement, if at all, Board Member Board Member I replied that,
it gives the board members the knowledge and understanding of what their role is as a
governance team, and it gives us the information in terms of how the district should make
decisions which could directly impact students at school and student achievement. So,
you know, without that—again, there’s so many other distractions that a board can get
into with whatever local issues have been going on, and without that base of knowledge
and that foundation, it’s difficult. If it’s a focus, and there’s a professional training
component, it professionalizes a school board, which is so needed because, you know—
all school boards—we are just lay persons coming in. If you don’t have that coordinating
foundational set of knowledge to center everybody, then school achievement may suffer.
And having the same definitions and understanding about what school achievement
means, because that made me different to everybody else. So, I think also it gives
everybody a common reference in terms of what the school language is to kind of center
everybody.
Board Member F stated:
I think that especially in education, we have ties to lifelong learning, right? That’s a good
goal for everyone. How can we continue to learn and so it’s part of our development as
individual board members? It’s our own responsibility to also continue that lifelong
learning and model it not only for our colleagues [but also] for students and
superintendents. Right now, we’re committed to this. And I think that’s one of the ways
that we demonstrate what you know through this training.
Board Member A remarked:
98
I know that leadership is very important. So, you know, I have seen, over the years—27
years now—what poor leadership can do all the way down to the kindergarten class. If
you have a board that has a bunch of unhappy teachers and the teachers are not happy and
you know it just—it does affect student achievement, it does go all the way down. I—
when I first got on the board, I didn’t think that it was that important. I thought being a
board member was like a figurehead position, but leadership and hiring the right
superintendent in a unified board or some county boards is important. It’s crucial so you
get the right person. If you get the wrong board members in there and it can go in the
wrong direction, and it can definitely affect student achievement.
In responding to the same question, Board Member D had the following to say:
What was going on in this district over the years, seeing how some boards that were
ineffective because there was so much petty nonsense going on and squabbling between
board members, where the focus wasn’t on the kids and the achievement. The focus was
on personalities. When, uh—when I ran for this position, one of the things that I shared
when I would talk to the community and do community forums was we needed to focus
on policy, not politics and not personality. So, the impact on student achievement is when
you go through the training and you understand what your role is, and especially when in
the first module, you talk about the Lighthouse Study and it talks about how effective
boards focus on student instruction and achievement. You know, I think it’s 60% of the
time or more and everything else, you know, less than that. Then you’re going to have
that sort of achievement, because your focus is on the instruction, not on petty things or,
you know, you don’t get lost in the minutia of the day-to-day stuff—you focus on big
picture items.
99
Perceived Positive Impacts MIG Training Has on Student Achievement
A third and final key theme was the perception held by superintendents and board
members that MIG trained governance teams who are exhibiting the behaviors of effective
governance have a positive impact on student achievement, albeit indirectly. Of the
superintendents surveyed, 87% (n = 54) either strongly agreed or agreed that MIG training had
positively impacted student achievement in their districts. Moreover, 71% (n = 128) of board
members surveyed responded that they either strongly agreed or agreed that the MIG training
had a positive impact on student achievement in their school districts (see Table 17).
Table 17
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in Governance Training Had
Positively Impacted Student Achievement in Their District
Superintendents Board Members
(n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 8 13 39 22
Agree 46 74 89 49
Disagree 8 13 50 28
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1
100
It is important to acknowledge that 29% of school board members either disagreed or
strongly disagreed that the MIG training positively impacted student achievement. Despite the
aforementioned 52 board members who disagreed, notably, the majority strongly agreed or
agreed that there was a positive correlation between the MIG training and a positive impact on
student achievement.
The interview question asked that aligned with this survey question was: What
improvements in student achievement and growth, do you think would be attributed to your
experience with MIG training? When asked this question, Superintendent Martinez responded as
follows:
Student achievement is a result of where our kids are going to go and bringing in
resources into our district through policy or through advocacy, definitely deepens the
success rate for our students and provides the resources and materials and is driving
better instruction for both teachers and student learning outcomes. So that would be my
response to that, that I think they [MIG trained board members] take their job seriously at
board meetings on developing board policy and promoting clear, specific policy to
improve student achievement is, I think, is monumental for school or any school district
to be successful. I think by attending the training, you learn if there’s good ideas out there
in other districts. I’ve learned that I’m going to be better off looking at a model that has
been successful, either through data or a program that has been proven and other school
districts sometimes have that data. I’ve been able to accomplish and achieve that. So, I
think that at the end of the day, you’re going to learn new content and you’re going to
forget some things and take some valuable things that you’ve learned away with you. I
101
really feel that supporting student learning, for me as a superintendent, is vitally
important.
Superintendent Morgan provided the following response:
I think any anytime you see an effective board and superintendent working in alignment
together closely you see achievement results go up. And so, to get that alignment and
connection between board and superintendent. This kind of training makes a difference.
And so, when that takes place, then you see the focus on instruction and focus on student
achievement. As the main priority and the board understands their role and supports a
superintendent to make decisions with his team in the most effective way possible, then
that starts to accelerate the progress. So, it has an indirect, but very important
relationship.
Superintendent Roberts responded:
I think there’s an understanding that you know you need to set reasonable expectations
for training. I think that we are all for achievement. I think that the MIG training helped
them with that concept in particular. That it’s their job to have student achievement as
their primary focus that that’s the main thing. When we look at budget, when we look at
their getting along with each other, when we look at our contractual obligations with our
employee unions, it always has to be with their focus on students. So, I think that that
really is one of those things that they get a very strong push from the MIG program
about.
Board Member H stated:
Well, you know, goes back to, like, the first thing I said because high achieving school
boards, then there’s a correlation between high achieving school boards and student
102
achievement. So, you know, just sort of identifying that what they’re doing and what
they’re doing to help their students achieve. I do think there is a correlation. So, if you are
learning the tools, you’re learning how to work together. I do think that that affects how
your school board works it’s a trickle-down effect, for sure. So, I think we all know that
the superintendent relationship with the board is very vital and I think if it is contentious
or bad it doesn’t work. I think that does trickle down and can affect the way things are
happening on the school level, or in the classrooms.
Board Member E responded as follows:
When we govern right, we are the ones that provide direction and our direction relates to
students. Really, it’s all about our children, right, our kids. We want students to achieve,
whether it is getting them prepared to graduate, going into the university, community
college careers, or whatever it is that they want to do, where we’re there to support them.
So again, direction, we need to look at our scores. Look at where we’re at and decide
where do we want to go. Do we want to grow, you know? Do we raise our numbers in
graduates or do we want to raise our numbers in our ELD population? You know where
they are being reclassified and are ready to graduate with, you know, all of the
requirements. So, we set that direction and so I really do believe that we do impact
student achievement.
Summary of Results of Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was asked to examine whether MIG training had an impact on
student achievement and growth. There were three central themes that emerged from the
research; and after analyzing the survey and interview data collected, along with a review of the
literature with particular emphasis on the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000), there
103
was evidence to suggest there was, in fact, a perceived indirect positive impact on student
achievement and growth in the majority of districts studied.
The first theme highlighted that an overwhelming majority of superintendents believed
that MIG-trained board members did, in fact, have an increased focus on student achievement.
Out of 62 superintendents surveyed and interviewed, 94% believed that school board members
who had earned MIG certification demonstrated an increased focus on student achievement. The
second theme related to whether, as a result of MIG training, board members were more focused
on student achievement. The majority of board member respondents either strongly agreed or
agreed with this question. More specifically, a total of 77.5% of school board members either
strongly agreed or agreed that as a result of participation in MIG training, they were more
focused on student achievement. The third theme aligned with Research Question 3 was the
perception held by both superintendents and board members that MIG-trained board members
and superintendents who exhibited the behaviors of effective governance had a positive yet
indirect impact on student achievement. Of the superintendents surveyed, 87% either strongly
agreed or agreed that MIG training had positively impacted student achievement in their districts.
Moreover, 71% of board members surveyed responded that they either strongly agreed or agreed
that the MIG training had a positive impact on student achievement in their school districts. It
should be noted that the superintendents and board members were unable to quantify direct
positive impacts on student achievement and growth.
Chapter Summary
During this research study, three primary questions were examined. These questions were
developed to explore the relationship between effective school board practices and the CSBA’s
MIG training. The research questions that were designed for this study are relevant to school
104
governance in the 21st century. The hallmark legislation creating and implementing the LCFF in
California placed emphasis on local control that is directly tied to increased accountability,
which makes effective board governance essential. The LCAP, which is tied to LCFF and school
funding, is a 3-year plan developed by each school district that describes the goals, actions,
services, and expenditures to support positive student outcomes and address state and local
priorities (CDE, 2020b). With local control at the forefront, it vital that all governance teams
come together in unity with a shared moral imperative (Campbell & Fullen, 2019) to make
important decisions centered around positive student outcomes.
Governing boards are responsible for setting direction and establishing the mission and
vision of the school district. In addition to these important responsibilities, boards are called
upon to develop and oversee district policies that champion achievement, learning, and growth
for all students. Currently, there are no state-mandated trainings or prerequisite qualification
requirements (other than being 18 or older) to run for office. Therefore, many board members
begin serving their term without a solid understanding of their role or responsibilities. Many
board members reported that they did not fully understand their role until participating in the
MIG training. This factor establishes a need for governance training to provide board members
with the tools to be successful. The literature on this subject suggested that professional
development and training focused on board governance led to effective governance practices.
The literature, survey, and interview data all supported the notion that MIG training provides
board member participants with the skills they needed to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance.
Both school board members and superintendents who participated in MIG training
reported the ability to utilize effective strategies to work together cohesively as a result of their
105
participation in the training program. The majority of survey and interview respondents agreed
that the primary factor that prompted them to participate in the training was self-motivation.
Several of the board members interviewed by this researcher reported being told by fellow board
members or their superintendents that they should attend or that they needed to attend the MIG
training. Attending the training was described by respondents as part of the district’s cultural
expectation. Additionally, the results of this study suggested that the MIG training equipped
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance by aligning the decision-making
process with the district’s vision and goals, by training board members to contribute positively to
board meetings, and by clarifying their roles and responsibilities.
The data from this research also reinforced the finding that the majority of
superintendents surveyed expressed their belief that school board members who were MIG
trained demonstrate an increased focus on student achievement. Moreover, a majority of board
members agreed that as a result of the MIG training, their focus was on student achievement.
Finally, the data analyzed indicated that there was a perceived indirect positive impact
that effective governance had on student achievement and growth. While both superintendents
and school board members reported their strong belief that there was a connection between
effective governance and positive student outcomes, those who were interviewed focused on
their theories about positive impacts on student achievement, learning, and growth and not on
actual programs or results related to student achievement, learning, and growth outcomes.
106
Chapter Five: Discussion
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 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.
Experienced school board members are responsible to the voting public for setting
direction, hiring and evaluating a superintendent, overseeing district finances, and developing
and adopting board policies that are congruent with the mission and vision of the districts that
they serve. Newly elected school board members are also expected to oversee multimillion-
dollar budgets; to hire, supervise and evaluate a highly educated and experienced superintendent;
to set the direction for the district and positively impact student achievement, yet they are not
mandated to possess any expertise and/or experience in any of the aforementioned
responsibilities that they are expected to oversee.
The rapidly changing global demands on K-12 education require that school board
members have a deep understanding of how their leadership impacts the quality of public
education for better or for worse. Despite the vast complexities of the educational organizations
that they oversee, currently there are no prerequisites that must be met in order to be eligible to
run for this high-ranking position; and, once elected, there are no initial state-required training
requirements or continuing education requirements.
107
This study focused on school board members in the state of California for whom training
is available but not mandatory (NSBA, 2019). More specifically, this study concentrated on
those board members who had participated in the CSBA’s MIG training to analyze their
perceptions related to the impact of that training on their efficacy as board members and their
perceptions regarding the impact of training on student achievement.
The study was designed to determine whether the MIG training program offered by the
CSBA impacted the practice of effective school board members who participated in this training.
It also examined the motivation of school board members for engaging in voluntary governance
training. Twenty doctoral students from the USC Rossier School of Education worked together
to develop three primary research questions that were designed to examine whether effective
governance teams (school board members and superintendents) attributed their efficacy to MIG
training and whether they perceived that training had an impact on student achievement and
growth.
The research team, under the direction of Dr. Michael Escalante, worked in a concerted
effort to collect data from 12 counties in California regarding the motivation to participate in
training and the impact that MIG training had on efficacy as well as student achievement and
growth. The number of researchers on the team allowed for a much broader scope of data to be
collected and analyzed than would otherwise be possible with a single researcher. The research
team worked together to develop the problem statement and the purpose of the study. Once these
were determined, research questions were created, employing three theoretical frameworks that
concentrated on leadership, effective school board practice, and school board training. The
following research questions guided the study:
108
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 research team apportioned responsibility for data collection in 12 California counties
whereby each research team member was assigned three MIG-trained governance teams and was
required to interview at least three board members and one superintendent in each of the
assigned districts. Of the 20 researchers, each was assigned three districts, with a total of 62
superintendents and 180 school board members (some researchers interviewed more than
required). Survey questions were distributed electronically and then collectively processed and
shared with the research team. Each individual researcher was responsible for interviewing three
superintendents and nine school board members. Interview data were shared with the whole
group but used primarily by each primary researcher to group results with her own. Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, researchers were unable to observe MIG training sessions; therefore, the
literature, surveys, and interviews were used to triangulate the research findings.
In terms of Research Question 1, it was concluded that self-motivation was the primary
factor in the decision to participate or not participate in training. Regarding Research Question 2,
in utilizing survey data, interviews, and literature, the data results indicated that the MIG training
program did encourage and equip school board members to exhibit behaviors of effective
practice. Related to Question 3, it was concluded that while superintendents and board members
were unable to quantify direct positive impacts on student achievement and growth, most
perceived that the MIG training did have positive impacts on student achievement.
109
Findings Related to the Research Questions
Each individual researcher was tasked with the responsibility of analyzing data
independently. The results of surveys and interviews were carefully compiled, examined, and
analyzed. As a result of this process, themes began to emerge related to each of the three
research questions as follows.
Research Question 1
This question was designed to investigate what motivated school board members to
participate in the MIG training program. Three major themes emerged from responses related to
this research question: (a) self-motivation, (b) increasing effective governance, and (c) cultural
expectation. Board members revealed that self-motivation was the primary factor present in
motivating them to seek out and obtain training opportunities even when MIG training was a
cultural expectation within the governing body. Moreover, increasing effective governance
behaviors and cultural expectation were considerations among board members. Finally, the
matter of accessibility (i.e., location, affordability, and time away from work and/or home) was a
factor discussed by both board members and superintendents as an influence in the decision to
participate. These dynamics affected the decision of board members to participate in the MIG
training and may have dissuaded other board members from participating.
According to Northouse (2019), the skills approach to leadership suggested that acquired
knowledge and learned abilities are essential for effective leadership. Northouse contended that
there are three characteristics to motivation, all essential to building strong leadership skills:
willingness, dominance, and social good. Superintendents and school board members repeatedly
reported their desire for social good, which appeared as a factor in their motivation to receive
MIG training. Northouse defined idealized influence as leaders who serve as strong role models,
110
with high standards of ethical and moral conduct. They are trustworthy, respected by their
followers, and provide followers with a sense of vision and mission.
While the survey data in this study indicated that only 17.54% (n = 84) of respondents
attributed school board expectations as the primary factor influencing their participation in a
MIG training program and only 14.82% (n = 71) of respondents indicated that they were
encouraged by school board members to participate, the interviews conducted by this researcher
suggested that cultural expectation was, for some, a significant factor in the decision to
participate.
In alignment with the findings of this study, board members indicated that they were self-
motivated to engage in training. They shared that their willingness to participate in training
stemmed from the desire to improve and increase effective governance and that in the majority
of cases, they were encouraged to participate due to the cultural expectations established within
the organization.
Research Question 2
School board members are elected by the people to be the leaders of public-school
districts, and it is crucial that they understand the scope of their duties and that they be able to
function as a team. The purpose of this research question was to investigate how the MIG
training program helped to prepare school board members to be effective in their respective roles
and to demonstrate effective governance behaviors. This research question focused primarily on
whether or not school board members demonstrated the characteristics of effective governance
due to their participation in MIG training.
111
Analysis of the data collected from the survey completed by 62 superintendents and 180
school board members, responses from three individual superintendents and nine individual
school board members along with the literature reviewed, led to three key themes:
1. The MIG training program equipped and encouraged board members to exhibit
the behaviors of effective governance as the training emphasized the importance
of aligning decisions with the district’s vision and goals and provided them with
the skills necessary to engage in problem solving, as well as the social judgment
and knowledge to make responsible decisions and to hold themselves accountable
as a group.
2. The MIG training program impacted their ability to contribute to the effectiveness
of school board meetings, thereby enabling them to govern more effectively.
3. The MIG training provided board members with the skills necessary to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance by distinguishing the differences among policy,
leadership, and management and, in so doing, clarified the separation between the
responsibilities of the superintendent and those of board members.
Northouse’s (2019) skills model of leadership describes leadership based on a construct
of the necessary skills required to manifest in organizational efficacy. This approach illustrates a
framework for understanding the basis of effective leadership. In order for effective leadership to
exist, leaders must have problem-solving skills, social judgment skills, and knowledge.
Board member respondents who participated in MIG training acquired the skills to align
their decision-making processes with the district’s vision and goals. Northouse’s (2019) has a
skills approach to leadership that has three competencies: problem solving, social judgment, and
knowledge. These skills are largely attained through participation in MIG training. Problem-
112
solving skills are reviewed in Course 1, Foundations of Effective Governance; social judgment
skills, in Course 5, Community Relations and Advocacy; and knowledge is acquired in all five
courses (CSBA, 2018b)—thus leading to the attainment of all competencies necessary to
perform effectively as leaders in education. The analyzed data affirmed that the MIG training
had a positive impact on a school board members’ ability to understand the value of aligning
decisions with the organization’s vision and goals, thereby encouraging and equipping school
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance.
Research Question 3
According to Land (2002), school board organizations such as the CSBA as well as
school board members have identified characteristics that they regarded as necessary for
effective governance and that lead to improvements in student achievement. However, little
qualitative and/or quantitative research could be found to demonstrate that these characteristics
are indeed essential for students; academic achievement. Goodman and Zimmerman (2000)
contended that “strong, collaborative leadership by local school boards and school
superintendents is a key cornerstone of the foundation for high student achievement” (p. 7).
Based on the data collected from surveys and interviews completed by 62 superintendents and
180 school board members, three key themes emerged. The first theme that materialized was that
the majority of superintendents surveyed expressed their perception that school board members
who participated in MIG training demonstrated an increased focus on student achievement. The
second key theme that developed was that a majority of board members concurred that as a result
of the MIG training, their focus was on student achievement. Finally, the third central theme that
emerged was that effective governance has indirect positive impacts on student achievement.
113
The first theme highlighted that an overwhelming majority of superintendents believed
that MIG-trained board members did, in fact, have an increased focus on student achievement.
Out of 62 superintendents surveyed and interviewed, 94% believed that school board members
who had earned MIG certification demonstrated an increased focus on student achievement. The
second theme related to whether, as a result of MIG training, board members were focused on
student achievement. The majority of board member respondents either strongly agreed or
agreed with this question. More specifically, a total of 77.5% of school board members either
strongly agreed or agreed that as a result of participation in MIG training, they were focused on
student achievement. The third theme aligned with Research Question 3 was the perception held
by both superintendents and board members that MIG-trained board members and
superintendents who exhibited the behaviors of effective governance had a positive, yet indirect
impact on student achievement. Of the superintendents surveyed, 87% either strongly agreed or
agreed that MIG training had positively impacted student achievement in their districts.
Moreover, 71% of board members surveyed responded that they either strongly agreed or agreed
that the MIG training had a positive impact on student achievement in their school districts. It
should be noted that the superintendents and board members were unable to quantify direct
positive impacts on student achievement and growth.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of this study included the scope, time frame, resources, and number of
available participants. A qualitative study focuses on the perceptions of participants, and the data
collected rely on the accuracy of the participants’ survey and interview responses. Starting in
March of 2020, due to the coronavirus pandemic, school closures and safer-at-home orders
required Californians to practice social distancing. This unprecedented crisis caused the
114
researchers to modify the manner in which research was conducted. Surveys were emailed to
participants, and interviews were conducted virtually using the Zoom platform in lieu of
conducting in-person interviews. The fact that this research was conducted in the spring of 2020,
in the midst of a worldwide pandemic, impacted the quantity of data that could be gathered.
Moreover, targeting board members and superintendents who had participated in the CSBA’s
MIG training excluded those superintendents and board members who had participated in
alternative governance training programs. Board members and superintendents who had gone
through the CSBA’s MIG training program may have been conditioned to have similar beliefs
and perceptions. This study focused exclusively on those superintendents and board members
who had been trained through the CSBA’s MIG program, thereby potentially limiting the
number of available participants.
Delimitations
Due to the aforementioned limitations, the sample population was limited to 12
California counties (Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura). Research participants were
limited to county public schools: public unified, public elementary, and public high school
districts. Restricting the study to 12 California counties limited the pool of participants. This
study was narrowly focused on school board members who had participated in the CSBA’s MIG
training courses. Alternative training courses or programs were not considered for this study.
Participation was limited to districts where the majority of board members had participated in the
CSBA’s MIG training courses.
115
Implications for Practice
This research study was primarily designed to determine whether there was a nexus
between effective school board governance and school board members who had been MIG
trained. While a direct connection could not be established between MIG training and effective
school board practice, those board members who had participated in MIG training corroborated
that they had acquired pertinent knowledge and necessary skills as a result of the training, which
led to enhanced effectiveness in their respective roles. These findings indicated that MIG training
influenced board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance, thereby contributing
to effective governance practices. Based on these findings, boards should consider passing
policies in their districts requiring that all newly elected board members participate in the MIG
training within their first year. Creating this policy, along with the expectation that the existing
governance team participate in the training with newly elected board members, should solidify a
cultural expectation and an organizational commitment to effective governance.
This study was also designed to analyze and evaluate whether superintendents and school
board members perceived that the training had a positive impact on student achievement and
growth. According to the CSBA (2017), student learning and achievement drive everything that
the district does and is constantly evolving. The Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2001) concluded
that boards can help in establishing the processes that create conditions for productive change,
which consequently impact the teaching and learning environment throughout the school district
and, in turn, impact the learning of students in schools. In other words, the way in which school
boards govern can impact student outcomes. Through the MIG program, the CSBA trains school
board members to meet the demand for improved academic achievement by aligning the board’s
116
responsibilities to support student learning through policy, setting expectations for student
learning, and using data to make sound decisions.
Superintendents and school board members from highly successful districts shared their
belief that the MIG training program had helped them to clarify their roles and responsibilities,
thus allowing them to focus in on student achievement. The results of this research study can be
used by school districts to validate the financial investment in MIG training for governance
teams. The findings can also be used for training facilitators to support the notion that there is a
positive return in exchange for investing in the training process, especially as it relates to the
perception that MIG training has a positive impact on student achievement and growth.
Recommendations for Future Research
Findings from this research study should serve as a foundation for future studies
investigating the correlation between school board training and effective governance. This study
was conducted in 12 counties in California in the spring of 2020. The sample consisted of 242
participants: 62 superintendents and 180 school board members. While conclusions can be drawn
from this research study and these participants, additional questions remain. As described in the
IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry study (Rice et al., 2001), school boards that practice effective
governance protocols generally have higher achieving students compared to school boards that
are not trained and not engaged in improving student achievement and student learning. The
following recommendations for future research are made in the spirit of further advancing the
capacity of knowledge about the impacts of school board governance training:
1. Future studies should involve a broader and more diverse sample population,
representative of the regional composition of California.
117
2. Due to the fact that this research study was conducted in a state where school
board training is optional, the study should be redesigned and replicated in states
where school board training is mandatory to determine whether a nexus exists
between school board training and effective governance.
3. Surveys and interviews should be conducted and processed in both high-
performing and low-performing schools, as measured by the CAASPP to
determine whether or not there is a correlation between a high-performing district
and MIG training.
These additions to the current study would add a depth of understanding to the data
regarding the role of MIG training in effective school board governance practice and in
improving student achievement and growth.
Conclusion to the Study
Public school systems are continuously scrutinized by critics, politicians, and special
interest groups. Advanced research should be conducted on the role that MIG training plays in
improving the efficacy of school board governance. It stands to reason that additional inquiry
and research on the role that school boards play in advancing student achievement and student
learning are warranted. The role that board members have in the American educational system is
of paramount importance to the nation’s ability to continue to compete in a global society. With
this thought in mind, it is imperative that governance teams seek out and participate in high-
quality professional development. School board members must be well versed in all areas of
responsibility and understand their roles and responsibilities in order to be effective members of
the governance team. The nation’s ability to sustain a democracy, to compete globally, and to
continue to be a world leader is dependent upon the ability to continue to provide a high-quality
118
education to all students; effective governance practice is key to continuing to bring this situation
to fruition.
119
References
Anderson, S., & Togneri, W. (2005). School district-wide reform policies in education. In N.
Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Dantlow, K. Leithwood, & E. Livingstone (Eds.), International
handbook of educational policy (pp. 173–194). Springer.
Arkansas School Boards Association. School board member training. https://arsba.org/training/
Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Young, M. D. (2005). National education reform reports:
Implications for professional preparation and development. In L. G. Björk & T. J.
Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and
development (pp. 45– 70). Corwin Press.
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Briggs, M., & Buenrostro, M. (2017, November). The school board role in creating the
conditions for student achievement. CSBA Governance Brief, 1–8.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/~/media/CSBA/Files/Governance
Resources/GovernanceBriefs/201712SchoolBoardRoleSummary.ashx
Bruce, W. (1895, August). Bruce’s school board manual: A reference work on school
administrative labors for the use of school authorities. American School Board Journal.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044028945319&view=1up&seq=5
Burlingame, M. (1977). An exploratory study of turnover and career mobility of public school
superintendents in the state of Illinois from 1960–1976 (ED152462). ERIC.
California Department of Education. (2019). California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress (CAASPP) system. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ca/
120
California Department of Community Services and Development. (2020). Public Records Act
Guidelines: Helping the public access public information.
https://www.csd.ca.gov/Pages/Public-Records-Act.aspx
California Department of Education. (2020a). About DataQuest.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/dataquest.asp
California Department of Education. (2020b). Local Control Accountability Plan.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
California Department of Education. (2020c). Local Control Funding Formula.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards.
https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrdLeadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2017). The school board role in creating the conditions
for student achievement: A review of the research.
https://www.csba.org/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/Reports/201705BoardRe
searchReport.ashx?la=en&rev=6aea55 5a678e4fb6a40494f013e2546f
California School Boards Association (2018a). About leadership, organizational structure, bene-
fits, and business partners and affiliates. https://www.csba.org/About/AboutCSBA
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Masters in Governance: Governance education
for school board members and superintendents.
https://www.csba.org/TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance.aspx
121
California School Boards Association. (n.d.). Professional governance standards.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/Professiona
lGovStandards.aspx
Campbell, D. W., & Fullen, M. (2019). The governance core. Corwin Press.
Campbell, D., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 391–395.
Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan,
M.D. (1986). School boards: Strengthening grass roots leadership. Institute for
Educational Leadership.
Carter, G. R., & Cunningham, W. G. (1997). The American school superintendent: Leading in an
age of pressure. Jossey-Bass.
Chion-Kennedy, L. (1994). Site-based management and decision making: Problems and
solutions. American Association of School Administrators.
Cooper, B. S., Fusarelli, L. D., & Carella, V. A. (2000). Career crisis in the school
superintendency? The results of a national survey. American Association of School
Administrators and National Center of Education Statistics.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. 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. (1992). Facing the challenge: Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task
Force on School Governance. Twentieth Century Fund Press.
122
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local school
boards. Phi Delta Kappan,75(5), 367–373.
Danzberger, J. P., Carol, L., Cunningham, L., Kirst, M., McCloud, B., & Usdan, M. (1987).
School boards: The forgotten players on the education team. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(1),
53–59.
Danzberger, J. P., & Usdan, M. D. (1994). Local education governance: Perspectives on
problems and strategies for change. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 366.
Daresh, J. C., & Playko, M. A. (1992, April 7–11). Aspiring administrator’s perceptions of the
superintendency as a viable career choice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Delagardelle, M. L. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board
leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In T. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of
school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 191–224). Rowman &
Littlefield Education.
Dervarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2019). Eight characteristics of effective school boards. Center for
Public Education. https://www.nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/cpe-eight-characteristics-of-
effective-school-boards-report-december-2019.pdf?la=en&hash=1E19C481DAAEE2540
6008581AE75EB2ABA785930
Dillon, N. (2010). The value of training. American School Board Journal, 197(7), 15–19.
Education Week. (2009). 2009 state of the states.
https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/2009-state-of-the-states/index.html
123
Fenn, C., & Grogan, M. (2002, November). Perceptions and experiences of licensed and
aspiring superintendents regarding pursuit of the superintendency. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Pittsburgh, PA.
Fusarelli, L. D., Kowalski, T. J., & Petersen, G. J. (2011). Distributive leadership, civic
engagement, and deliberative democracy as vehicles for school improvement. Leadership
and Policy in Schools, 10(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760903342392
Gemberling, K., Smith, C., & Villiani, J. (2000). The key work of school boards guidebook.
National School Boards Association.
Goodman, R. H., Fulbright, L., & Zimmerman, W. G. (1997). Getting there from here—school
board–superintendent collaboration: Creating a school governance team capable of
raising student achievement. Educational Research Service.
Goodman, R. H., & Zimmerman, W. G., Jr. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for
21st century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for high
student achievement. Educational Research Service and New England School
Development Council.
Griffin, A., Jr., & Ward, C. D. (2006). Five characteristics of an effective school board: A
multifaceted role, defined. https://www.edutopia.org/five-characteristics-effective-school-
board
Grissom, J. A. (2010). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations:
The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 20, 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup043
Gross, N. (1958). Who runs our schools? John Wiley.
Hess, F. (2002). The dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of district governance.
124
National School Boards Association.
Hess, F. M., & Meeks, O. (2010). Governance in the accountability era (ED515849). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED515849.pdf
Hopkins, M., O’Neil, D., & Williams, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence and board governance:
Leadership lessons from the public sector. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(7),
683– 700. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710820109
Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21st century: It’s not just a job, it’s a calling. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82(6), 428–433. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003172170108200604
Iannaccone, L., & Lutz, F. W. (1970). Politics, power and policy: The governing of local school
districts. Charles E. Merrill.
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2000, Fall). IASB’s Lighthouse Study: School boards and
student achievement. Iowa School Board Compass, 5(2), 1–12.
http://www.connecticutlighthouse.org/Reports/LHI-Compass.pdf
Johnson, B. L. (1988). Sacrificing liberty for equality: The erosion of local control in American
education [Occasional Paper for the Louisiana LEAD Project] (ED356531). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED356531.pdf
Johnson, P. A. (2012). School board governance: The times they are a-changin’. Journal of
Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(2), 83–102.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup043
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2005, July-August). The discipline teams. Harvard Business
Review, 83(7/8, 162–171. https://motamem.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/The-
Discipline-of-Teams.pdf
125
Kirst, M. W. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5),
378–381.
Kirst, M. W. (2010). The political and policy dynamics of K-12 education reform from 1965 to
2010: Implications for changing postsecondary education. Research Priorities for Broad-
Access Higher Education.
Knezevich, S. J. (1984). Administration of public education: A sourcebook for the leadership
and management of educational institutions (4th ed.). Harper & Row.
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/10.3102/00346543072002229
Legal Information Institute, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. (n.d.). § 34 CFR § 303.23—
Local educational agency. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/303.23
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. Wallace Foundation. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-
center/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.pdf
Louis, K., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student
achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 21(3), 315–336. 10.1080/09243453.2010.486586
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.
Solution Tree Press.
McAdams, D. R. (2000). Fighting to save our urban schools . . . and winning! Lessons from
Houston (ED441925). ERIC.
126
Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Peterson, K. (1986). Supervising and evaluating principals: Lessons
from effective districts. Educational Leadership, 42, 78–82.
Myers, M. D. (1992). Effective schools and the superintendency: Perceptions and practice.
Contemporary Education, 63(2), 96–101.
National School Boards Association. (2019). About us. https://www.nsba.org/About
National School Boards Association. (2020). New board member training.
https://www.nsba.org/Events/New-Board-Member-Training.
Northouse, P. G., (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
Norton, M. S., Webb, L. D., Dlugosh, L. L., & Sybouts, W. (1996). The school superintendency:
New responsibilities, new leadership. Allyn & Bacon.
Olson, L., & Bradley, A. (1992, April 29). Boards of contention: Introduction. Education Week,
11(32), 2–3, 5, 7, 9–10
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Petersen, G. J., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2001, November 2-4). Changing times, changing relation-
ships: An exploration of the relationship between superintendents and board of
education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of
Educational Administration, Cincinnati, OH.
Pfeffer, J. (1978). Organizational design. AHM Publishing.
Plough, B. (2014). School board governance and student achievement: School board members’
perceptions of their behaviors and beliefs (EJ102887). Educational Leadership and
Administration: Teaching and Professional Development, 25, 41–53. ERIC.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/EJ1028871.pdf
127
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and tomorrow’s
promise.: Education Commission of the States.
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Joyce, B., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2001, April10–14). 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
Roberts, K., & Sampson, P. (2011). School board member professional development and effects
on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(7), 701–
713.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
Robinson, G. E., & Bickers, P. M. (1990). Evaluation of superintendents and school boards.
Educational Research Service.
Rothman, R. (1992, April 29). Boards of contention: Historians cite “steady erosion” in local
control. Education Week, 11(32), 4–5.
Texas Education Agency. (2019). School board member training: School board member training
requirements.
Texas Education Agency. (2020). School board member training. https://tea.texas.gov/texas-
schools/school-boards/school-board-member-training
Thurlow Brenner, C., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. Institute for Policy and
Economic Development.
128
Urban, W., & Wagoner, J. (1996). American education: A history. McGraw-Hill.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). American Community Survey. https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/acs/news/data-releases/2019/release-schedule.html
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.a). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
https://www.ed.gov/ESSA
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.b). IDEA, Individuals With Disabilities Act.
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/#
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of super-
intendent leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for Education and
Learning. http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-
prep/ASC/4005RR_superintendent_Leadership.pdf
Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1986). Supervision: a guide to practice (2nd ed.). C. E. Merrill Publishing
Co.
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan Publishing
129
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails
School Board Member Recruitment Email
Date___________________
Dear School Board Member ______________________,
Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school
governance teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board has completed the
MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in completion of the Ed.D.
program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will
be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training
on effective governance. You will be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom™ interview
at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded with your permission
and will include questions about effective governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time.
Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.
IF you agree to participate in this study, please complete the School Board Member Survey via the
following link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation, you may contact me or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University
of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
130
Superintendent Recruitment Email
Date___________________
Dear Superintendent ______________________,
Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school
governance teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board members have
completed the MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in completion
of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this
study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact
of MIG training on effective governance. You will be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual
Zoom™ interview at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded
with your permission and will include questions about effective governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time.
Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.
Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the Superintendent Survey via the following
link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation, you may contact myself or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the
University of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance
for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
131
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
132
8
As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek
community input through a variety of methods
(email, town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
As a result of the MIG training, I understand the
importance of aligning the decision-making
process with the district’s vision and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
The MIG training clarified the differences
between my roles and responsibilities as a school
board member and those of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
133
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data
consistently to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
As a result of the MIG training, my ability to
accept the majority decision constructively, even
if I hold the minority view, has improved.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board
members could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
Attending MIG training has positively impacted
student achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
134
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
135
8
School board members who are MIG certified
actively engage the community and utilize a
variety of communication methods (email, town
hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
School board members who are MIG trained
understand the importance of aligning the
decision-making process with the district’s vision
and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
School board members who are MIG trained
exhibit a clearer understanding of the difference
between their roles and responsibilities and those
of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
school board members.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
136
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the school governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data consistently
to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
The MIG training has improved school board
members’ ability to accept the majority decision,
even when they hold the minority view.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members
could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
MIG training has positively impacted student
achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
137
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?
138
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?
139
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: _______________________________________________________________________
140
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
The rapidly changing global demands on public education agencies require school board members to be well informed about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of informed decision making that influence the quality of public education. In this study, the researcher examined the benefits of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance. The purpose of this study was to research the perceptions of school board members and superintendents on factors that motivated them to seek out training, to examine whether the MIG training improved the relationship between school boards and superintendents, and to determine what impact they perceived it had on effective governance and student achievement. The study employed Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s 4 frames, and Peter Northouse’s leadership approaches. The characteristics of effective board governance were measured against the standards of effectiveness outlined in the Lighthouse Inquiry conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards. Qualitative methods of research design included surveys and interviews with three primary research questions: (a) what factors impacted the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG training program, (b) how the MIG training program encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit behaviors of effective school governance, and (c) whether MIG training had an impact on student achievement and growth. ❧ Respondents were 180 MIG-trained school board members and 62 superintendents in 12 California counties. The importance of this study is linked to providing policymakers, the CSBA, and school board governance teams with additional data on the perceived relationship between increased school board efficacy and student achievement. The findings from this study indicated that MIG training promotes and encourages board members to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance by identifying role clarity and teaching the tenets of a shared moral imperative, unity of purpose, and the importance of coherence and a governance mindset. This study supplements existing research regarding the role that MIG training plays in strengthening governance team effectiveness and informed decision making—thus leading to enhanced outcomes.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
PDF
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
K−12 school board training in California
PDF
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
PDF
School board governance training and student achievement
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
PDF
Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards
PDF
Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
Asset Metadata
Creator
de la Torre, Linda Kay
(author)
Core Title
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/25/2021
Defense Date
04/23/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
CSBA training,governance training,MIG training,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board efficacy,school board training
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael F. (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy (
committee member
), Cherniss, Alexander (
committee member
), Franklin, Gregory (
committee member
)
Creator Email
lkdelato@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-452220
Unique identifier
UC11668800
Identifier
etd-delaTorreL-9534.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-452220 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-delaTorreL-9534.pdf
Dmrecord
452220
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
de la Torre, Linda Kay
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
CSBA training
governance training
MIG training
school board efficacy
school board training