University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards

(USC Thesis Other)

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Impact of Masters in Governance Training on School Boards
by
Henry K. Torres

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 Henry K. Torres 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Henry K. Torres certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Rudy M. Castruita
Michelle Taney Doll
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
This study examined the effectiveness of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA)
Masters in Governance (MIG) training on student achievement and overall culture of a school
district. The purpose of the study was to determine whether there was a relationship between
school board professional development and school district productivity. The study was framed
by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s four frames of leadership. The research team also examined
the effective best practices of school boards and how they achieve success according to the
Lighthouse Inquiry conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards. Standards established
by the CSBA were used to identify expectations for effective school boards. This qualitative
study used data from interviews and surveys of 60 superintendents and 180 school board
members in California. The study focused on three topics: (a) factors that influenced the decision
to participate in the training, (b) whether the training helped school boards to govern effectively,
and (c) whether the training had an effect on student achievement. The findings suggested that
the MIG training is vital for school boards to achieve effective governance but the results
regarding the impact of the training on student achievement were inconclusive. It was concluded
that the training is an important step for California school districts to achieve effective
governance and improvement in student achievement.

v
Dedication
To my dad and mom, Henry and Carol Torres. Even though we did not have much growing up,
one thing I knew we did have was love. I know Dad would be proud of this accomplishment and
tell everyone that his son was now a doctor! The lessons that I learned from him I will cherish
the rest of my life. Nothing I have done in life would be possible without Mom, my rock! She
modeled resilience, strength, and encouragement. She has always had my back and I am proud to
be her son. I always strived to be the best big brother to John, whom I love and admire; he has
been my spiritual support throughout the years.

To my two beautiful daughters, Bella and Ava. I am proud to be their father. This journey has
not been easy on all of us, but it would not have been possible without their support. They mean
the world to me. When times were tough and I wanted to quit, I kept going because of the
example that I wanted to be for them.

To Kat Adame, whose support and encouragement got me through the tough times. I cannot
thank her enough for technological and writing advice. She believed in me when I did not
believe in myself. I am indebted to her forever.

To the Arellanes, Blakely, Koen, and Rodriguez families for their guidance through the early
years of my life. They took me in and made me one of their own. I would not be Dr. Torres today
without all of them.

vi
Acknowledgements
It is with honor and pleasure that I thank those who guided me on this journey. Mentors
from El Rancho High School (Dr. Verdugo, Mr. Yessian, Mr. Dyson, Mr. Meza, Mr. Arnold)
modeled excellence and the pride of being an El Rancho Don. Mr. Dwight Jones took a chance
on a young college kid and hired me to my first teaching assignment. We knew that, no matter
what, Mr. Jones had our backs. RIP, Mr. Jones.
The Orange Grove High School staff allowed me to be their leader and had patience and
grace for me during this process. I am grateful for their encouragement and support.
I am blessed to have best friends in my life: George, Jimmy, Efrain, Leroy, Alba, Steve,
Hugo, and Mario. I have always considered them as brothers and appreciate them being there for
me over the years. My drive has always been to make them proud of me.
I am grateful to the Menlo Tailgate for their love and support throughout the years.
My sister in Christ, Dr. Petria Gonzales, and I were placed in each other’s lives for a
reason. She never stopped believing in me and offered just the right words at the right time
through this journey. I am proud to call her my sister and I deeply appreciate our friendship.
As my dissertation chair, Dr. Michael F. Escalante provided invaluable leadership and
support. It has been an honor to work with him. Dr. David Cash was there from the beginning of
the USC journey, providing guidance and encouragement. When I wanted to quit the program,
Dr. Allison Keller Muraszewski picked me up and provided support. She believed in me.
My cohort family offered professionalism and guidance. We worked well as a team,
encouraging each other to overcome adversity. The support, laughter, and love of the original
Thursday night cohort made our group special.

vii
My friend and partner in crime in this process, Jen Garcia, was always there for me over
the past 3 years. I counted on her for hope, grace, and encouragement during our time together.
I celebrate this journey with my family and friends who love me.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 5
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 5
Limitations of the Study...................................................................................................... 6
Delimitations ....................................................................................................................... 6
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 7
Definition of Related Terms ............................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
History of School Boards .................................................................................................. 12
Responsibilities of School Boards and Their Roles .......................................................... 15
Leadership ......................................................................................................................... 18
Accountability for School Board Members ...................................................................... 25
School Board Member Training ....................................................................................... 29
Student Achievement ........................................................................................................ 32

ix
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 32
Masters in Governance Training for School Board Members .......................................... 36
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 36
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ........................................................................................ 38
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 38
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 38
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 39
Research Cohort ................................................................................................................ 39
Research Design................................................................................................................ 39
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 41
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 41
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 42
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 43
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 44
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 44
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 45
Chapter Four: Research Results .................................................................................................... 46
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 47
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 51
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 59
Results for Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 69
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 79
Chapter Five: Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations ................................ 81

x
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 82
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 86
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 87
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 89
References ..................................................................................................................................... 90
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails ...................................................................... 99
School Board Member Recruitment Email ....................................................................... 99
Superintendent Recruitment Email ................................................................................. 100
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey .............................................................................. 101
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 104
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ........................................................... 107
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ....................................................................... 108
Appendix F: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 109
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix .................................................................................. 110

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participation From 62 Districts 48
Table 2: Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate
in Masters in Governance (MIG) Training 52
Table 3: Responses to the Survey Item: Our School Board Culture Encourages
Participation in the Masters in Governance (MIG) Training 55
Table 4: Responses to the Survey Item: What Platform(s) of the Masters in Governance
(MIG) Training Program Would Increase the Chances of Participation? 57
Table 5: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item: School Board Members
Who Are Trained in Masters in Governance (MIG) Exhibit a Clearer
Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and Responsibilities
and Those of the Superintendent 60
Table 6: School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item: The Masters in
Governance (MIG) Training Clarified the Differences Between My Roles
and Responsibilities as a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent 61
Table 7: Responses to the Survey Item: The Masters in Governance (MIG) Training
Encourages School Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness
of Our School Board Meetings 63
Table 8: Responses to the Survey Item: I Would Recommend the Masters in
Governance (MIG) Training to School Governance Teams 64
Table 9: Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item: It Is Important to Attend
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training With Your Superintendent 67
Table 10: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item: It Is Important to attend
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training With Your School Board Members 67
Table 11: Responses to the Survey Item: Attending Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training Has Positively Impacted Student Achievement in My District 70
Table 12: Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item: As a Result of the Masters
in Governance (MIG) Training, My Focus Is on Achievement 73
Table 13: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item: School Board Members
Who Have Earned Masters in Governance (MIG) Certification Demonstrate
an Increased Focus on Student Achievement 74
Table 14: Responses to the Survey Item: Attending Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training Has Positively Impacted Student Achievement in My District 76

xii
Table 15: Responses to the Survey Item: Attending Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training Has Positively Impacted Student Achievement in My District 77

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
In the United States, the public has placed high standards and accountability measures on
school districts. In most states, a large majority of the general fund is spent on public education.
Throughout this era of educational accountability, there is pressure on those who are involved in
those school districts to be more effective, efficient, and results oriented. School boards are the
governing bodies that oversee school districts in America; in that role, they face a multitude of
obstacles as they work to provide effective governance (Land, 2002). The myriad challenges to
local school boards over the years have increased significantly. Currently, the new challenges
entail issues such as state and federal demands, lack of public confidence, and diversity issues in
schools across the country. Research indicates that school boards garner widespread criticism
due to their inability to work as cohesive units or maintain a collaborative relationship with their
superintendents (Land, 2002). Recently, the demands of increased accountability and student
achievement in schools has expanded the role of a board member. Research also shows that the
relationships between school board members and superintendents are filled with challenges and
controversy; however, it is difficult for researchers to identify a cause (Mountford, 2004). When
the board and superintendent are not able to work together and communicate, major problems
can inhibit a school district (J. Y. Thomas, 2001). The call for increased accountability and
student achievement by school districts has created a vital need for professional development and
training for school board members.
The role of a school board members does not come with many benefits but it is one of the
most important roles in public education. Many board members enter the position with little or
no background on education (Dahlkemper, 2005). Training for school board members is not
required; often, school board members are the only ones in the organization who do not have the
2

proper training to manage the largest public entities in America. Research linking preservice
training to successful governance is limited, although broad studies have shown that training of
school board members results in a positive influence on student achievement (Roberts &
Sampson, 2011). When the superintendent and school board work together, they are more
effective (Devarics & O’Brien, 2011). Clearly defined roles and communication can have a
lasting positive effect on the school district.
In this chapter, the key elements of discussion are the history of the school board and
information about the establishment and purpose of school boards. The background section of
this chapter examines the roles and responsibilities of school boards and how they compare to
the way in which the role has evolved to its current state. Leadership, legislation, accountability,
and training are addressed in this section. A conceptual framework frames the lens through
which research on the factors shaping the current school boards. School boards are closely
connected to the superintendent, school personnel, students, and community members. The
leadership aspect is also framed by the conceptual framework as it pertains to school board
governance. The overall goal of this study was to explore how effective training of school board
members prepares them for the governance tasks for which they will be held accountable in
education.
Background of the Problem
Public education is intently scrutinized throughout the country, mainly because of the
money that is spent on the education of youth; the public wants accountability. In a time of
increased accountability and high expectations for student academic achievement, every aspect
of the public educational system’s effectiveness is being challenged (Webster-Wright, 2009).
School board members exist in a world where accountability and understanding of their role and
3

responsibility is vital to their success and movement toward being effective school board
members. Research indicates that boards must improve their knowledge of best practices and
governance (McAdams, 2003). All employees in local school districts are required to have
licenses or mandated professional development; school board members are not required to follow
that path.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2003), the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA; 1965), and the California Dashboard (California Department of Education [CDE],
2016), are parts of the state accountability and continuous improvement system that moves
California from a single score to multiple measures and from a focus on the average of all
students’ performance to equitable outcomes for each student group. The Dashboard is
essentially a report card for local schools and districts that takes a holistic look at the many
performance areas that are key to preparing students for college and careers after 12th grade
(Alameda County Office of Education [ACOE], 2019). This new level of accountability has
made training for board members essential (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). In California, school
board members have access to a comprehensive Masters in Governance [MIG] training program.
School boards and superintendents are encouraged to participate in this training to maintain a
positive working environment (California School Boards Association [CSBA], 2012). The
CSBA (2018) offers a five-course MIG training program that addresses effective governance,
finance, human resources, policy, and community relations.
As school board members decide to run for the elected position, it is imperative that they
do so for the right reasons. A commitment to children and their community is the ideal mentality
for all school board members. Even if the intent does not match those ideals, school board
members will face a multitude of challenges related to school district leadership. Those daily
4

issues can include personnel, budget, and community challenges. School board members also
must have a grasp of bond measures, facilities, and any other large-scale operations that can be
ongoing during a typical school day or year.
Research shows that training for teachers and administrators is extremely important; this
holds truest for school board members (Bianchi, 2003). It is irrational to expect a governing
body, such as a local school board, to be unskilled or ignorant regarding educational governance
and to expect them to govern effectively. The traditional system that fails to require school board
members to be trained in educational governance has left current school boards ill equipped to
meet the needs of the current school accountability system. Mandates or policies established by
the state of California requiring school board training programs such as MIG may have a positive
impact on school board governance and ultimately on student achievement and success.
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
5

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
This study was guided by three research questions, as developed by the research cohort:
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
This research study should be significant to all who are associated with education as they
create a better tomorrow for children in public education. The study was designed to establish an
important connection between MIG training and the effectiveness of school board governance.
The study explored the link between school board governance training and its effect on student
achievement. Current research shows that, when school superintendents and board members
work in unison, student achievement is improved. The study includes a conclusion from current
board members on their success with MIG training; this information could encourage other
school board members to participate for the overall health of their school district. The data
collected for this study could serve to support, or change, current views of school board members
and superintendents about governance training for school board members. Finally, the research
6

can be a significant contribution to the literature on effective school board member training and
overall school board governance. It is important to note that this study is an update to a recent
study conducted by a research team from the University of California (USC), also chaired by Dr.
Michael Escalante.
Limitations of the Study
The study has limitations dictated by the participants and the location of the study. The
dissertation team of researchers, based in southern California, conducted the research in school
districts in 12 California counties. The time frame was a limitation in terms of the participants
and researchers involved in the study. The study was reliant on participants who completed the
survey and returned that information. In March 2019, most school districts in California closed
precautionarily due to the COVID-19 virus. This closure limited the availability of participants.
In view of that limitation, the research team conducted interviews virtually, using Zoom.
®

Research was conducted in late spring 2020; with the school year concluding in late May or
June, the quantity of data may have been an issue. Finally, the dissertation research team targeted
only school board members and superintendents who had participated in the MIG training, which
could limit the research to those districts.
Delimitations
The research team conducted the study in California, eliciting responses from 12 counties
in which school board members had participated in CSBA’s MIG training. The targeted districts
were those in which at least half of their members had participated in MIG training. The study
did not consider assessment scores or sizes of the school districts. There was no consideration of
socioeconomic status or whether the district was elementary, secondary, or unified.
7

Assumptions
The major assumptions in this study were as follows. The instruments were valid and
reliable. The qualitative approach to the study was appropriate. School board members have a
direct governance role in their district and therefore should commit to training. The MIG training
offered by the CSBA (2018) improves school board members’ effectiveness and relationship
with the superintendent. Information provided by the CSBA MIG program was research based
and accurate regarding the roles of school board members.
Definition of Related Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
Accountability: The concept that schools and school districts will be held responsible for
performance or producing documents and records, creating and following plans, and reporting
student performance on assessments.
Assessment: The annual summative evaluation of student learning through state-
sanctioned multiple-choice tests.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): This set of
assessments includes the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments; the California Alternate
Assessments (CAAs), including the CAA for Science; the California Science Test (CAST); and
the California Spanish Assessment (CSA; CDE, 2018).
California School Boards Association (CSBA): The nonprofit education association
representing 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
8

the state’s more than 6 million school-age children. A membership-driven association,
the CSBA provides policy resources and training to members and represents the
statewide interests of public education through legal, political, legislative, community,
and media advocacy. (CSBA, 2018, para. 1)
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000).
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP):
A 3-year plan that describes the goals, actions, services, and expenditures to support
positive student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The LCAP provides an
opportunity for LEAs to share their stories of how, what, and why programs and services
are selected to meet their local needs. (CDE, 2020a, LCAP Overview section, para. 1)
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): The law enacted in 2013-2014 to simplify how
funding is provided to local education agencies (LEA). Previously, funding included more than
50 categorical funding lines designed to give targeted services based on student demographics
(CDE, 2020b).
Local Education Agency (LEA):
A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a state for
either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public
elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or
other political subdivision of a State, or for a combination of school districts or counties
as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools
9

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):
Founded in 1940, NSBA represents its state association members and their more than
90,000 local school board members, virtually all of whom are elected. These local
officials govern almost 14,000 local school districts serving the nation’s 50 million public
school students (NSBA, 2012, What We Do section, para. 2).
School board: A group of nonpartisan citizens, either elected or appointed within a school
district, to act as a single unit regarding various aspects of governance (CSBA, 2007).
School board member or trustee: Locally elected public official entrusted with governing
a community’s public schools (CSBA, 2018).
School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding at public
meetings of school boards.
School district: Synonym for LEA; a public organization tasked with operating public
schools and serving students within a designated geographic area.
Student achievement: The performance by students on the annual summative assessment
given by the state of California.
10

Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district with
oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
Organization of the Dissertation
The research team worked collaboratively and individually on this study. The dissertation
reporting the study is divided into five chapters. Chapter One has introduced the study and
provided reasons for conducting the study. The statement of the problem, purpose of the study,
research questions, the significance of the study, and the definitions of key terms were included
in the chapter. Chapter Two includes the relevant literature related to the research topic and the
questions. The literature review examines the history of school boards, roles and responsibilities
of school board members, pertinent training programs that are available to school board
members, and the framework in which the study is to be viewed. Chapter Three describes how
the team conducted the study, including methods and research design. The chapter identifies the
sample and participants, data collection details, data analysis procedures, and ethical
considerations of the study. Chapter Four presents the research findings and analysis of data with
regard to the research questions. Chapter Five summarizes the findings of the study. Implications
for further research are discussed.
11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
In the United States, the educational system was created to develop productive and
respectful citizens in society. Most schools had a head master or principal but no governing body
to oversee the managerial side of schools. In 1727, Massachusetts ordered towns to create
individual organizations of governance to supervise public education (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The
establishment of the local school board gave towns a separation from local town governance to
school governance. The role of the school board has changed in the past two centuries from
being managerial to legislative (Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The role is ever changing, now
more than at any time in the history of education in the United States. Board membership is
much more legislative in nature. Board members are called on to be knowledgeable and to make
informed decisions on issues such as finance, curriculum, personnel issues, and policy (Wirt &
Kirst, 2005).
This chapter reviews literature pertaining to the responsibilities and duties of school
board members. The review begins with the history of the school board as the foundation of
educational governance. The history of the superintendent, school board governance, and the role
of school board members are reviewed. The review examines the CSBA MIG training. The
literature implies that school board training is essential to strong school governance but questions
persist regarding the effectiveness of the MIG program in California. Educational accountability
is a focus for this topic as it pertains to school board members and the superintendent. The
chapter concludes with a review of the leadership theories and conceptual frameworks by
Bolman and Deal, the Lighthouse Inquiry, and Northouse.
12

History of School Boards
The origin of the school board and its role have changed dramatically from a town
steward to a local government official with power. To understand the history of the school board
requires understanding of the context of school boards as they were created in the 1700s. The
history of the school board goes back to Boston, Massachusetts, in 1727, when local government
authorities gave partial control of education back to the citizens (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Selectmen
in colonial America became accountable for schools until the task became too large; then, the
board of education committee was formed (Campbell & Green, 1994). The selectmen delegated
responsibilities of school governance to a board of trustees (Hopkins et al., 2007; Land, 2002).
Electing laymen to represent the local towns became the heart and soul of democracy with regard
to local school governance.
Over the years, the core purpose of the school board has not changed much from its
original inception. One of the major tasks for school board members in Massachusetts in 1727
was to ensure that policy and values of the public were implemented in schools. The board
represented each individual town and each town had a vision for its board. Oversight and
management of public education were handled by these boards for the first 50 to 60 years after
the establishment of the public education system (Land, 2002). During the 1800s, as colonization
spread from rural areas to urban areas, the obvious need for separate school districts arose.
School boards had to deal with religious, civil, and financial issues in the creation of school
districts. In 1837, Massachusetts created the first state board of education and the first office of
the superintendent (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Goldhammer, 1964; Land, 2002). While school
boards were initially given administrative and financial authority over the school districts, the
politics of the position grew from town hall elections to citywide government oversight. The
13

increased responsibilities of the school board led to the need for a superintendent; while this was
initially a clerical role, it later became an educational role (Land, 2002). Among the many
motivators for this reform was the desire for greater responsiveness to the growing needs of
schools, for less political distraction, for less corruption of school board members, and for the
needs of the diversity of student population to be met (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). The election process included everyone in society as a possible candidate, not just
professional educators or politicians. The superintendent became the one who worked with the
school districts and board members. The superintendent’s role was to act as the board’s chief
executive officer (CEO), with daily administration of public education responsibilities (Land,
2002).
The school board evolved into a group with major authority over all the school district,
including policy reform, curriculum development, personnel issues (including the
superintendent), financial resources, and the district’s physical plant. Specifically, school boards
tend to derive authority from five levels of control: state constitution, legislative enactments,
rules and regulations of the state board of education, decision of the courts, and local community
demands (Goldhammer, 1964). School boards have been given control or local legislative action
and have the duty of carrying out the state board of education policies but act as their own
legislative body. From the beginning, school boards were created to mediate policy and maintain
financial order while education professionals made the difficult decisions. This began to change
in the 1950s.
Since the 1900s there has been significant shifting of power to local school boards
(McGuinn, 2006) due to education reform and finances. In the early 1900s, educators began to
focus on federal, state, and local governance as the core of the organization. The federal
14

government began to make policy and took control of all schools across the country with the
landmark case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Now, local school districts had to design
and implement policy to end desegregation (Land, 2002). Involvement by the federal
government continued to increase into the 1970s with the creation of categorical funding not
limited to special education and Title I funding for socioeconomically disadvantaged students.
The states also took a more active role during this time as they set guidelines for testing,
graduation, and teacher certification (Land, 2002).
In the past 25 years, school boards and the superintendent have been closely related in
developing and designing policy for local school districts. Today’s school boards must consider
constituents and their interests when deciding what is best for the school district. The added
measures of accountability and responsibilities have elevated pressure on school boards to be
present and effective. The historical research on school boards indicates that school board
members have become more important in the landscape of the American education system (Hess,
2002; Land, 2002). The job of a school board member has not changed but the level of scrutiny
continues to rise. Most school board members are not compensated, so motivation is always a
question that one must consider when deciding to run for a local school board. School board
members have had to deal with and make agreements with employee unions over the years. They
have helped to fund campaigns and provide campaign support for school board members whom
they wish to see elected. School boards must learn to navigate various collective bargaining
agreements as they fulfill their key role in dealing with issues concerning human resources,
facilities, fiscal concerns, maintenance, and operations (Danzberger, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
When reviewing the history of school boards, it is relevant to examine the make-up of
board members in the 21st century. Currently, school boards continue to be the driving force of
15

governance in school districts. According to the CSBA (2007), the minimum requirement to
become a school board member is a high school diploma or equivalent and age at least 18 years.
A candidate must be a registered voter, a resident of the district, and eligible to hold civic office.
A school board member term is usually 4 years and elections are held in November (CSBA,
2007). Demographically, school board members tend to be from the upper-middle class in most
districts. A survey conducted in 2002 concluded that 45% were professionals of some sort and
25% were either retired or homemakers (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). In the past 20 years in urban
districts, more minorities are being elected to school board positions (Danzberger, 1994; Land,
2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). There are not many requirements in most states and there is no
mention of training for such an important position. The school board position in most states has
become extremely political and comes with a certain level of power. Superintendents and school
boards have a responsibility to their local districts to govern with fidelity. With all of the
expectations and responsibilities placed on school board members, it is important for all
members to be educated and as well informed as possible. Professional learning and growth,
along with training, can equip school board members to handle the pressures of the position.
Responsibilities of School Boards and Their Roles
The roles and responsibilities in today’s unstable political climate are much different
from those of 10 years ago. The ever-changing role has placed an emphasis on keeping
constituents happy. Board members are political figures charged with ensuring equity, access,
and opportunity for children; however, the duties do not stop there (Land, 2002). The public has
demanded that the role and responsibilities include other duties just by the nature of the position.
Board members are responsible to respond to local needs and concerns, budgetary issues, district
governance, facilities, and student achievement (Land, 2002). School board members are in
16

essence CEOs for their districts. Studies on this topic report that the primary job of the school
board member is to hire the superintendent, set performance expectations, and formally evaluate
the superintendents based on management of the school district (Brenner Thurlow et al., 2002;
Land, 2002). Student achievement is important, but it is just one piece of the focus for school
board members.
Research suggests that clearly defined roles of board members are a critical aspect to
success in school districts (Peterson & Short, 2001). NCLB changed the role with emphasis on
student achievement and categorical funding. By the early 2000s, categorical funding
approached 40% from approximately 100 programs (Timar, 2003). As school board members
move from setting policies to implementation of those policies, they are indeed acting in an
executive capacity. Human resources and school issues become important topics when
significant events happen on a school campus and school board members know that they must
listen to their constituents and advocate for their needs. The decisions that school board members
make, if guided by policy, must be approved by the majority of the board (Kirst, 1994; Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). Research suggests that exemplary districts are those in which the superintendent
and board members work together, because a strong relationship is critical for success (J. Y.
Thomas, 2001). Boards and superintendents should work together to establish roles,
communicate effectively regarding their success and failures, and evaluate frequently
(Danzberger et al., 1987).
There is no universal job description of the responsibilities of a school board member. It
is clear that everything in a school district is ultimately in the hands of the superintendent and
school board. National and local organizations such as the NSBA and the CSBA have tried to
give their members guidance in this area (CSBA, 2007; Gemberling et al., 2000). Even with
17

these efforts, complexity and confusion remain, and some school boards are not able to govern
effectively due to conflict generated by this lack of clarity (Danzberger, 1994). The CSBA lists
five essential responsibilities of the school board: (a) setting the direction and vision for the
school district, (b) ensuring that district staff have the resources and funding needed to achieve
their highest potential, (c) establishing effective organizational structure, (d) providing support
for staff positions, and (e) acting as community leaders (CSBA, 2007). Listing their roles is vital
for clarity, so board members and superintendents are clear regarding expectations.
National and state organizations work tirelessly to define the responsibilities of school
boards members but one must be cautious and aware of the “cookie cutter” model across the
United States. Although clear definitions of the responsibilities can be found, those who are
involved in education are aware that no two school boards function alike (McAdams, 2002).
Most states do not have mandates for school boards, which has given local school board
members the power to act as they wish. A majority of the states do not have a single statute that
delineates the roles and responsibilities of the school board and superintendent (Campbell &
Green, 1994; Hill et al., 2002; McAdams, 2002). Over the years, providing support was added as
an area of responsibility for school boards. The superintendent and staff work diligently to carry
out the vision of the school board and the board should ensure that they are making decisions
based on agreed goals and resources, as well as upholding district policies (CSBA, 2007). With
all of these responsibilities, it is not surprising that there is debate over the capability of school
board members to perform these tasks with complete competence and care (Danzberger, 1994;
Kolb & Strauss, 1999). With growing responsibilities, the importance of the superintendent and
board members working together as one unit is clear. The most recent literature indicates that
roles, responsibilities, and accountability for school board members have increased, yet clear
18

delineation of these roles and responsibilities from those of the superintendent is essential for
effective practice (CSBA, 2007; Danzberger, 1994; Fusarelli, 2006; Hill et al., 2002; Land, 2002;
J. Y. Thomas, 2001; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). School districts require strong board leadership, and
boards must understand their roles and work as change agents (McAdams, 2003). If California is
to change its educational course and begin to meet current challenges, effective governance is
one of the most significant commitments that should be made (Loeb & Miller, 2007). An
effective relationship in which the entities share the same vision is extremely important. As
elected officials, school board members should strive for positive public accountability and not
act as individuals. The success of students depends on the school board’s ability to be
professional.
Leadership
Strong leadership in any organization is difficult to identify. Often, leadership is objective
because it is based on people’s opinions of a person or group of people. Leadership is not easy to
measure but must be results orientated, with cooperative followers. The importance of effective
school leadership is prevalent in educational research (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Elmore, 2000;
Leithwood et al., 2008; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Strong and effective leadership can have a
significant positive impact on achievement (Marzano et al., 2004). Effective school leadership is
dependent on people who are unselfish and willing to be vulnerable, but the rewards can be
significant. Leadership has been described as a skill or ability to process multiple forms of
information effectively while maintaining positive collaborative relationships (Bono & Judge,
2004). In school leadership, research indicates leadership as a component of the board and
superintendent being able to work together (J. Y. Thomas, 2001). Often, school leadership fails
because board members lack leadership skills to be successful; this is why training for school
19

board members is vital. Educational leadership research suggests that school leaders must value
their role and make purposeful decisions (Leithwood et al., 2008).
The topic of leadership for this literature review can be evaluated in many ways. For the
purpose of this study, it focuses on Peter Northouse’s (2010) description of leadership.
Northouse defined leadership in the following four sections: (a) Leadership is a process, (b)
leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs in a group context, and (d) leadership
involves goal attainment. The definition of the word “process” leads readers to conclude that it
takes time to develop leadership traits for success. School board members who come together as
teams have more power than those who work individually. Within a district and school setting,
leadership is often romanticized based on a belief that people are successful because of their
personalities and traits, as opposed to skill or effort (Elmore, 2000). Schools that show the most
success and have strong district and school site leadership are often used in case studies to
identify effective practices (Brenner Thurlow et al., 2002; Leithwood et al., 2008; Waters &
Marzano, 2006). Cooperation between the board and superintendent are evident in all areas of
the successful organization: human resources, student services, education services, and facilities.
Leithwood et al. (2008) identified strong leadership as “applying each of the four core sets,
which include building vision and setting directions, understanding and developing people,
redesigning the organization, and managing the teaching and learning program” (p. 31).
Research clearly speaks to the importance of effective leadership by all members of the
governance team—both the superintendent and school board members (Iowa Association of
School Boards [IASB], 2001; Leithwood et al., 2008; Waters & Marzano, 2006). As mentioned
earlier, one of the most important roles for the school board is to hire the superintendent. The
school board will act as a board of trustees on a college campus and the superintendent is in
20

essence the “president” of the district. The health of a school district is reliant on sound
leadership by the elected school board members. Bainbridge and Thomas (2002) categorized an
effective board member: is results oriented, demonstrates professional behavior, knows how to
conduct a meeting, shows appreciation for employees, is a strong communicator, expects high-
quality work, understands public trust, and is a servant-leader. Waters and Marzano (2006) stated
that some boards will consider themselves as individuals and pursue their own interests; when
board members act in that manner, they become detractors with respect to district progress. In
reviewed research, it is evident that effective leaders can motivate, inspire, create a welcoming
environment, and instill a vision for the school that the staff and students embrace and strive to
achieve (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Superintendent Leadership
The superintendent is viewed as the core leader in a school district, especially in
California. The leadership cap measures the top of person’s level of effectiveness. The lower the
ability to lead, the lower the lid of potential; the higher the leadership ability, the higher the lid
(Maxwell, 1998). A superintendent’s ability to lead and guide a group of adults is the key to
success. The school board and the superintendent must work together to be efficient and
effective. According to Elmore (2000), strong leadership exists when people have the capacity to
provide, among other things, guidance in the area of instructional improvement. Effective
superintendents support shared leadership, engaging community members in goal setting and
district initiatives (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2002; Fusarelli, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2008; Waters
& Marzano, 2006). The superintendent is responsible to lead the board but also must lead the
people whom they serve. Along with the leadership team, the superintendent must establish a
strong vision with goals that come from the school community. The earliest superintendents were
21

master teachers and responsible for the entire campus, often referred to as the Head Master
(Björk et al., 2014). Now, the primary focus for superintendents is implementing state
curriculum and supervising certificated and classified employees (Kowalski, 1999).
Strong superintendent leadership fosters development of effective teachers through
professional development and high-performance expectations (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2002;
Datnow et al., 2007; Leithwood et al., 2008). The role of a superintendent has changed in the
past 120 years. The superintendent went from manager to leader during this time. The efficiency
movement changed school supervision from the level of an occupation to that of a profession.
Many superintendents are planners and thinkers who design programs for burgeoning urban
school systems and then evaluate the outcomes as a guide to subsequent decision making (W.
Thomas & Moran, 1992). Waters and Marzano (2006) found a statistically significance
relationship between district leadership and student achievement. They narrowed efficiency and
effectiveness with five district level responsibilities that influence student achievement.
First, the superintendent must set clear goals. This must include all stakeholders (Waters
& Marzano, 2006). The superintendent must work on the rough draft of these goals and then set
out to refine the goals with stakeholders. A healthy relationship between the superintendent and
school board makes this process easier. Research indicates that the success of an educational
leader depends heavily on the relationship between the school board and the superintendent
(Fusarelli, 2006). A solid foundation and partnership between these two parties leads to a
cohesive and effective district that is able to reach targeted goals (J. Y. Thomas, 2001).
The second responsibility is to set nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). Recently, this must come with certain equity requirements to ensure
22

that all students have access to the curriculum and first, best instruction. The superintendent must
have a cabinet that will lead respective groups and work toward achieving these goals.
Board alignment with and support of district goals is the third responsibility, which ties to
the first responsibility (Waters & Marzano, 2006). J. Y. Thomas (2001) identified
communication as a challenge for school board members and superintendents. Effective
communication must be at the top of the priority list for every superintendent. According to
Waters and Marzano (2006), it is important that the board not detract attention or resources from
the goals, ensuring that the goals remain a priority.
The fourth responsibility is accountability through monitoring achievement and
instructional goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Continual monitoring of these goals by the
leaders of the district will ensure that progress ensues. The superintendent must be deliberate in
goals to keep them relevant, especially in Years 2, 3, and 4 of the goal setting period. The
demand for accountability has altered education and has led to a major turnover of
superintendents (J. Y. Thomas, 2001). It is imperative that the superintendent work
collaboratively with school principals to ensure a cohesive unit for carrying out district goals and
holding the principals accountable as the superintendent is held accountable by the board.
The fifth vital responsibility, according to Waters and Marzano (2006), for effective
superintendents is to use the finances and resources to support goals and student achievement.
Using provided resources and being efficient will enable the superintendent to lead by staying
within the budget and doing the best for students. If cuts are necessary, the superintendent must
be transparent and communicate the “why” repeatedly. The superintendent must keep every
board member apprised of major concerns through effective communication (Mountford, 2004).
23

As a leader, the superintendent potentially has the power to influence and motivate the school
board to collaborate in decisions and policy making (Peterson & Short, 2001).
Strong superintendent leadership matters in focused school districts. A school board that
creates trust with the person whom have placed in charge of the organization can create a
positive culture of learning from the top down and be beneficial for students and the community.
Effective School Board Leadership and Relationship With the Superintendent
Effective leadership is needed for school governance to hold school personnel
accountable and yet not interfere with daily decisions (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2002). A strong
local educational governance team, comprised of the school board and the superintendent, is
essential in supporting the community’s educational vision for children, enlisting community
support, and developing long-term goals for student achievement (Brenner Thurlow et al., 2002).
The relationship of board and superintendent is difficult to define. In a traditional process, a
school board spends considerable time in hiring a superintendent, but the relationship with that
person is not effective if school board members are not willing to give that person control to run
the school district. The relationship between the school board and the superintendent is often
characterized as dysfunctional, marred with conflict, and the chief obstacle to a district’s success
(Grissom, 2010). Research indicates that, in the 1980s, the tenure of a superintendent was 4
years. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, that trend went down to a mere 2.5 years (J. Y. Thomas,
2001). Conflict between the two groups leads to wasted resources and time. The most cited
sources of conflict are undefined board member roles, misaligned goals and values, and
micromanagement of the superintendent by the board (Fusarelli et al., 2011; Grissom, 2010).
There are a few main causes of conflict and disparity between school board members and
superintendents. One of the main causes of superintendents being removed from office is conflict
24

with the school board (J. Y. Thomas, 2001). Among those causes, according to J. Y. Thomas
(2001), are undermining the superintendent, budgetary problems, and issues with unions. A poll
conducted with superintendents regarding the most difficult aspect showed that the main
challenge was relating to the school board (Glass, 1992). On the other hand, school board
members have indicated in recent studies that the most pressing part of the position of board
member is working with the superintendent (Grady & Bryant, 1991; Norton et al., 1996). A
result of conflict is a structural change in the relationship between groups that support a
declining work effort and performance (Fusarelli, 2006; Wall & Roberts-Callister, 1995). In
order for school districts to be efficient, school boards must overcome these challenges and put
students first.
Although there is extensive research on dysfunction and conflict between school board
members and the superintendent, there is strong evidence that school districts are making the
right choices in a collaborative manner for students. Effective school boards commit to high
expectations for student achievement and practice (IASB, 2001). Waters and Marzano (2006)
identified behaviors of high-achieving districts that contribute to successful school governance.
A school board and superintendent who work together will see effective and efficient results that
will make them all look better in the public’s eye. The belief that school leaders can improve
student achievement should drive all district goals and decisions (Land, 2002; Waters &
Marzano, 2006). A collaborative board-superintendent relationship and effective interpersonal
skills such as communication and persuasiveness lend clarity to roles and build effective
relationships (Peterson & Short, 2001). The research is conclusive that collaborative
relationships are critical for overall effectiveness.
25

The technology age has given school districts the ability to drive instruction in an entirely
different way than 30 years ago. The accountability in public instruction has focused on testing
and standards. The technology that is readily available pushes districts to be better. The districts
that are data driven achieve great results. Because of a focus on student achievement, the
collection and use of data and the accountability that it fosters drive policy and instruction in
high-achieving districts (Datnow et al., 2007; Togneri & Anderson, 2003). High-performing
districts not only use data; they encourage all district staff to use data to drive decision making
and instruction; resources are allocated to data systems and data system training (Datnow et al.,
2007). Research indicates that districts that use resources to promote curriculum and to promote
research-based instructional practice are common in high-achieving schools (Datnow et al.,
2007; IASB, 2001).
In the literature, the emphasis is on the importance of a harmonious governance team; the
relationship between the superintendent and the school board is imperative to effective
governance practice (Danzberger, 1994; Fusarelli, 2006; Land, 2002; J. Y. Thomas, 2001). Many
conflicts come from a lack of training and clarity; if schools work to improve their roles, they
can eliminate dissention. Clarity is developed through training and professional development (J.
Y. Thomas, 2001). School boards can contribute to the overall success of districts and their
schools when they focus on effective leadership responsibilities (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Hess
(2002) cited a study that showed that the superintendent-school board relationship is an essential
building block for effective leadership.
Accountability for School Board Members
Accountability in education is more prevalent today than it was 30 to 40 years ago.
Government and citizens of the communities hold school districts accountable for student
26

achievement. Accountability is clearly a highly publicized issue in education (Berry & Howell,
2007). School districts are being held to high standards, but the origin of the accountability starts
with politics. Accountability, according to Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) is a contractual
relationship between two parties: the provider of the service and the director of that service
working together. The federal and state governments are often far removed from the inner
workings of the local school district, operating as the director from the “top of the mountain.”
The system is then created for districts to become the directors and the individual schools to
become the providers, after which the school administrators or principals become the directors
and delegate to the teachers, who become the providers (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004).
Accountability in the educational system could be defined as the responsibility for
outcomes. One must provide positive results and continual progression in order to be categorized
as a success. All stakeholders take shared responsibility for students’ success and failures, yet
each stakeholder is held accountable in a different manner (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). School
boards and the superintendent are held accountable for policies and district student achievement.
High-stakes testing and continual improvement are the key. The literature suggests that
accountability for school board members is high and that the demands of their job are
exceptionally complex (Hill et al., 2002). The history of school governance and accountability is
somewhat new, compared with the history of education in the United States. Prior to the
increased role of the federal and state governments in education, the school governance team
operated independently, with little accountability to outside external agency (McGuinn, 2006).
Recently, the advent of academic standards has increased schools governance teams’
accountability for educational achievement, morality, professionalism, fiscal responsibility, and
education legislation (Gemberling et al., 2000; Schedler et al., 1999). School districts are held
27

accountable for much more than test scores. The political agenda for students to receive funding
at private and charter schools has added to that pressure. Educational achievement has been
defined as more than performing well on academic assessments; rather, it is the attainment of
academic achievement, job and skills preparation, and character development (Bracey &
Resnick, 1998).
The nation’s accountability system changed dramatically during the presidency of George
W. Bush. In 2001, Congress passed NCLB, which essentially stated that all students would be
proficient or advanced in Language Arts and Mathematics, as measured by each state’s test, by
2013-2014 (Bracey & Resnick, 1998; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004; Land, 2002; Lashway,
2002; Timar, 2003). NCLB did not give much guidance on accomplishing this task but
developed the mandate; everyone had to follow through or possibly lose federal dollars. Also, the
act created an additional level of accountability for districts, schools, and individuals, which in
turn led to increased stress. The public also holds local school districts responsible for civic and
economic standards (Bracey & Resnick, 1998; Gemberling et al., 2000; Schedler et al., 1999).
Extensive responsibilities are put on the school board; while they are not always
publicized but nevertheless, they do not go unnoticed. School board members are not only
accountable for improved student achievement; they are accountable for multiple functions,
including the school district’s financial solvency, policy making, and superintendent evaluation
(Hill et al., 2002). School board members must keep the people whom they serve happy while
trying to work as a team for the overall health of the school district. A school board member is
expected to represent the needs of the community, to be a trustee for children, and to serve as a
delegate to the state (Hill et al., 2002). Practical examples of the school board fulfilling these
responsibilities include public dialogues with parents, students, and community members;
28

attracting high-quality teachers; and creating programs to understand what local communities
want from their schools (Dahlkemper, 2005).
Currently, school board members must keep the district as a priority while trying to keep
constituents satisfied. Their vulnerability is played out through local elections in which school
board members are often held accountable for student achievement (Berry & Howell, 2007). The
new California Dashboard is comprised of seven sections of accountability, including suspension
and expulsions and attendance. It is not only state testing for which school districts are held
accountable in today’s education world. School board members must be clear on their roles and
who they will work with to ensure that their school districts look good in the public eye. A
shared accountability process is critical if school board members are to live up to their implied
promise of improving student achievement (Brenner Thurlow et al., 2002). According to the
Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), California voters are more likely to re-elect board
members if schools meet their goals for student achievement (Larsen et al., 2011).
In summary, federal and state mandates have made the school board position more
difficult than ever before. Social media and the political climate have made school board
members aware of the needs of their constituents and the emphasis on continual improvement.
Given this increase in accountability for schools and school boards, a need for training has arisen
(Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Training in general is a requirement for any position to ensure
success; however, it is not required for school board members in most states, including
California. It is vital that the school board and superintendent work together to benefit from
professional development, according to the literature. Providing some form of professional
development in key areas, including roles and responsibilities of school board members, school
29

law, and school operations, may help to increase the effectiveness of board members (Roberts &
Sampson, 2011).
School Board Member Training
The role of a school board member has changed drastically in the past 30 years, even
more in the past 150 years. The demands on school districts to perform academically and
produce productive citizens has led to a high level of accountability for all stakeholders. All
stakeholders take shared responsibility for students’ success and failures, yet each stakeholder is
held accountable in a different aspect (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Legislative policies and
financial solvency become vital issues when school board members are elected. Often, school
board members do not have professional experience to handle political and community pressures
of the position. School board members can feel overwhelmed because they may not be
adequately prepared to fulfill all aspects of their job (Bianchi, 2003). The governing board has a
legal responsibility to uphold state and federal decisions by the courts and to ensure that school
district officials implement state legislation regarding education. Specifically, school boards can
lose sight of their primary responsibility as policy followers and district leaders as they try to
overshadow the superintendent by involving themselves in the superintendent’s business.
Providing training would benefit districts as boards would be able to govern as a focused unit
and not lose valuable time as a new board member learns on the job (Bianchi, 2003). The
literature shows that accountability for school board members is high and that the demands of
their job are exceptionally complex (Hill et al., 2002).
Professional learning is a vital part of success at all levels of education; it seems
appropriate that professional learning be something much more than voluntary for school board
members. Training and professional development do not refer to a school board member’s
30

personal level of education; they are just a focus on specific training aimed at enabling school
board members to govern their districts effectively while addressing the various demands that
they face (Morehouse, 2001). Education faces criticism; never before has school board
membership been more scrutinized (Hopkins et al., 2007). Board members of school districts
must prepare themselves for the challenges that will come their way and their major
responsibility to the children in their schools. Education has many laws and issues that constantly
change and school board members must remain current in these areas (Roberts & Sampson,
2011). Training is different in all states but some sort of training is offered for school board
members all over the country; however, not many states mandate such training.
A national survey of school board members indicated that only half to three quarters of
board members reported having been trained in all areas of local governance (Hess, 2002). The
CSBA is the largest school board organization in the country. The organization offers
opportunities for new and veteran board members to attend training; unfortunately, the number
of attendees is low. The MIG training offered by the CSBA covers five domains: (a) Foundations
of Effective Governance and Setting the Direction of the District, (b) Policy and Judicial Review
and Student Learning and Achievement, (c) School Finance, (d) Human Resources and
Collective Bargaining, and (e) Community Relations and Advocacy, Governance Integration
(CSBA, 2017). Demands are placed on school board members and they must act as leaders of
schools. School board training would encourage the public to feel confident in their school
board’s ability to lead them to excellence (Bianchi, 2003; Roberts &Sampson, 2011). Some
school board members come to their positions with an understanding of their community’s needs
and values but they may lack understanding of the technical elements of boardmanship (Dillon,
31

2010). School board teams often do not work efficiently or effectively, and training can give
them tools on how to resolve conflict and practice interest-based bargaining.
In order for school board members to minimize the difficulties with their positions and
feel prepared for challenges, adequate training for school board members is necessary and often
a critical piece in establishing clear roles and responsibilities for board members (Brenner
Thurlow et al., 2002; Campbell & Greene, 1994). The learning curve is steep for most members
and training can prepare them to be the best possible at their position. To navigate the deep and
often rocky waters of educational governance, training for school board members is necessary.
Although it is a necessity, most states do not mandate training (Bianchi, 2003). Currently, 23
states mandate some form of school board member training, with less than half actually
enforcing that requirement (NSBA, 2012). The mandates do not state a specific order or range of
training sessions but cover things that a board member should know. Mandated training is
expected in only 6 of 20 states and most of that mandate is for new school board members. No
states require the superintendent to participate in the training, although such participation is
inferred in some states. Mandated hours range from 2 hours in Maine to 16 hours in Missouri
(Kolb & Strauss, 1999; NSBA, 2010a; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). The make-up of school
boards ranges from rural districts to large urban districts. The types of people who decide to run
for the board are different, depending on the area of the school district and community. A
majority of larger school districts have school boards comprised of members who are retirees,
homemakers, or educators. There is more diversity in urban district board membership than in
small or rural school districts. School board members who typically desire training usually want
to focus on student achievement and community engagement as priorities, with strategic and
fiscal planning secondary (Brenner Thurlow et al., 2002).
32

The CSBA offers MIG training. The MIG originally offered nine modules; now, five
modules are offered, as stated earlier. The program consists of 60 hours of training. If completed,
according to the CSBA, school board members should be able to work together effectively as a
unit to address the needs of their particular district (CSBA, 2010). The CSBA recommends that
superintendents complete the training with school board members to create coherency. All
school districts ask their employees to engage in training for their position; being a school board
member should not be any different, according to the CSBA. To prepare for scrutiny, whether
true or not, school board members can pursue training (Bianchi, 2003). Also, research suggests
that fewer people are willing to serve on the board due to the pressures of the job and the
increasing accountability that the position entails (Bianchi, 2003).
Student Achievement
There is limited research correlating MIG training and student achievement. Most of the
research that is available states that districts in which a majority of school board members take
professional development training demonstrate that the overall health of the district increases a
positive culture that could lead to improved student achievement. School board members should
take required professional development in all areas of public schooling, so that quality decisions
can be made for children’s education (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Dillon (2010) acknowledged,
“For board members, ongoing professional development is not a luxury, but a must” (p. 15).
Finally, evidence that MIG training increases student achievement is not concrete. Professional
development in every profession is needed to affect the organization positively.
Conceptual Framework
In order to narrow the focus of the research, the research team looked at the themes in the
research and the use of conceptual frameworks. Effective leadership, school board members and
33

their relationship with superintendents, and effective training for school board members are
discussed and critiqued. The word “leadership” is difficult to define in education and has many
definitions in the field. This section focuses on organizing and defining leadership and assessing
how it effects school board members, superintendents, and the entire organization. The theme of
leadership is viewed through the four frames posited by Bolman and Deal (2008). The effective
governance model for school board members is framed through the Professional Governance
Standards of the CSBA (CSBA, 2007), compared to the model by the Texas School Board
Association (Texas Educational Agency [TEA]; 2018). Training for school board members is
analyzed using the CSBA MIG modules for training (CSBA, 2017). The effective and best
practices of school boards are based on the research presented in the Lighthouse Study
(Delagardelle, 2008; IASB, 2000).
Bolman and Deal: Four Frames of Leadership
Organizations can be analyzed and categorized into four distinct frames. The four frames
give context to ways of looking into leadership in organizations. They have been described as
tools that leaders and managers can use to lead people. The authors suggested that the frames
provide leaders with a mental map and tools to navigate the difficult world of leadership and
management. In most cases, leaders can use the frames to make decisions and structure their way
of thinking: the structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and the symbolic
frame.
In the structural frame, the core tenets focus on goals, well-defined roles, specific vision
and goals, and the environment of the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The focus is not on
individuals but on organizational maps, structures, and systems within the organization. The
important thing about the structural frame is to achieve targeted goals and objectives. All people
34

in the organization have roles and responsibilities to contribute to the success of the organization.
These characteristics are viewed as the strength of the structural frame. The goal of the structure
is to function in a broad sense while adhering to set protocols established in the structure
(Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The human resource frame focuses on the people in the organization and the importance
of hiring good people. In schools, school board members’ central role must be to hire
superintendents who love students and have the leadership skills to make the district the best it
can be. Also, school board members must make the hiring process the most important thing that
they do when dealing with children. The human resource frame relies on the ability of leaders to
recognize the skill set of certain individuals to fulfill their roles perfectly in the organization.
Human resource leaders keep people, invest time and resources in them, and empower them to
lead within the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008). A weakness of this frame is that people
come with needs, feelings, and prejudices that encourage defense of old investments, ideas, and
beliefs (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The political frame focuses on the relationship between power and conflict. Leaders who
understand the political frame understand who the important people are and what their agendas
are in their particular roles. When issues arise, they usually have to do with certain people having
different perspectives and definite competition for the scarce resources. The political frame
weakens when there is not enough political influence in some areas and too much emphasis and
influence in other areas of the political realm. Skilled politicians use bargaining, negotiation,
coercion, and tactics to resolve routine problems (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
The symbolic frame takes into account the traditions, culture, and rituals of the
organization. The frame focuses on certain roles that members of the organization serve to fulfill
35

the organization’s goals. This gives the organization the identity to establish itself as a strong or
weak group of people. The symbolic frame is centered on the members of the organization who
make it what it is, either positive or negative. Weaknesses are exposed when neglected roles
undermine the goals and identity of the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Lighthouse Inquiry
Effective models of effective school board practices usually have a system that has been
developed over time and demonstrated positive results. Team managers have great influence on
the success or failures of a school district. In this model, a successful school district is an
indicator of effective school governance. High-performing school districts have several common
variables that are present in successful organizations. This is referred to as a system of best
practices. The Lighthouse Inquiry study (Rice et al., 2000) showed that board members in high-
achieving districts identified specific student needs through data and justified decisions based on
those data. By comparison, board members in low-achieving districts tended to greet data with a
“blaming” perspective, describing teachers, students, and families as major causes for low
performance. Anecdotes and personal experience were used instead of data to drive important
decisions in the district (Delagardelle, 2008). This conceptual framework serves to support and
guide the definition of best practices as used throughout the research. This framework focuses on
the superintendent and the school board and their relationship. The Lighthouse Inquiry,
conducted by the IASB (Delagardelle, 2008) will serve as the main source of the framework.
The Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008) examined the commonalities and
differences in school boards and school districts. Delagardelle (2008) described successful
school districts as “moving” districts and deficient districts as “stuck” districts. This study will
focus on the conceptual framework that includes the seven factors for effective school board
36

practice: (a) emphasis on building a human organizational system, (b) ability to create and
sustain initiatives, (c) workplace support for staff, (d) staff development, (e) support for school
sites with data and information, (f) community involvement, and (g) shared leadership and
decision making. This will enable school board members to have in-depth knowledge of
curriculum and instruction strategies and the overall vision of the school district (Delagardelle,
2008). Board members in “stuck” school districts tend to focus on the negative or political side
of the position. They are not overall well informed regarding the vision or improvement plans.
Often, school board members do not want to immerse themselves in curriculum concerns
because they consider them to be outside their job description (Delagardelle, 2008).
Masters in Governance Training for School Board Members
In the review of pertinent literature, current research trends seem to indicate that school
board members who participate in MIG training or some portion of it have an effect on
successful school board governance. However, there has been limited research on the overall
effect of the training on student achievement. For improved school board effectiveness, several
studies have cited the following areas of need for training: finance, mandates, academic
standards, facilities, curriculum, and special education (Bianchi, 2003; Roberts & Sampson,
2011).
Chapter Summary
Research has shown that school board members and superintendents who work together
to engage in continuous professional development and establish a collaborative culture can
achieve effective school governance. The responsibility of school board members for financial
stability and gains in student achievement mandates that they receive training to keep up with the
demands of the position. Superintendents must participate with board members in training to
37

make the working environment positive and to create a strong bond with constituents. Therefore,
it is imperative that school board members acquire sufficient knowledge about school
governance, the role of board members in the school governance team, and their role as it relates
to the superintendent’s role as the overall head of the organization (Delagardelle, 2008).
38

Chapter Three: Research Methodology
Effective school boards have many characteristics that mirror effective training; best
practices are closely related. The characteristics are established from school governance,
conceptual frameworks, and school board training. School board members face a daunting task
to govern a district and fulfill their responsibilities. Decisions center on personnel, facilities, and
curriculum, fiscal, and other factors that come with the position. Often, school board members do
not come prepared with the background or necessary knowledge to provide sound guidance to
fulfill their responsibilities (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002).
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 committed 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 benefits of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
39

school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Research Cohort
The research cohort consisted of 20 doctoral students under the guidance of Dr. Michael
Escalante, lead researcher from the Rossier School of Education at USC. Dr. Escalante is one of
the professors in the K–12 Educational Leadership program and longstanding dissertation chair
with an impeccable reputation. Work began in summer 2019 with monthly meetings to create
timelines, plan the process, and review current research that would shape the eventual topic. The
team worked cohesively to develop research questions, design the research instruments, and set
deadlines for accountability purposes. In the process of deciding what school district
superintendents and school board members would be invited as participants, the cohort spent
considerable time working with those superintendents to create the research base for the study.
Research Design
After analytical examination of theoretical frameworks, it was decided to use a
qualitative method approach to gather data. According to Creswell (2011), a qualitative design
approach to research is useful for exploring and understanding a central phenomenon. It also
provides the ability to gather data with a set of questions for which responses can be analyzed
40

and findings aggregated (Patton, 2002). A qualitative study is done through observations,
surveys, and interviews. Merriam and Tisdale (2016) described interviews as second-hand
accounts of phenomena of interest, with data drawn from direct quotations regarding the
understanding that people have developed. Qualitative research was chosen as the method due to
its capacity to study an organization in depth.
Researchers in this study sought to understand the relationship between school board and
superintendents and to determine whether MIG training has a positive effect on the district as a
whole. The researchers designed qualitative research intervention and survey questions to be
posed to participants, who included superintendents and board members who had participated in
one or more of the modules of the CSBA MIG training. School board members who participated
in this study shared their opinions and views of the training and how it had improved their
overall knowledge as board members. Superintendents provided their opinions and viewpoints
regarding the governance training and its overall effect on the school district. The purpose in the
design of the study was to understand how MIG training assists board members in their
respective roles and duties.
The research team developed surveys for superintendents and board members to collect
data from a large set of leaders in California. The survey and interview protocols were aligned
with one or more of the research questions. The research team members worked collaboratively
to develop survey and interview questions that were clear and concise. The surveys were sent to
school board members and superintendents with an accompanying letter to explain the details of
the study (Appendix A): an introduction to the study and the interview process. The research
team conducted the interviews to gain insight into the board members’ perspectives regarding
41

school board governance and school board training. It is important to note that this is an update
to a study conducted by an earlier USC research team chaired by Dr. Escalante.
Sample and Population
Purposeful sampling was used to identify participant superintendents and school board
members. Purposeful sampling is the process of identifying characteristics of a population of
interest and then seeking persons who possess those characteristics (Johnson & Christianson,
2014). The participants were superintendents and board members in 12 California counties. The
sample consisted of school board members who had completed at least one module of MIG
training provided by the CSBA. Also, superintendents associated with those board members
were asked to participate in the study. The team called school districts in 12 counties to recruit
participants, sent surveys to the sample and used the information to identify participants for
interviews (Appendices B and C). The board members were asked to share their thoughts on
MIG training and to state whether the training had had or would have an effect on the way they
govern in their respective districts.
Participants
The research team identified a group of board members and superintendents who met the
criteria for the study. They organized into groups to identify participants. The team identified
school board members who had completed MIG training. It was of benefit if the superintendent
had participated in the training but that was not a requirement for participation.
The superintendents of the districts with board members who had participated in MIG
were asked to participate in the study. Superintendents are asked to be the leaders of their
districts but still work for their respective board of education. Participants were required to meet
the following criteria: (a) active school board member who had attended MIG training, (b)
42

school board member who had completed at least one module of the MIG training, and (c)
superintendent who worked with school board members who had attended and completed MIG
training.
Instrumentation
Interviews and surveys were developed by the research team to collect data for the study.
The research questions were aligned to the interview protocol and the surveys for prospective
participants. Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations (2008), the research presented in the
Lighthouse Inquiry Study (Delagardelle, 2008), and the five modules of MIG training (CSBA,
2018) guided data analysis. The instruments were designed to collect data to be categorized
according to the participant’s particular role.
Two surveys were created: one for the school board members (Appendix B) and one for
the superintendents (Appendix C). The questions were similar but included some differences
according to specific roles. The school board survey was designed to provide important data
regarding the effect of the MIG training program on overall governance of the district. The
superintendent survey was designed to gain insight into the perspectives of the superintendent
regarding the effectiveness of the governance training on collaboration and the overall body of
work of board members. The team’s rationale for using interviews and surveys was to identify
rich information for data collection and analysis. Each survey contained 19 questions with a
4-point Likert-type response scale of Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. The questions on the
survey and interviews mirrored each other to gain understanding as data were coded. The School
Board Member Interview Protocol (Appendix D) and the Superintendent Interview Protocol
(Appendix E) were used to collect qualitative data. Participants signed a consent form (Appendix
F) for ethical considerations.
43

Interviews were recorded so the researcher could focus on the interviewee’s answers and
follow up with questions for clarity. This avoided irrelevant information being entwined with
meaningful data (Patton, 2002). The research team set a goal for each interview to last no more
than 30-45 minutes. The team used the review of the literature and the conceptual framework
discussed earlier in this chapter and in Chapter Two as the foundation for the design of the
instruments. The team ensured that each question for the interviews and surveys was closely
aligned with one of the three research questions, as shown in Appendix G. Due to COVID-19
restrictions, interviews were adjusted from in-person interviews to Zoom interviews.
Data Collection
The research team began data collection in spring 2020, using the interview and survey
protocols as instruments. This study closely followed steps outlined by Patton (2002). The school
board members and superintendents who met the criteria for the study were sent recruitment
letters (Appendix A) with background information on the study. Also, they were given a consent
form for confidentiality purposes.
The team stressed that participation in the study was voluntary and that all participants
would be required to give written consent to participate, as required by the USC Institutional
Review Board (IRB). Bogden and Biklen (2007) stressed that the novice researcher should use
overt approaches to collect data and ensure that information is open and upfront. The interviews
were conducted online at times that were convenient for each participant. Surveys were sent to
school board members and superintendents with a cover letter (Appendices B and C) introducing
the study and including the consent form (Appendix F). The research team set a goal of 62
districts to collect enough data to conduct a comprehensive study.
44

Data Analysis
The team gathered data from the surveys and interviews conducted with school board
members and superintendents. Data collection was done as a group but analyzed individually.
Reliability and validity were ensured through triangulation. Triangulation, according to Patton
(2002) gives strength to a study. The review of the literature and data collected via surveys and
interviews were triangulated to ensure that findings were pertinent to the study.
The survey data were collected, compiled, and disaggregated both individually and in
groups. The data were searched for themes and trends in the answers to make sense of the data.
The data analysis theory that was utilized was derived from grounded theory research. Grounded
theory has five central aspects associated with the theory: describing the research questions,
literature review, describing the methodology, data analysis that explains the theory, and
discussing the implications (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). According to Lichtman (2013), there is a
three-part process to coding when applying the grounded theory: open, axial, and selective. The
research team began with open coding to identify major headings or themes to make sense of the
data. The team used axial coding when the themes and headings became clear in the process. The
last step was selective coding to support the results of the surveys and interviews. As data were
collected and coded and major themes emerged from the data, each team member compared
those themes with those of the rest of the team for validity and reliability. Team members shared
all collected data.
Ethical Considerations
All 20 members of the dissertation cohort complied with the IRB application process
required by USC. The IRB process entails a completion of the Collaborative IRB Training
Initiative (CITI). The CITI is an online training program that offers modules that researchers can
45

take to earn a certificate to ensure understanding of the ethical considerations when conducting
research. IRB is a vital and necessary function of the dissertation process to ensure complete
fidelity of the study. It is required to ensure that all aspects of the research project are completed
without harm (mental, physical, or psychological) to participants and that all ethical
considerations are in effect. The lead researcher, Dr. Michael Escalante, also completed the IRB
CITI process.
Chapter Summary
Chapter Three presented the research design that was utilized to study the relationship
between school board members and superintendents and to assess how the MIG training had
affected school board members in their roles in 12 California counties. This chapter describes all
components of the study. The research team used a combination of collective and individual data
and analysis in spring 2020. The chapter restates the problem and the purpose for the study. It
describes the theoretical framework and the three research questions. Interviews and surveys
developed by the research team were used to collect data. The sample was identified, as well as
the approach to data collection and analysis. Ethical considerations were addressed to ensure that
all participants were treated with care.

46

Chapter Four: Research Results
The overarching principle in this research study was to determine the relationships
between superintendent and board members. Specifically, the study examined the CSBA MIG
training and its overall effect on the culture, leadership, and student achievement. The overall
premise is that everyone in the educational organization is exposed to professional development
opportunities, why not school board members? It is important that school board members have a
certain amount of knowledge or training to equip themselves to make these decisions (Johnson,
2011). The CSBA offers the MIG training, consisting of five modules, modified from the nine
modules used in the early 2000s. The modules are designed to provide school board members
with valuable training and to understand the main functions of their positions (CSBA, 2017).
While 23 states currently mandate school board training, California is not one of those states
(NSBA, 2012).
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects performance indicators for
school districts. School board effectiveness was defined largely by using the findings of the
Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB, 2001). In that study, researchers examined the benefit of MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the study examined perceptions by school board members and
superintendents of the MIG training and its impact on school governance and student
achievement.
This chapter reports results of the analysis of data collected both individually and as a
collective research team. The research team of 20 doctoral students used the conceptual
frameworks of Bolman and Deal (2008), Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB, 2001), and the CSBA
47

Professional Governance Standards (CSBA, 2017) to guide the method of inquiry. The results of
this qualitative study, conducted in 12 counties across California, focused on the impact of MIG
training on individual board members, their teams, and ultimately, the school district. In order for
a school district to qualify for the study, the superintendent and at least three board members had
to have experienced MIG training. This original criterion was amended to include some districts
with two such board members. The team eventually collected data from 62 superintendents and
more than 180 board members. The researchers developed 13 interview questions for both the
superintendent and board members. The researchers also created a superintendent and board
member survey to collect data from all participants.
This chapter presents the results of analysis of all data. The research data were
triangulated using the literature, interviews, and survey results. The emerging themes came from
those data. The findings and data that this chapter report were guided according to the three
research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Participants
In the initial planning stages of the study, the researchers planned to focus on six southern
California counties; however, it was necessary to expand the search to get enough school
districts to qualify for the study. The study was expanded to include 12 counties across the state.
The research team established certain guidelines and parameters for participation in the study to
48

ensure purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002). In the end, school districts qualified from northern
and southern California. Each researcher in the dissertation group was responsible to secure three
districts that met the criteria: the superintendent and at least three board members had taken at
least one module of the MIG training. This was amended to ensure that at least two board
members had attended MIG training. Also, the cohort group information was compared or
validated to the individual researcher in the study. The team interviewed and surveyed 62
superintendents and 180 school board members from 30 school districts (Table 1). The number
of districts that were included in the study and participated in the survey provided rich data.

Table 1
Summary of Participation From 62 Districts

Participants

n

%

Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses

62

100
Interviews 62 100

Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses

180

97
Interviews

177 95

49

Interviewed Participants
To protect the identity of participants, each district was assigned a code word without
using the original names. In my study, board members and the superintendent in District A are
referred to as Sunny Day 1, 2, and 3 and Sunny Day Superintendent. Board members and the
superintendent for District B are referred to as Sunny Lake 1, 2, and 3 and Sunny Lake
Superintendent. Board members and the superintendent for District C are referred to as Sunny
Mead 1, 2, and 3 and Sunny Mead Superintendent. The key words Day, Lake, and Mead use the
first letter to keep in alphabetical order.
Sunny Day
Sunny Day Unified School District is an intermediate-size district in Riverside County.
The student population is slightly more than 13,500 students in schools ranging from preschool
to adult education. According to the California School Dashboard (2019), Sunny Day students
were in the yellow performance band, below the state average, in Language Arts. The data come
from the Smarter Balance Summative Assessment, taken every year in Grades 3 through 8 and
11. Sunny Day scored below grade level in mathematics, in the yellow, but with an increase of
5.5 points from the year before.
The superintendent has currently been in his role for 4 years. He began his career
teaching 15 years ago in San Bernardino County. He is currently working on a doctorate. All
boards members and cabinet had been trained in MIG training at various points in their careers.
Sunny Lake
Sunny Lake is an intermediate-size district located in east Riverside County, with a
student population of 9,844. Sunny Lake is a Union High School District serving Grades 5
through adult education. They are building a new high school that is scheduled to open in fall
50

2021. Sunny Lake students are in the yellow performance band in Language Arts. They scored
19.7 points below grade level. In mathematics, Sunny Lake scored 100 points below grade level
but increased that score 12.4 points in the last assessment year in spring 2019. The assessment
was not given last spring due to COVID-19.
The Sunny Lake Superintendent has been in the district for 31 years. He started as a
teacher and slowly worked through the ranks. He was a high school principal for 10 of those
years. He worked as a Director of Human Resources, an Assistant Superintendent of Student
Services, and now Superintendent for the last 8 years. The superintendent and all but one board
member had taken CSBA MIG training. The new board member will take part in training after
COVID-19.
Sunny Mead
Sunny Mead Joint Union is a small school district located in Santa Barbara County. They
have six schools ranging from Grade 6 to Grade 12. In this district, 79.5% of the students are
socioeconomically disadvantaged. They have a large English Language population. Sunny Mead
students are in the yellow in Language Arts on the California School Dashboard. The district is
currently 10.1 points from moving to the green level. In mathematics, they are in yellow, scoring
88.3 points below grade level, but the score increased 11.3 points in the last assessment year.
The Superintendent is in his first year as the leader of the district. He was MIG trained
when he was an Assistant Superintendent. Three board members are currently MIG trained. The
Superintendent desires for all of his cabinet and board members to be MIG trained in the coming
year.
51

Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What factors impact the decision of school board members to
participate in the MIG training program? The role of a school board member is complex, yet the
prerequisites are minimal in California. Research indicates that many school board members
enter public office with little to no training or education background (Delagardelle, 2008; Hess,
2002; Land, 2002). The list of responsibilities for school board members requires them to have
background knowledge of their position; often, that is not the case.
This situation can prove to be quite daunting as school board members are faced with
critical decisions affecting student achievement and curriculum, policy review, and development,
personnel, and finance (CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008; Hess, 2002; Johnson, 2011; Land,
2002). Moreover, training for school board members is not mandated in California, so it is vital
that school boards find opportunities to learn their roles. Studies indicate that successful school
governance teams learn together, making school board training a necessity for effective
governance (Danzberger, 1994; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). The first research question was
designed to investigate what leads school board members to complete the MIG training program.
Three major themes emerged from responses related to Research Question 1. School
board members must have the motivation or desire to seek training opportunities, district cultural
influence, and access to the training, which includes cost, time, and location—all things that
might prevent a school board member from participating in the training.
Motivation to Participate
One of the major key themes that surfaced from Research Question 1 was the motivation
to participate in formal training from the existing board members. Specifically, while researchers
clearly express the need for training and its importance, not many have examined the
52

commitment to participate in professional development (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon, 2010; Land,
2002; Roberts & Sampson, 2010). A school board member’s willingness to have professional
development led to the motivation to participate in the training. Of the 180 respondents, 133
indicated that motivation was the primary factor that influenced them. On the other hand, the
numbers were not as high, as 37 superintendents indicated that motivation was the factor for
training. Table 2 summarizes these responses.

Table 2
Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in Masters in
Governance (MIG) 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.

53

As shown in Table 2 and in the interviews, all three superintendents and nine board
members reported that each person’s individual motivation to be the best at their position was the
main factor in their decision to attend MIG training. Sunny Day Board Member 2 stated, “Well, I
just felt, as a new school board member, I needed to do it. That was consistent with what all the
other board members were doing.” Sunny Day Board Member 3 stated, “What I wanted to know,
was what I didn’t know.” Sunny Day Board Member 1 said, “At the time, the superintendent
requested we all participate, and of course, I knew it was the right thing to do.”
In the Sunny Lake school district, Board Member 1 responded to the question similarly:
I knew that I needed to be knowledgeable regarding in terms of process and my goal as a
board member was to be great. . . . So, when I learned of the Master’s in Governance
training, I said, “Okay, this is a great opportunity.”
Sunny Lake Board Member 2 stated, “I thought it was something that was going to help
be become a more effective board member and it has. . . . All of us went together, five Saturdays
out of our lives, but it was well worth it.” Sunny Lake Board Member 3 said, “I wanted to attend
a school board training that was in coherence of my position and as a new board member I had
no clue how things worked in the district.”
Sunny Mead School Board Member 1 stated, “For me, it was the need for professional
development and understanding my role as a board member. . . . Also, to understand that I work
for my constituents and only have one vote on the board.” Sunny Mead Board Member 3 said:
I was not an educator, so I didn’t really know a lot about the board or how board meeting
worked. So, I needed to learn as much as possible and thought the MIG training was the
best way for me to get up to speed on the process and way things work.
54

The motivation was evident in all of the interviews as board members showed an interest in
being the best that they could be in their position.
The superintendents’ perspectives did not differ much from those of their board
members. Motivation was the driving factor for all three superintendents. For Sunny Day
Superintendent, the main factor was for all members be committed to the training for cohesion
purposes. Sunny Lake Superintendent stated that the top factor was for his school board
members to be “all on the same page and to learn how to be a good board member.” The
superintendent from Sunny Mead confirmed that the main factor that influences school board
member’s decision to participate in MIG training is to “build capacity and have a common
language and knowledge for them to conduct business.” While many board members sought
professional development on their own, it was the superintendent who encouraged them to attend
MIG training and positively impacted their decision.
District Cultural Influence
According to Bolman and Deal (2008), a symbolic leader looks to create meaning
through emotional attachment to the organization. A superintendent who is adamant that this
training becomes part of the way to do business creates a level of professionalism and
expectation. Table 3 summarizes the responses by participants regarding school board culture
and MIG training.

55

Table 3
Responses to the Survey Item: Our School Board Culture Encourages Participation in the
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (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

Sunny Day and Sunny Lake were the only districts that responded that the training was a
cultural expectation. The participants described the training as “something that is just done” and
“it is expected when you are new on the board.” Sunny Lake Board Member 1 stated, “It is very
important that every member gets trained and is an expectation, so we all know how to be
professional and operated under the same rules without people trying to do their own things.”
Sunny Lake Superintendent followed with,
It is the expectation for all to get some sort of professional development in education but
you can get 500 votes and now you’re telling someone how to run a hundred million
dollar budget every year. . . . And it is important for them to have some sort of
background with the training.
Sunny Mead Superintendent is new to his position and had been trained in MIG, but he
stated that it would be a district expectation moving forward for all future board members to be
trained in MIG training.
56

While each participating school district board member and superintendent placed great
emphasis on the district expectation during the interviews, 167 of 180 board members and all 62
superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that it was a district culture to participate in MIG
training.
Access to the Training
In addition to motivating district board members and superintendents to participate in
training, providing access to the members to increase participation is key. The CSBA MIG
training is now five modules, down from the original nine modules. To complete one module, the
board member must participate in an all-day training session; these sessions are held all over
California. The time commitment is 40 to 60 hours to complete all five modules (CSBA, 2017).
The fees are expensive, especially coming out of the pocket of the board members. The fees do
not include traveling expenses. Interview and survey data indicate problems in accessing MIG
training due to cost, length of training, and location of the training.
One of the interview questions asked specifically what would make the MIG training
more accessible to school board members (i.e., what would it take for board members to make a
commitment to be trained). Cost, time constraints, local offerings, and on-line accessibility were
some of the common responses, as shown in Table 4.

57

Table 4
Responses to the Survey Item: What Platform(s) of the Masters in Governance (MIG) Training
Program Would Increase the Chances of Participation?
Response Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Online 14 54
Hybrid 29 105
Locally hosted 45 125
Other 2 4

Note. Some participants contributed mor than one answer.

Sunny Day Board Member 1 said, “We made the commitment to be on the board to serve
students, all of the excused need to be removed and just do it.” Sunny Lake Board Member 2
responded,
Finding flexible ways to address each individual’s concerns about time, place, location,
maybe bring it to them. Maybe like here we have five school districts within a stone’s
throw of each other and they could hold one. . . . So, it’s about being flexible and finding
creative ways so people will keep finding excuses not to participate.
A Sunny Mead board member echoed colleagues in other districts, “I think it is important
in today’s society to use Google Hangout, Google Meets, or Zoom as a hybrid model. We also
need to have different level of training for the beginners and the veterans.” The superintendents
of Sunny Day, Sunny Lake, and Sunny Mead districts agreed with the board members regarding
accessibility. Sunny Lake Superintendent was adamant about using the virtual world for training
in the future. “Sometimes you have to travel a bit and that makes it more difficult, but maybe we
58

need to look at some virtual meetings, especially, on refresher courses.” In addition, the Sunny
Mead superintendent said,
Making it more accessible locally, and that is not only on Saturdays. Family time is
extremely important, offering different courses during the week could encourage more
board members to attend the training. If the training were broken down into half-day
sessions, we could see an influx of members participate, too.
During the interviews, the board members and superintendents of all three school districts
had responses consistent with the others. In the survey portion, both superintendents and school
board members indicated location and time as the most important factors that might cause some
to avoid training; 174 of 180 mentioned accessibility as a factor that could increase participation.
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
The results from the data provided from the surveys and interviews indicate that school
board members want to be good at their positions. Most school board members had a desire to
seek professional development to acquire the most knowledge they could to serve the people
whom they represented. The interview data indicated that motivation is the key factor to
participate in MIG training. Further analysis of the data suggests that it could be a district
cultural expectation but individual motivation is still the driving force behind the training for the
board members. The possible barriers for board members to complete the training rest in
accessibility of the training. Cost, location, and time are the factors that were stated most often in
the surveys and interviews. The information was consistent with the literature reviewed in
Chapter Two.
59

Results for Research Question 2
The second research question was, How does the MIG training program encourage and
equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance? Now that
the factors that motivated school board members to attend the MIG training were identified, it
was time to determine whether the MIG training actually prepared board members to be
successful. As was stated before, professional development is not mandatory in California and
the researchers aimed to examine whether the MIG training equips school board members with
clear expectations and roles.
Three major themes emerged from the participants’ responses: (a) definition of roles and
responsibilities, (b) unified governance, and (c) establishment of trusting relationships. Bolman
and Deal (2008) identified, through the structural frame, the importance of rules, responsibilities,
policies, and procedures being clearly defined and followed. These three themes are in coherence
with effective school districts. The Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB, 2001) is the case study by which
all school districts are measured for overall effectiveness and health. Seven practices positively
influence school districts: student achievement, emphasis on building a human organization,
ability to create and sustain initiatives, supportive workplace for staff, staff development, support
for sites with data, community involvement, and integrated leadership. The MIG training
provides a guide for school board members to measure themselves.
Board Member Roles and Responsibilities
The board members, especially the new ones, were consistent in almost all of the
interviews and surveys pertaining to roles and responsibilities. The idea that effective
governance teams have clear roles and responsibilities can be found throughout the literature
(Campbell & Greene, 1994; Gemberling et al., 2000). In the survey completed by school board
60

members and superintendents, they were asked specifically whether the training provided clearer
understanding of their roles and responsibilities. The data presented in Tables 5 and 6 indicate
that 96% of the 62) superintendents and 95% of the 180 school board members reported that the
MIG training had helped to clarify their roles and responsibilities.

Table 5
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item: School Board Members Who Are Trained in
Masters in Governance (MIG) Exhibit a Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their
Roles and Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 1 2

61

Table 6
School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item: The Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training Clarified the Differences Between My Roles and Responsibilities as a School Board
Member and Those of the Superintendent
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 117 65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly Disagree 1 1

The school board member survey gave clarity to the foundation of their roles and greater
understanding of the things for which they are responsible in the specific district. The
superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that the training provides a common language and
practical knowledge for board members. Interview responses frequently mention the “30,000-
foot view” from above, indicating the global perspective that the MIG training provides.
Interviews with superintendents from Sunny Day, Sunny Lake, and Sunny Mead were
consistent with the whole group data. All three stated that they continually review the roles and
responses during their retreats or professional development times at the beginning of the school
year. Sunny Lake Superintendent stated that CSBA MIG’s training became an “outside voice”
that supported what the superintendent was telling board members. Sunny Day Superintendent
stated, “Because without clarity of their roles, it can become a little dicey in clearly defining their
roles and responsibilities as they are my boss.” Sunny Mead Superintendent said,
62

It’s the do’s and don’ts of how to run a board meeting, following the Brown Act,
knowing the procedures and the knowledge, and then just the steps as a superintendent
that you need to take when you’re in board meetings, what you should be sharing and
what you should be doing.
Sunny Day Superintendent summed it up: “Those [who] have been to training are
definitely more clear roles, setting policy, and understanding the big picture.”
Unified Governance
With outside pressures and the need to make constituents happy, it is imperative that
effective school districts govern in a unified front with their other members and their
superintendent. Their collective effective governance can lead to clear expectations for students,
leading to continued and improved student achievement (IASB, 2001). MIG training was refined
from nine modules to five modules by condensing some of the information into the modules. The
relevance of this research question was to determine whether effective training leads to effective
practice, which in turn would lead to improved student achievement.
In the CSBA training, the charts and graphs consistently redirect to roles and
responsibilities and professionalism is emphasized (CSBA, 2007). The responses to the survey
by the school board members and superintendents revealed the effective practices. The research
participants were asked whether the MIG training program had influenced how they govern in
the school district. The results are shown in Table 7.

63

Table 7
Responses to the Survey Item: The Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Encourages School
Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of Our School Board Meetings
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 30 48 104 58
Agree 30 48 72 40
Disagree 2 3 4 2
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0

The results showed that 60 of the superintendents and 176 of the school board members
strongly agreed or agreed that the training contributed to the effectiveness of school board
meetings and how they governed. The overall effectiveness in the training lies in the responses to
the question of recommending the training to colleagues in other school districts. More than 95%
of the superintendents strongly agreed or agreed to recommending the training to others, and
more than 95% of the school board members agreed (Table 8).
64

Table 8
Responses to the Survey Item: I Would Recommend the Masters in Governance (MIG) Training
to School Governance Teams

Superintendents Board Members
(N = 62) (N =180)
Response category f % f %

Strongly disagree 48 77 128 71
Agree 14 23 46 26
Disagree 0 0 6 3
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0

Among those who had taken the training, there was almost unanimous agreement about
the effectiveness of the training for current and future board members. The tools that are learned
are invaluable to their roles and responsibilities. The training also leads to mutual accountability
for superintendents and their boards. Similar findings were discovered in the interview portion of
the study.
The Sunny Day Superintendent said, “In terms of governance, in the Board Room there
are large posters with the process, and that helps us stay on track and not deviate as much as
before. The board members will call each other out sometimes if they get away from the
process.” Sunny Lake Superintendent stated,
I think the training has really helped them stay within their lanes, not branch out. And
sometimes they try to get too hands on and then want to be in the weeds. I think that the
MIG training showed me they’re supposed to be the 30,000-foot view, what’s happening
65

in the district. Set some guidelines, hire and fire the superintendent, and let the experts do
what they’re supposed to be doing.
Sunny Mead Superintendent said,
Definitely, they have more knowledge of what’s going on and they have the opportunity
to align resources to achievement and they have clear vision and goals. And also it just
adds to the professionalism of what you should be doing as a board member. And it just
gives you a global perspective on the way that school districts are supposed to work.
The three superintendents were in alignment about the training and the professionalism
that was a byproduct of the time spent in training. A key task for school boards is to raise student
achievement through, among other things, strategic collaboration and co-leadership (Gemberling
et al., 2000). The school board members agreed that the training aided in a clear vision and
focus. Sunny Day Board Member 1 said, “I think it gave me a structure for some of our
conversations and about the roles and relationships too. I understand that one is the governing
board is the legislative body.” Sunny Lake Board Member 2 said, “The board, the Brown act,
how you should talk and what talk about, we’ve gone off in so many different directions.” Sunny
Mead Board Member 2 said,
I think that it has given us clarity and a focused way of doing things. It also helps us with
our vision and our goals. We also need to be professional and respect each other’s
opinions. All those things have helped me to strengthen how I govern our school district.
The data indicated that MIG training provided board members with a clear vision and
direction from the board. If they were trained, either in collaboration or not, they all had the same
set of rules to govern their school districts.
66

Establishment of Trusting Relationships
Boards and superintendents should work together to establish roles, communicate
effectively on their success and failures, and evaluate frequently (Danzberger et al., 1987). The
relationship between each board member and the superintendent is a must for continued
improvement and change. A school board and superintendent who work together will see
effective and efficient results that will make them all look better in the public’s eye. The belief
that school leaders can improve student achievement should drive all district goals and decisions
(Land, 2002; Waters & Marzano, 2006). The literature is clear on the importance of coherence
and transparency between board members and superintendents. Effective school boards commit
to high expectations of student achievement and practice (IASB, 2001). The Lighthouse Inquiry
is an effective tool to measure effectiveness in a school district.
Analysis of data from the survey, literature, and interviews identified the importance of
trust and relationships. The survey results show that 67.5% of 180 board members agreed that
the board member should attend the training with the superintendent to build external
relationships and networking connections. Also, 92% of the 82 superintendents agreed that it is
crucial to attend the training together to improve relationships and help people to understand one
another better. The survey data and literature provided results that indicated that, if these groups
went through the training together they would govern better and build trust among group
members. These responses are summarized in Tables 9 and 10.

67

Table 9
Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item: It Is Important to Attend Masters in Governance
(MIG) Training With Your Superintendent

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

53

29.5
Agree 67 37.0
Disagree 53 29.5
Strongly disagree 7 4.0

Table 10
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item: It Is Important to attend Masters in Governance
(MIG) Training With Your School Board Members

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

38

61
Agree 19 31
Disagree 5 8
Strongly disagree 0 0

68

During the interview, Sunny Lake Superintendent said, “The MIG training had helped the
school board and superintendent build trust with each other as people and professionals in charge
of large or small organizations.” The superintendents from all three districts agreed that MIG
training as a group is ideal. Sunny Day Superintendent was adamant on the importance of his
cabinet and the board committing to the training together:
It was great for that because we went. . . . It’s on Saturdays and we went as an entire
governance and cabinet team. And so, you really got to know people just being in the
same space and listening, which strengthens relationships. So, that was huge, and it really
helped that governance team for several years.
Sunny Lake Board Member 2 commented regarding collaboration and teamwork, “I think
it helped to make sure that we all had a parallel understanding of what was being taught to us.
And we could remind each other if they started to stray from that.” Sunny Mead Board Member
3 had the most detailed opinion on this matter:
Oh, absolutely it helped us. It helped us to improve our communication, for us to realize
that we needed to be accountable to each other, and we needed to be able to try and see
each other’s views. I think that was really important because if we couldn’t understand
each other’s views and opinions, then we would never get anything done. Because if we
only dig our heels in the sand and not be willing to have an open mind and communicate,
then we wouldn’t be doing what’s best for students. And it helped us to create trust
amongst each other and as board members.
The Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB, 2001) stressed that effective school districts should have
open lines of communication. The respondents generally agreed that the MIG training gave them
69

tools to build teamwork and communicate effectively. The only caveat, mentioned by the Sunny
Day Board Member 3, was, “The training only works if people follow the rules.”
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
It is evident from the interviews, surveys, and literature review that school board training
creates effective governance. The MIG training provided by the CSBA equipped the school
board members and superintendents to understand their roles and responsibilities. Understanding
their roles and responsibilities helped board members to prioritize student needs and make
informed decisions with the district’s vision in mind. The MIG training creates an environment
of collaboration and teamwork and provides a framework on how to conduct business as
professionals. Based on the results for Research Question 2, MIG training equips school board
members to exhibit behaviors of effective governance by creating a unified team that focuses on
important things such as student achievement and fiscal solvency.
Results for Research Question 3
The third research question asked, Does MIG training have an impact on student
achievement or growth? The school board members and the superintendents expressed differing
views on this question. Direct and indirect impact on student achievement were the overall
results for Research Question 3. Training can provide knowledge for school board members to
function in their roles (Dillon, 2010). Overall leadership from the superintendent was stated a
number of times as it pertained to improving student achievement with the MIG training. The
importance of effective school leadership is prevalent in educational research (Bolman & Deal,
2003; Elmore, 2000; Leithwood et al., 2008; Waters & Marzano, 2006). A superintendent who is
purposeful in using data to make informed decisions and keeps his board in the process has an
opportunity to be successful.
70

Three themes emerged from the responses related to this research question: (a) the
indirect influence of MIG training on student achievement, (b) the process that creates an
environment for improved student achievement, and (c) the position that MIG training has no
impact on student achievement.
Indirect Influence
One of the modules in the training is a focus on student achievement (CSBA, 2017). The
belief that school leaders can improve student achievement should drive all district goals and
decisions (Land, 2002; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Student achievement impact was addressed in
the survey when respondents were asked whether MIG training had improved student
achievement in their districts. In all, 54 of 62 superintendents (87%) responded that MIG training
directly or indirectly impacted student achievement. The numbers were not as high with the
board members; 128 of 180 (71%) responded that the training impacted student achievement in
their district (Table 11).

Table 11
Responses to the Survey Item: Attending Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Has Positively
Impacted Student Achievement in My District
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (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

71

The board members’ responses differed from the superintendents’ responses regarding
training giving them rules, roles, and responsibilities that impacted student achievement in their
districts. In the interviews, superintendents agreed that the training provided a background and
factors that would impact student achievement if the vision and goals were executed. The Sunny
Day Superintendent said, “It’s indirect based upon being a strong team to talk about things and
relationships, and being open and honest. But I think that’s a byproduct versus MIG directly
impacting students.” He said that most of the impact was indirect but did have an impact,
especially for board members without a background in education. Sunny Lake Superintendent
stated, “To close the achievement gap with all areas. But I don’t know if it’s directly had an
impact on it. Maybe impact the board a little bit to understand where we’re going.” The Sunny
Lake superintendent said that it was his responsibility to keep his board apprised of student
achievement. The Sunny Mead Superintendent was more detailed in his explanation:
I think that as a superintendent, I need to be able to set the groundwork for focusing on
student achievement. That’s really important and for me, knowing what questions to ask
and to promote instruction also for the board members, I need to be able give them as
much information on what we’re doing in terms of student achievement, so they have
greater knowledge and they have more of clear expectations of me as a superintendent
when we’re talking about student achievement.
The Sunny Mead superintendent was adamant about doing the training as a group in the future,
since he is new to the district.
The board members had differing views about how MIG training impacted student
achievement; some said that it indirectly changed the way they looked at certain things. Sunny
Lake Board Member 1 said,
72

One of them is a focus on student achievement. In depth analysis of the achievement in
every area, not only in AP classes, in high school graduation, graduation rates, a three-
year completion. Different areas, even college classes that our students are taking.
Another element that is change is that we develop a calendar throughout the year, so we
know in advance what is coming. So, we are not just guessing and leaving things, “so
let’s see what happens.”
Another Sunny Mead school board member said, “We talk about AP scores. We talk
about data that’s helping to move the district. And I think that every time that the superintendent
keeps it in the forefront, then we will keep it in the forefront.” The respondents gave the
impression that MIG training generally had some impact on student achievement.
Process for Success to Occur
The MIG training creates conditions for success in a school district by providing a
guideline for effective governance. School board members should take required professional
development in all areas of public schooling, so that quality decisions can be made for children’s
education (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). The professional development provides a background
with equity, access, and a focus on achievement. It eliminates distractions in thriving districts.
The Lighthouse study showed that board members in high-achieving districts identified specific
student needs through data and justified decisions based on those data (IASB, 2001). High-
functioning boards rely on training and the superintendent to address factors that improve student
achievement. The ideals of the training are not always how the board members view the need for
the training. The results of the survey were mixed regarding how training creates conditions for
success in student achievement (Table 12). Not all board members agreed on the impact of
73

training for them; only 77.5% agreed that they had a greater focus on student achievement. The
superintendents also had mixed results (Table 13).

Table 12
Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item: As a Result of the Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training, My Focus Is on Achievement

Response category

f (N = 180)

%

Strongly agree

49

27.2
Agree 91 50.6
Disagree 39 21.7
Strongly disagree 1 0.6

74

Table 13
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item: School Board Members Who Have Earned
Masters in Governance (MIG) Certification Demonstrate an Increased Focus On Student
Achievement

Response category

f (N = 62)

%

Strongly agree

14

23
Agree 44 71
Disagree 4 6
Strongly disagree 0 0

Most superintendents (58 of 62) agreed that the MIG training had an impact on them in
growing their knowledge about student achievement if they finished the entire MIG training
program. During the interviews, the board members had mixed reactions to the idea that MIG
training had an impact on student achievement. Sunny Day Board Member 1 said, “When it’s
effective in helping the governing team understand its role in the Board, understanding its role as
a policy maker, rather than as an administrator? I think it impacts student achievement by not
screwing it up.” Sunny Lake Board Member 2 commented,
I think in the last few years, all the improvements in academic achievement from English
learners, high school graduation rates, and English learners is a direct result of
monitoring and implementing the plan that we developed when we were at MIG training.
Sunny Mead Board Member 2 said,
75

I think that graduation rates have improved in our district. Equity and access has
improved in our district and just eliminating prerequisites for AP classes. That was really
important to me and near and dear to my heart when I got on the board.
The board members were not unanimous in their feelings about the impact of training. A few
mentioned that the superintendent was key in providing updates on student achievement and that
focus gave board members ideas on what questions to ask to support better instruction.
No Impact on Student Achievement
There was limited literature on professional development and its impact on student
achievement. Most of the research implied that, if board members and superintendents had solid
professional development, the overall health of the district would be solid and moving toward
effective governance. Dillon (2010) acknowledged, “For board members, ongoing professional
development is not a luxury, but a must” (p. 15). The survey and interview data from the board
members indicated mixed feelings. In the surveys, 71% of the board members said that MIG
training impacted student achievement. They considered the superintendent to be the
instructional leader with a greater impact on overall district student achievement. The percentage
was much higher with the superintendents, as 54 of 62 agreed that training had a positive impact
on student achievement (Table 14).

76

Table 14
Responses to the Survey Item: Attending Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Has Positively
Impacted Student Achievement in My District
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 8 12.9 39 21.7
Agree 46 74.2 89 49.4
Disagree 8 12.9 50 27.8
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1.1

The Lighthouse study (IASB, 2001) noted that it is extremely important for thriving
districts to use data to drive improvement in student achievement. Gone are the days when
feeling good about programs and services was acceptable. The use of data and setting goals
according to the data lead to a greater impact on student achievement. A survey question asked
whether the MIG training encouraged governance teams to use data consistently to make
informed decisions regarding student achievement. Only 38% strongly agreed; 49% agreed that,
as a result of MIG training, evaluating data had become a common practice. The superintendents
answered much differently. Almost 90% said that, as a result of MIG training, everyone was
speaking a common language about the use of data, which had an impact on student
achievement. The superintendents definitely had a different opinion about how MIG training
affected the organization’s view on data (Table 15).

77

Table 15
Responses to the Survey Item: As a Result of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training, I
Encourage Governance Team Members to Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions
Regarding Student Achievement
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 31 50.0 69 38.3
Agree 28 45.2 88 48.9
Disagree 3 4.8 21 11.7
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1.1

During the interviews, the board members voiced a lack of support regarding the MIG
training and its impact on student achievement. Sunny Day Board Member 1 said, “I can only
speak to myself personally and I don’t think the MIG training influenced my commitment to our
job is about student achievement and growth and student success, and much less about pleasing
adults.” This view was consistent with the views of other board members from other districts.
Sunny Mead Board Member 2 stated, “I think that graduation rates have improved in our district.
Equity and access has improved in our district and just eliminating prerequisites for AP classes.
That was really important to me and near and dear to my heart when I got on the board.” Sunny
Day Board Member 2 said, “I don’t think that we as a board impact student achievement much at
all.” Some of the other board members felt different. Sunny Lake Board Member 1 said,
We were able to develop that plan and the method based on knowledge and support that
we received from the district. So, we have identified several areas that we have a huge
78

increase in Spanish speakers, and a system to follow. That is in part for all of us working
together and collaboratively. In that approach, in my opinion, it has to do a lot with
training that we received.
The superintendents agreed that MIG training made board members aware of their role in
student achievement. Sunny Mead Superintendent said,
Definitely having a clear focus, clear vision and goals, and how to work with our board
members and to continually remind them of their role and just remind them that our role
is to educate the students and it’s their role to create policy.
Sunny Day Superintendent stated, “If it does, it’s indirect based upon being a strong team to talk
about things and relationships, and being open and honest. But I think that’s a byproduct versus
MIG directly impacting students.” He did not agree that MIG training had much of an impact
except some indirect impact with board members. Sunny Lake Superintendent said,
I think the most important part for me in the training was understanding what the board’s
really supposed to be focused on. And try to push them in that direction all the time as
they veer off, and just to steer them back to where they should be and remind them of the
training.
The third theme was not as strong as the other two themes for Research Question 3. The
interview and survey data indicated that MIG training had little to no impact on student
achievement, a position that is supported in the literature. Although the superintendents felt
differently, not all were in agreement that MIG training impacted student achievement in their
districts.
79

Summary of Results for Research Question 3
The results for Research Question 3 indicated that more growth by board members is
needed as it pertains to their roles and student achievement. The overall view of the board
members was that they had an indirect impact on student achievement but did not indicate that
MIG training led to the overall success of the district. The training brought attention to making
student-centered decisions and the importance of aligning resources for student growth.
The training prepared board members to identify conditions for success in student
achievement. The interviews and surveys indicated that board members were better equipped to
ask the right questions pertaining to student achievement. The data led to the conclusion that the
MIG training had no impact on student achievement for many of the participants. The
superintendents had varying views on its impact of student achievement, although they agreed
that the training encouraged attention to student achievement data, which is vital for effective
governance and continual improvement.
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this research study was to identify key themes that affect the decision of
board members to seek professional development, to determine whether MIG training equips and
encourages school board members and their superintendents to exhibit behaviors of effective
governance, and to determine whether the training should be mandated in California. The
responses to surveys and interviews, collected by the cohort group of 20 students from 62
superintendents and 180 board members, were triangulated with relevant research on effective
governance. The results revealed ways in which MIG training equipped and encouraged board
members and superintendents to operate effectively and to be in coherence in governance.
80

The emerging themes were that board members participate in the training because of self-
motivation and a general feeling that board members want to do a good job. Board members
recommend the training to colleagues and have the desire for all board members to be trained for
coherence. Board members stated that accessibility and cost partly explained why some may not
take part in the training. The school board members agreed that the superintendent’s leadership is
important in getting all board members on board with MIG training. The school board members
agreed that they were likely to develop collaborative relationships as a result of the MIG training
and clarification of their roles and responsibilities.
The board members and superintendents differed on the impact of MIG training on
student achievement, individually or as a district. The surveys and interviews produced
conflicting data. The superintendents agreed that the training had an impact on student
achievement but board members reported mixed results. Throughout the interviews, it was
evident that board members did not agree regarding the impact of MIG on student achievement.
Overall, the board members agreed that MIG training was a valuable tool for them to achieve
effective governance.

81

Chapter Five: Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations
The expectations put on board members in today’s world are overwhelming. There is an
extensive list of roles and responsibilities that they take on as soon as they are elected. School
board members are expected to create a vision for the district and create policy in the best
interest of students. This study was designed to gain insight and understanding about what
effective governance is supposed to look like and the role that professional development plays in
that process. It is important to note that training for California school board members is not
mandated. A board member can win an election and become a board member with little or no
experience in the role that they will assume once in their position.
The literature reviewed in Chapter 2 emphasizes that board members manage large
organizations, oversee multimillion-dollar budgets, approve school curriculum, create and adopt
policy, and hire or fire the district’s superintendent. The CSBA is one of the only professional
organizations in California for board members; it provides extensive professional development
called MIG training.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between school board members
and their superintendents and to determine whether there is a correlation between effective
school governance and the MIG training. The research team also tried to determine whether the
training had an overall effect on student achievement. The team triangulated our research with
literature related to the topic, survey data collected from superintendents and board members,
and interviews of the same superintendents and board members. In all, 62 superintendents and
180 board members were surveyed from 12 counties in California. The team interviewed 177
board members and 62 superintendents. Twenty doctoral students from the University of
Southern California Rossier School of Education collaborated on developing the research
82

questions. Each researcher was charged to find three districts where the superintendent and at
least two board members had been trained in MIG. The research team developed three research
questions to guide the study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement or growth?
The surveys and interviews, along with the reviewed literature, were guided by
conceptual frameworks. From this examination, three relevant themes emerged for each research
question. This chapter presents a summary of those findings, implications for practice,
recommendations for future research, and conclusions.
Summary of Findings
The findings in this study stem from major themes that emerged while triangulating the
data from the literature, interviews, and survey results. In analyzing the data as individual
researchers and as a group, three themes emerged for each research question. Some of the themes
were repeated. Important elements for each major theme were established with a list of key
words and phrases that helped to formulate the themes.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research question 1 was, What factors impact the decision of school board members to
participate in the MIG training program? Three major themes emerged: (a) School board
members were motivated to participate in MIG training, internally and externally; (b) cultural
expectations of the superintendent and other board members; and (c) accessibility to the training
83

for board members was mentioned repeatedly, which included the location, cost, and time to
complete the MIG training. The overall finding for the first research question was that a
willingness to participate in the training was internal and that the motivation came from a desire
to do a good job as a board member. This enables them to govern effectively, which is
imperative, given the increase in accountability and public scrutiny (Johnson, 2011).
To govern effectively, a common element that arose during the research was a district’s
cultural expectation to seek professional development. The MIG training provides a guide for
each board member and each member expects the other members to participate, so they can all
be on the same page when deciding what is best for the district. The literature supports this
finding in the leadership framework from Bolman and Deal (2003).
The third theme was the need to make the training accessible to board members and
superintendents to attend together or more often. The location of the training, often hundreds of
miles from the district, was an issue, as well as the time and cost of the training. The school
board members suggested online training for veteran members and refresher courses. The
superintendents repeatedly mentioned the importance of all executive cabinet members and
board attending the training together. Board members stated the importance of attending the
training together for cohesiveness. Finally, the cost has to be subsidized to encourage more
participation in the training.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, How does the MIG training program encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance? The MIG
training provides school board members with an understanding of their roles and responsibilities
as they govern their district. Rules, policies, and goals are key as the focus moves from the
84

individual to the team and provides the foundation for the formation of a strong unit (Bolman &
Deal, 2008). A majority of board members stated that MIG training provided them a framework
to conduct effective meetings, recognize the need for policy making, and know when to work
collaboratively as a team.
The second theme related to Research Question 2 was the need for collective governance
by the board and superintendent. The board members stated the importance for the
superintendent to work with them to have a clear vision and goals and to follow the plan on a
yearly basis. Sunny Day and Sunny Mead school district board members consistently mentioned
the importance of being data driven. The superintendents of those districts did not rely only on
state testing but also on other factors that would make them a high-achieving district. These
practices directly align with the research on effective governance (IASB, 2001; Waters &
Marzano, 2006).
The third theme related to Research Question 2 centered on the relationships and
collaboration by board members who attended MIG training. Board members stated that
attending the training had assisted them in getting to know each other and in building
relationships. The ability to spend time together and collaborate was vital. The CSBA (2005,
2007, 2017) stated in their training materials that effective board governance displays eight
characteristics: communication of a common vision, operation with trust and integrity, governing
in a dignified manner, treatment of everyone with respect, governing within board policies,
assumption of collective responsibility for their performance, self-evaluations with community
input, and a focus on student achievement. Furthermore, board members and superintendents
should be advocates for the students whom they oversee.
85

Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
or growth? The results of this question when proposed to the school board members and
superintendents were mixed. Some board members said that the training gave them a better
perspective on the importance of goals that would affect student achievement. The first theme for
Research Question 3 was that MIG training indirect influenced the district as it pertains to
student achievement and growth. Walters and Marzano (2006) and IASB (2001) agreed that
effective school boards focus on student achievement, with the belief that setting goals and high
expectations is necessary to achieve annual improvement. The superintendent was key to
keeping the discussions active regarding student achievement but some of the board members
reported that the training had brought to their attention the focus on growth.
The second theme was that the training provided a road map for success. It gave them
clear guidelines on their focus. Establishing policy and having a global perspective was repeated
often during the interviews. Equity and access became a focus for board members through the
training and they reported that it gave them the platform to ask the right questions. The results
showed that MIG training had helped board members to work more closely as a team as they
understood their power and influence to improve student achievement.
The third theme, with mixed results, was that the MIG training had no effect on student
achievement. The board members from Sunny Lake said that the superintendent provided
updates on the growth of the school district and they discussed measures for growth, but this was
not a result of the training. The superintendents, on the other hand, stated that the training
provided a basic framework for board members to understand measures of effective student
achievement that would lead to effective governance. Although survey results suggested that
86

school board members had a better grasp of student achievement measures, they did not agree
that they had an impact on district student achievement. One board member stated that the
training had helped to hold effective board members, which may or may not lead to an impact on
student growth. Overall, the survey and interview data did not indicate that a majority reported
that the MIG training had increased student achievement.
Implications for Practice
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between school board
members and superintendents and how MIG training improved the overall effectiveness of the
school district and student achievement. Was the training adequate to equip school board
members with skills to perform their positions at an optimum level? School board members who
complete the training are more effective in their governance of the school district. They
understand their roles and responsibilities and must work collaboratively with the superintendent
to achieve overall success. They work together on common vision and goals and strive to keep
student achievement as their main focus.
Although school board training is not mandated, it was evident in the results that
professional development was key for knowledge and responsibilities. There was no clear link
between MIG training and improvement in student achievement, but those who had attended
MIG training reported that they had attained effective practical knowledge and skills to perform
in their positions. The findings suggest no negative effects of the training, implying that the
training can only improve professionalism and governance.
Collaboration and teamwork were repeated often during the interviews and surveys.
Another key benefit was the relationship building with each stakeholder, including the
superintendent’s cabinet and board members. Board member responses in the surveys indicated a
87

need to involve the community in their roles as board members. Input and communication were
stressed in the training; board members recognized this as useful.
The findings of this study would benefit superintendents to set a cultural expectation to
attend the training as a group. The CSBA could use the results to refine their training modules to
meet the needs of board members. Some board members reported that some of the modules are
outdated and not relevant to their positions. Also, it was suggested that current superintendents
teach the modules, with the comment that some of the trainers were outdated in their thought
processes. The CSBA should offer the courses more often and around the state. It would be
helpful for the CSBA to offer virtual training as refreshers in the future. The time is now for the
technology world to catch up with some of the antiquated methods that have been happening for
years. The data from the interviews suggest that, once board members finish their initial training,
there should be a plan for follow-up sessions. Training is essential for all stakeholders in the
organization, and the CSBA should consider methods to encourage all board members to
participate in their training.
Recommendations for Future Research
The results of this study leave much to examined. Variations of the study could lead to
true change in the way board members look at professional development. This study was
conducted across 12 counties in California; it would be beneficial to contact all the counties in
the state. The sample consisted of 62 superintendents and 180 board members. Although
conclusions can be made from the current study, other questions are unanswered. These
recommendations and suggestions are made to advance the depth of knowledge about school
board training, focusing on CSBA’s MIG training.
88

If the study were expanded to all districts, the research might lead to mandates to training
for all board members. It is recommended to survey as many board members from across the
state on their views of professional development for board members and create a study on those
who have participated in the training and those who have not been trained. In addition, interview
questions could coincide with the survey to ask direct questions on why not to attend the training
and what is the apprehension from attending the MIG training. These recommendations could
add depth to collected data pertaining to MIG training and its effect on effective school
governance.
Future research could compare a high-achieving school district to a low-achieving school
district where board members have been trained. The research could lead to change if the results
show a cultural effect on the district. Research could examine the influence of the superintendent
and the school district’s culture on the willingness to require the training and put it into policy
for all future board members. This would create a culture of motivation and accountability.
Mandatory attendance to MIG training would create a positive culture and raise expectations for
future board members.
It is recommended compare and contrast the states that mandate training with those that
do not do so. Roberts and Sampson (2011) stated that states that mandated training received a
higher grade than those that did not mandate training. Interviews with board members who
govern in mandated states may reveal a depth of knowledge that has not been examined.
Nationwide research could update the studies that are available on this topic. Most of the
literature is outdated and should be updated to the 21st century.
89

Conclusion
The scrutiny of superintendents and board members has never been higher in the history
of education. With the drive for equity and access to a quality education, all stakeholders have a
responsibility to do anything possible to be the best for the students whom they serve. School
board members are faced with increasing challenges as they attempt to navigate the complexities
of their roles and responsibilities while making sound decisions regarding policies, curriculum,
personnel, and finance (Danzberger, 1994; Dillon, 2010; Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst,
2005). The survey and interview data in this study indicated that board members who
participated in professional development, particularly the CSBA MIG training, were better
prepared to serve in their role. Also, a common language was established among peers that led to
productive board meetings. Collaboration and trust as a result of MIG training were mentioned
numerous times.
The motivation for training was internal, but some identified external factors that led to
participation in the training. Cost, time, and location were mentioned as factors that could be
addressed to improve attendance in MIG training. However, it could not be concluded that there
was improvement in student achievement associated with the MIG training.
This study revealed the importance of ongoing professional development for the
superintendent and school board members. Commitment to training and learning is vital for the
overall success of the school district. In California, MIG training can have a positive impact on
superintendents and board members and, ultimately, the students whom they serve.
90

References
Alameda County Office of Education. (2019). California dashboard state and local indicators.
https://www.acoe.org/dashboard
Bainbridge, W., & Thomas, M. D. (2002). Boards of education: The need for effective
leadership. Journal of the Agency for Instructional Technology, 11(4), 1–3.
Berry, C. R., & Howell, W. G. (2007). Accountability and local elections: Rethinking
retrospective voting. Journal of Politics, 69(3), 884–858.
Bianchi, B. A. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast, 1(3), 1–4.
http://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/forecast%20pdf/forecast1003.pdf
Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). The school district superintendent
in the United States of America: Educational leadership faculty.
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/eda_fac_pub/13?utm_source=ecommons.udayton.edu%2F
eda_fac_pub%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campgain-PDFCover Pages
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.
Bolman, G. L., & Deal, E. T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(3rd ed.). Wiley.
Bolman, G. L., & Deal, E. T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901–910.
Bracey, G. W., & Resnick, M. A. (1998). Raising the bar: A school board primer on student
achievement. National School Boards Association.
91

Brenner Thurlow, C. T., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. University of Texas at
El Paso, Institute for Policy and Economic Development.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
California School Dashboard. (2019). Results and data. http://www.cde.ca.gov/
California Department of Education. (2018). State schools chief Tom Torlakson announces
results of California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress online tests.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr18/yr18rel62.asp
California Department of Education. (2020a). Local control accountability plan.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
California Department of Education. (2020b). Local control funding formula.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards. https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrd
LeadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2010). Education issues brief (2010–11 edition).
http://www.csba.org/~/media/AC5BF2C5672340BB9482C3221C645FC9.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2012). CSBA leadership development 2012 [Brochure].
California School Boards Association. (2017). The school board role in creating conditions for
student achievement. https://www.csba.org/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/
Reports/201705BoardResearchReport.ashx?la=en&rev=6aea555a678e4fb6a40494f013e2
546f
92

California School Boards Association (2018). Masters in Governance. https://www.csba.org/en/
TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 391–395.
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (4th ed.). Addison Wesley.
Dahlkemper, L. (2005). Making the grade: School board members navigate education
challenges. SEDL Letter, 17(2). http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v17n02/school-
board.html
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local school
boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 67–73.
Danzberger, J. P., Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan, M.
D. (1987). School boards: The forgotten players on the education team. Phi Delta
Kappan, 69(1), 53–59.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing
school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. University of
Southern California, Center on Educational Governance.
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership
in the improvement of student achievement. In T. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school
board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 1–8). Rowman & Littlefield Education.
93

Devarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards: Full report.
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-education/Eight-
characteristics-of-effective-school-boards/Eight-characteristics-of-effective-school-
boards.html
Dillon, N. (2010). The value of training. American School Board Journal, 197(7), 14–19.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Pub. L. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27, 20 U.S.C., chp.
70.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.
Fusarelli, B. C. (2006). School board and superintendents relations: Issues of continuity, conflict,
and community. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9(1), 44–57. https://doi
.org/10.1177/1555458905285011
Fusarelli, L. D., Kowalski, T. J., & Petersen, G. J. (2011). Distributive leadership, civic
engagement, and deliberative democracy as vehicles for school improvement. Leadership
and Policy in Schools, 10(1), 43–62.
Gemberling, K. W., Smith, C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key work of school boards
guidebook. National School Boards Association.
Glass, T. E. (1992). The 1992 study of the American school superintendency. American
Association of School Administrators.
Goldhammer, K. (1964). The school board. Center for Applied Research in Education.
Grady, M. L., & Bryant, M. T. (1991). Critical incidences between superintendents and school
boards: Implications for practice. Planning and Changing, 20(4), 207–221.
94

Grissom, J. A. (2010). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations:
The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 20(3), 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup043
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. Urban
Education, n.v., 17–19.
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of
district governance. National School Boards Association.
Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., Campbell, C., McElroy, M., & Monoz-Colon, I. (2002). Big-city
school boards: Problems and options. Annie E. Casey Foundation, Center on
Reinventing Public Education.
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. 10.1108/02683940710820109
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2001, April). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School boards/
superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student
achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Johnson, P. (2011). School board governance: The times they are a changin’. Journal of Cases in
Educational Leadership, 20(1), 1-20. 10.1177/1555458911413887
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approached (5th ed.). Sage.
Kirst, M. W. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5),
378–381.
95

Kirst, M. W., & Wirt, F. M. (2005). Local school board, politics, and the community. In M. W.
Kirst & F. M. Wirt (Eds.), The political dynamics of American education (pp. 133–220).
McCutchan.
Kolb, R. F., & Strauss, R. P. (1999). State laws governing school board ethics. ftp://amusing
.mit.edu/afs/andrew/supa/wpapers/1999-8.pdf
Kowalski, T. J. (1999). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases. Prentice-Hall.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229–278.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543072002229
Larsen, S. E., Lipscomb, S., & Jaquet, K. (2011). Improving school accountability. Public Policy
Institute of California.
Lashway, L. (2002). The superintendent in the age of accountability. ERIC Digest 468515.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.).
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27–42.
Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research for the social sciences. Sage.
Loeb, S., & Miller, L. (2007). A review of state teacher policies: What are they, what are their
effects, and what are their implications for school finance? http://cepa.stanford.edu/
sites/default/files/Loeb_Miller.pdf
Marzano, R. J., Waters, J. T., & McNulty, B. A. (2004). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. C. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership. Thomas Nelson.
96

McAdams, D. R. (2002). The new challenge for school boards. Education Commission of the
States.
McAdams, D. R. (2003). Training your board to lead. School Administrator, 60(10), 7–9.
McGuinn, P. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy,
1965–2005. University Press of Kansas.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Morehouse, W. R. (2001). Training for my board colleagues? You bet. School Administrator,
58(2), 68-70.
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school
board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 34–70.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X04268843
National School Boards Association. (2010a). Mandated training for local school board
members survey. http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/MandatedTraining.pdf
National School Boards Association. (2012). Mandated training for school board members.
http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/MandatedTraining.pdf
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. 6301 et. seq. (West, 2003).
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Sage.
Norton, S. M., Webb, D. L., Dlugosh, L. L., & Sybouts, W. (1996). The school superintendency:
New responsibilities, new leadership. Allyn & Bacon.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
97

Petersen, G. J., & Short, P. M. (2001). The school board president’s perception of the district
superintendent: Applying the lenses of social influence and social style. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 533–570.
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Bruce, J., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2000, April 10–14). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/
superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student
achievement (ED453172). Paper presented Seattle at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED453172.pdf
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management,
25(7), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
Schedler, A., Diamond, L., & Plattner, M. F. (Eds.). (1999). The self-restraining state: Power
and accountability in new democracies. Lynne Rienner.
Texas Educational Agency. (2018). News weekly. https://tea.texas.gov/
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The quest to
define effective leadership. Johns Hopkins University & Howard University, Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
Thomas, W., & Moran, K. (1992). Reconsidering the power of the superintendent in the
progressive period. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 22–50.
Timar, T. B. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Peabody
Journal of Education, 78(4), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7804_09
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Learning First Alliance.
98

Wall, J. A., & Roberts-Callister, R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of
Management 21(4), 515-558.
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement (Working Paper). http://www
.mcrel.org/pdf/leadershiporganizationdevelopment/4005RR_Superintendent_leadership.p
df
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan.
99

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

100

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
101

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
102

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
103

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

104

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
105

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
106

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

107

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?

108

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?

109

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: _______________________________________________________________________

110

Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument RQ 1
What factors impact
the decision of school
board members to
participate in the MIG
training program?
RQ 2
How does the MIG
training program
encourage and equip
school board
members to exhibit
the behaviors of
effective school
governance?
RQ 3
Does MIG training
have an impact on
student achievement
and growth?
School Board
Member Survey
1-6 7-16,18-19 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
Superintendent
Survey
1-6 7-14 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
School Board
Member Interview
Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Superintendent
Interview Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the effectiveness of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training on student achievement and overall culture of a school district. The purpose of the study was to determine whether there was a relationship between school board professional development and school district productivity. The study was framed by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s four frames of leadership. The research team also examined the effective best practices of school boards and how they achieve success according to the Lighthouse Inquiry conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards. Standards established by the CSBA were used to identify expectations for effective school boards. This qualitative study used data from interviews and surveys of 60 superintendents and 180 school board members in California. The study focused on three topics: (a) factors that influenced the decision to participate in the training, (b) whether the training helped school boards to govern effectively, and (c) whether the training had an effect on student achievement. The findings suggested that the MIG training is vital for school boards to achieve effective governance but the results regarding the impact of the training on student achievement were inconclusive. It was concluded that the training is an important step for California school districts to achieve effective governance and improvement in student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California

PDF

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

PDF

School board training and governance in California

PDF

School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy

PDF

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

PDF

Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance

PDF

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

PDF

School board governance training and student achievement

PDF

Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards

PDF

Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

School board training: impact on governance and achievement

PDF

The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts

PDF

Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice

PDF

The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California school board governance

PDF

Impact of the Masters in governance training program on effective school board leadership and governance

PDF

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

PDF

Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance

Asset Metadata

Creator Torres, Henry K. (author)

Core Title The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/15/2021

Defense Date 01/29/2021

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,School boards,superintendents,Training

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Escalante, Michael (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee member), Doll, Michelle (committee member)

Creator Email hktorres@usc.edu,kennytorres@cnusd.k12.ca.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-445779

Unique identifier UC11668617

Identifier etd-TorresHenr-9475.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-445779 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-TorresHenr-9475.pdf

Dmrecord 445779

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Torres, Henry K.

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