Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
(USC Thesis Other)
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Masters in Governance Training and Its Impact on California School Boards’ Effectiveness
by
Julie Anna Harrison
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 Julie Anna Harrison 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Julie Anna Harrison certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Rudy M. Castruita
Michele Taney Doll
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
This study was conducted to determine the impact that the Master’s in Governance (MIG)
training program had on effective governance and student achievement and to determine what
factors influenced school board members to participate in the training—specifically, what factors
of the MIG training contributed to cohesive governance and how, if at all, the training
contributed to an increase in student achievement. The study was framed around the work of the
California School Board Association’s (CSBA) Professional Governance Standards, Lee Bolman
and Terrence Deal’s 4 frames of leadership and management, and the Lighthouse Inquiry study
conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards. The study included public, K 12 California
school districts where a majority of the school board members had trained in the MIG modules.
Interviews and surveys were conducted with trained school board members and their district
superintendent. A literature review was conducted to triangulate the findings in the study.
Findings indicated that school board members were more likely to participate in MIG training if
they were intrinsically motivated and had easy access to training modules. Findings also
indicated that MIG modules supported effective governance by equipping board members with
the knowledge of an effective governance structure and that, although indirectly, student
achievement could be positively impacted by school board members who had been trained in the
MIG modules. This study supported the notion of professional development for school board
members working to lead their local district in collaboration with their superintendent.
v
Dedication
To my incredible family: My husband, Brian Harrison; our two children, Ace and Penny
Harrison; my parents, Dennis Bock and Jane Bock; and my late father-in-law, John G. Harrison,
have been a continuous source of inspiration and support.
To my husband Brian and best friend of over 24 years has been an incredible support system. His
kindness, patience, and easy-going nature are the reasons that I can do what I do. He has
supported me through the doctoral process and through 2 decades of pushing to overachieve in
my career. He has been there through the long days and nights and the overbearing challenges,
encouraging me to stay the course and continue to achieve. It is because of his unwavering
support that I am in the position to achieve this goal. He is an incredible father to our two
children, always putting our family above himself. I look forward to more days full of
snowboarding, ¬surfing, and skateboarding with Brian and our children now that this project is
complete.
To my children, Ace and Penny, have kept me going with fun and laughs along the way. They
are my inspiration to achieve and do great things. My goal and purpose in life is to raise them
with faith, conviction, and perseverance. They are my hope for the future; I aspire to show them
that they can accomplish anything if they work hard, stay committed, and have integrity along
the way. Never could I have imagined how amazing and full my life would be with the two of
them in it. They are a light in this world.
vi
To my parents have been a constant example of integrity, responsibility, and hard work
throughout my life. They are a model of faith and persistence. With these lessons, I have been
able to make my way through every challenge and continue to set higher goals for myself. I
dedicate this to them for believing in me. Knowing that they are always in my corner pushes me
to go forward confidently. With faith and hard work, we can achieve anything.
To the generations before me. It is because of the strength of our families and the generations
that came before us that my husband Brian and I have the desire and determination to accomplish
our goals in life. This doctoral degree belongs to each of the people in this dedication and those
who have helped to pave the pathway for our family to find success. They have given countless
hours to support me through the last 3 years, and their sacrifices along the way have made this
achievement possible.
vii
Acknowledgements
The dissertation process takes a village. I would like to acknowledge and thank my
village of support on this journey. First and foremost, thank you to our dissertation chair, Dr.
Michael F. Escalante, for guiding me through this process and being a constant source of wisdom
along the way. I am honored to be a part of the cohort led by Dr. Escalante and feel that I have
gained a true mentorship in the world of education. The insight, philosophy, drive, and
determination of Dr. Escalante have been transferred to our team; and we are better educators
today than when we started.
I thank Dr. Richard Sheehan for his role in guiding me through my educational career. He
has been a consistent source of knowledge an encouragement over the past 15 years. I truly
appreciate his willingness to be on my dissertation committee and his belief in my ability as a
leader.
I thank Dr. Michele Doll for her guidance through the dissertation process and also her
encouragement and mentorship in my career. I have learned countless lessons from Dr. Doll; her
strength of character and commitment to what is best for students are inspiring. She is a woman
of great strength and someone to emulate.
I thank Dr. David Cash not only for serving as a dissertation committee member but also
for his strength of conviction. Classroom lessons and conversations have inspired me to always
stand for what is right, regardless of consequence. Dr. Cash is an incredible example of a
committed educator.
I thank my dissertation cohort. I am fortunate to have landed in the pathway of each of
them. This process was challenging—even frustrating at times—but was also full of laughs and
good times. I look forward to celebrating with each of them in the near future. I have made
viii
lifelong friends and future colleagues. I hope our paths continue to cross as we work to make the
world of education a better place for our students. I thank my carpool buddies, team C VUSD
(Covina-Valley Unified School District), for the countless conversations on the way to USC and
all the encouragement. I could not have done it without them.
ix
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiv
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 3
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 4
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 4
Delimitations ....................................................................................................................... 5
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 5
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 6
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
History of School Boards .................................................................................................. 11
History of the Superintendency ........................................................................................ 13
Roles and Responsibilities of School Boards ................................................................... 16
School Board–Superintendent Relationships .................................................................... 19
School Board Training ...................................................................................................... 21
x
Accountability ................................................................................................................... 26
Leadership ......................................................................................................................... 29
Effective Governance and Student Achievement ............................................................. 32
Theoretical Frames ............................................................................................................ 34
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 39
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 41
Research Team .................................................................................................................. 41
Research Design ................................................................................................................ 42
Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 43
Instrumentation Development and Design ........................................................................ 45
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 46
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 47
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 48
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 48
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 50
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 51
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 54
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 63
Results for Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 69
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 80
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 82
Purpose of Study and Research Questions Restated ......................................................... 82
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 83
xi
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 85
Recommendations for Further Studies .............................................................................. 89
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 89
References ..................................................................................................................................... 91
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails .................................................................... 100
School Board Recruitment and Information Email ........................................................ 100
Superintendent Recruitment and Information Email ...................................................... 101
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey .............................................................................. 102
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 104
Appendix D: Interview Guide: School Board Members ............................................................. 106
Appendix E: Interview Guide: Superintendents ......................................................................... 107
Appendix F: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 108
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix .................................................................................. 109
xii
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participants 52
Table 2: Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the
Masters in Governance Training 56
Table 3: Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Their School Board
Culture Encouraged Participation in Masters in Governance Training 60
Table 4: Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Masters in
Governance Training Should Be Encouraged for School Governance Teams
by the Local District Policy 61
Table 5: Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the Masters in
Governance Program Would Increase Chances of Participation 62
Table 6: Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Members Who
Were Masters in Governance Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the
Difference Between Their Roles and Responsibilities and Those of Their
Superintendent 65
Table 7: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Board Members Who Were
Masters in Governance Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the
Difference Between Their Roles and Responsibilities and Those of Their
Superintendent 65
Table 8: Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Masters in
Governance Training Encouraged School Governance Teams to Contribute to
the Effectiveness of Their School Board Meetings 67
Table 9: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training
Impacted Their Ability to Govern Effectively 67
Table 10: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance
Training Had Improved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept
the Majority Decision, Even When They Held the Minority View 69
Table 11: School Board Members’ Responses Regarding Whether Board Members Who
Were Masters in Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning
the Decision-Making Process With the District’s Vision and Goals 74
Table 12: Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Members Who
Were Masters in Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning
the Decision-Making Process With the District’s Vision and Goals 75
xiii
Table 13: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in
Governance Training, Their Focus Was on Student Achievement (N = 180) 77
Table 14: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Had
Earned Masters in Governance Certification Demonstrated an Increased Focus
on Student Achievement 78
Table 15: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in Governance
Training Had Positively Impacted Student Achievement in Their District 79
Table 16: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether, as a Result of Masters in
Governance Training, They Encouraged Governance Team Members to
Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions Regarding Student
Achievement 79
xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks for Study 46
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
School board members have the immense responsibility of providing comprehensive
oversight to the education of the students who live within the region where they are elected
(California School Boards Association [CSBA], 2018a). Board members are expected to make
critical decisions that impact the direct services and ultimate outcomes of the learners in their
educational systems. The role of the school board member has become increasingly complex
over the past several decades as accountability has grown exponentially. The roles and
responsibilities of the school board have evolved and currently encompass all aspects of running
a large corporation. School board members are responsible for vision and mission setting,
policymaking, financial solvency, student success and more (CSBA, 2018b). The relationship
between the school board members and the superintendent is pivotal for school district success
(CSBA, 2007). Waters and Marzano (2006) emphasized the importance of shared and
collaborative leadership between the superintendent and the school board members in order to
accomplish district goals.
How board members perform their duties is as important as the role itself. Board
members’ relationships within the team, with the superintendent, with other staff members, and
with the public that elected them have a profound impact on a board’s effectiveness (CSBA,
2007). According to the CSBA (2007), board members’ skills affect their ability to come to
consensus about the vision and mission of the school district, to advocate with credibility, and to
establish a positive culture encouraging the best from staff and students. With skills at the
forefront of success, the study aims to determine the impact of the Masters in Governance (MIG)
training program offered through CSBA (2018c). This systematic approach to providing
knowledge, skills, and support to school board members should have a positive impact on the
2
way that they govern. The research and data collected from this study will be analyzed to
determine whether this training program has an effect on effective governance and/or student
achievement. Ultimately, the study will focus on the impact that the MIG program has on
governance and student outcomes.
Background of the Problem
School boards have increasing responsibility and accountability in the role that they play.
School boards and superintendents have been working together to run school districts for over
100 years (Callahan, 1966). The dynamics of the relationships and the changing demands of
education have made the task of running a school district smoothly difficult and complicated
(Bianchi, 2003; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). Board members must make decisions that could
have a lasting impact on students. It is necessary for board members to be informed about their
duties and responsibilities such as policy development, fiscal management, vision, mission, goal
setting, and more (CSBA, 2007; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). In order for school board members
to effectively govern the school system, it is imperative that they have the knowledge and skills
to fulfill their responsibility.
The CSBA offers a comprehensive training program, and board members are encouraged
to attend the training modules. The CSBA (2018b) has noted that training should be mandatory
for school board members; however, many school board members choose not to participate in
these training opportunities. Roberts and Sampson (2011) concluded that professional learning
for school board members is essential to improve their effectiveness as district leaders.
Without proper training, board members will not have the skills and tools needed to
successfully navigate and lead the district in which they serve. Students’ outcomes will not be
3
increased or enhanced unless the school board is prepared to conduct business that results in
achievement for students.
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 improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
The following questions guided this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
4
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Significance of the Study
Research on the relationship between the MIG training program and the effectiveness of
school boards has a direct impact on students in the school systems. The study reveals whether
school board members perceived that MIG had enhanced their effectiveness and, in turn,
increased student achievement in their district. The goal was to identify whether there were any
potential links between training and the practice of governing. The study should provide insight
to school districts as to the degree of importance of formalized training for school board
members. It should also be a source of data for policymakers in the state when determining
whether mandatory school board training is a positive solution for effective school board
governance. If a link is established between (a) formal board training and (b) effective
governance and student growth, then the MIG program may be more widely attended.
Limitations
The following limitations applied to the study:
1. The study was limited geographically and involved 12 California counties.
2. The cohort had a limited amount of time to collect data for this study.
3. The cohort interviewed and surveyed a limited number of participants.
4. The study was limited to qualifying participants who participated voluntarily.
5. The study was bound by the experiences and memories of the participants.
6. The study was limited by the extent of reliability and the validity of the research
tools designed for the study.
5
7. The study’s data collection phase was limited by the stay-at-home orders caused
by the COVID-19 pandemic, thus creating barriers to in-person interviews.
Zoom
Ô
virtual interviews were conducted as needed.
Delimitations
The following delimitations applied to this study:
1. The cohort delimited the study to K 12 public schools.
2. The cohort delimited the research to 12 California counties.
3. The study was delimited to board members who had participated in the MIG
program offered by the CSBA.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made:
1. That the research instruments were valid and reliable. They were created
collaboratively by the cohort and encompassed the intent of the research
questions. They were built upon the conceptual frameworks determined by the
cohort.
2. That a qualitative approach was appropriate for the study.
3. That MIG training improves school board practice. The program was designed to
cover the essential aspects of what it takes to govern a school district (CSBA,
2007). Courses provide the background required to conduct business as a school
board member.
4. That the information provided by the CSBA was current and accurate.
6
5. That MIG training enhances positive working relationships between board
members and superintendents. The clarity of roles and responsibility is essential
to the governance of the school board (CSBA, 2018c).
6. That MIG training has a direct impact on school district operations through board
members. The skills acquired in the training define proper operational procedures.
7. That participants could recall lessons learned through MIG training. The board
members participating in the study should be able to take the knowledge they
acquired back to their districts and apply the learning.
8. That participants would be truthful in their responses to survey and interview
questions. Anonymity was ensured, and pseudonyms were used to conduct the
study and protect identities. This procedure enhanced participant honesty.
9. That MIG training improves school board–superintendent relationships.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
• California School Board Association (CSBA): An organization entrusted with the
responsibility to provide guidance, resources, and training for school board members
throughout California (CSBA, 2007).
• Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through the
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA,
2007; Gemberling et al., 2000).
• Growth: Showing percent gains in assessments and/or other California Dashboard
indicators (California Department of Education [CDE], 2020a).
7
• Institutional Review Board (IRB): An administrative body established to protect the
rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in research
activities conducted under the auspices of the institution with which it is affiliated.
• Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP):
A 3-year plan that describes the goals, actions, services, and expenditures to
support positive student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The
LCAP provides an opportunity for LEAs [local education agencies] to share their
stories of how, what, and why programs and services are selected to meet their
local needs. (CDE, 2020b, LCAP Overview section, para. 1)
• Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): The law enacted in 2013–2014 to simplify
how funding is provided to LEAs. Previously, funding included over 50 categorical
funding lines designed to give targeted services based on student demographics
(CDE, 2020c).
• Local education agency (LEA):
A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a
state for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service
function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county,
township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or for a
combination of school districts or counties as are recognized in a State as an
administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.
(Justia, 2020, para. 1)
• Mandate: An official order or commission to do something.
8
• Masters in Governance (MIG): A training program offered by the CSBA that consists
of five modules designed to define roles and responsibilities and to improve
governance and leadership through increased knowledge and skills to support an
effective governance structure and focus on student learning (CSBA, 2018c),
• MIG training module: A unit of study pertaining to a sector of governance. There are
currently five modules in the CSBA MIG training program (CSBA, 2018c).
• NSBA: “A federation of 49 state associations and the U.S. territory of the Virgin
Islands, representing their more than 90,000 school board officials” (NSBA, 2019,
para. 1).
• Public school: A free tax supported school controlled by a local governmental
authority.
• School board members or trustees: “Locally elected public officials entrusted with
governing a community’s public schools” (CSBA, 2007, p. 3).
• School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding over the
public meetings of school boards.
• School district: Synonym for LEA; a public organization tasked with operating public
schools and serving students within a designated geographic area.
• School governance: The dynamic collaboration between school leaders and school
boards to establish and engage in processes and practices to operate schools.
• Student achievement: The performance by students on the annual summative
assessment given by the state of California.
• Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district with
oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
9
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter One covered the purpose,
statement of the problem, and significance of the study, as well as the limitations, delimitations,
assumptions, and definition of terms. Chapter Two is a review of pertinent literature related to
the problem statement and purpose of the study. Chapter Three presents the structure and
methodology for the study: research design, sampling, instrumentation development and design,
data collection, data analysis, and ethical considerations. Chapter Four presents the analysis of
the data collected for the study. Chapter Five presents a summary of the study, implications,
recommendations for practice, and considerations for further research.
10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The educational system in the United States has been through a metamorphosis as the
years have progressed and the demands of society as a whole and communities have changed
(Callahan, 1966). School boards and superintendents working together to govern the educational
system have remained a constant presence. The relationship between the superintendent and
school boards has also shifted through the years (Björk et al., 2014). School boards are expected
to serve in multifaceted school systems and to govern effectively as they make decisions
regarding policy, personnel, student achievement, and expenditures (Callahan, 1966; Campbell
& Greene, 1994; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
In recent years the job and responsibilities of the school board have been heightened by
increased accountability and community expectations. State and federal mandates regarding
accountability have grown in number and school board members are expected to adhere to these
demands while they continue to lead in this environment. School board members are elected by
their constituents to represent the needs of their community but often have little to no training on
how to govern such an entity (CSBA, 2007). The demands placed upon school boards are
challenging and pose a potential obstacle to the success of a district when the members elected to
govern have no training or experience to serve in this capacity.
This chapter is a review of the literature related to the history of school boards and the
role of the Superintendent. It provides information regarding the roles and responsibilities of
school board members including the essential functions of school boards, effective school board
governance, leadership, and accountability. An overview of professional governance and the
MIG modules from the CSBA will be explored as they relate to school board training
opportunities. The chapter also includes an overview of the conceptual frames of Bolman and
11
Deal (2017), the Iowa Association of School Boards’ (IASB) Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle,
2008; Rice et al., 2000), Maricle’s (2014) Governing to Achieve, and the CSBA’s (n.d.)
standards for governance.
History of School Boards
Historical Context
The beginnings of a school board structure and governance originated in the British
colony of Massachusetts when the Massachusetts school law of 1647 was established. This event
required the towns to establish systems for schooling the local children (Land, 2002). This law
gave selectmen the responsibility of providing for the education of local children. The selectmen
chose teachers and made decisions based on meetings that were held at the town hall (Campbell
& Green, 1994, Goldhammer, 1964). As elected officials, this was the beginning of local
governing bodies making decisions with respect to education in the region. In the year 1727,
Massachusetts further mandated that each local town create an organization to govern over
public education (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). In the year 1791, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution granted the states authority over their school systems. Towns sought to keep
governance of local school systems within their town limits, and school boards became more
prevalent (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). Horace Mann declared that all schools should be
supported by local revenue and should be free to children. School systems were to be governed
by boards of education that were nonpartisan in 1827 (Kirst, 2008). The first state board of
education was formed in the year 1837 and gave the states a more significant role in the
education of its students. Districts began to form based on region, and schools were funded by
local taxes. As populations grew and the number of students increased, schools grew in size
(Danzberger, 1992).
12
In the mid-1800s, smaller districts serving the communities were common. Members of
the community with no formal training or experience in politics were often elected to run the
school systems. With this development came a reliance on a trained and well-prepared
superintendent who would be more involved in the operations of the district (Danzberger, 1994;
Land, 2002). The Massachusetts model for school government described above spread
throughout the colonies and continues to be the basic structure of governance for school systems
across the United States (Land, 2002).
The last major reform for the school board structure came in the early 1900s, when
educational control was centralized to the local community in a more defined structure of elected
local officials. School board members were called upon to make decisions that directly impacted
their local school systems. A reliance upon a professional, knowledgeable superintendent as
chief educational officer became necessary (Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002). Contemporary school
boards have continued to operate with this structure. Although states remain in control of the
education of its young people, the federal government has made a shift and added increasing
accountability for school systems (Land, 2002).
The purpose of school boards has remained consistent over the years. Reforms in
structure have taken place as the needs of society have shifted. Even though structural shifts have
occurred, school boards have continued to operate in the interest of their communities. Their
responsibilities have grown from hiring teachers to complete oversight of budgets, policy,
achievement, and accountability (Kirst, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). These responsibilities are
challenging, but their purpose remains to serve their community. As reported in the Lighthouse
Inquiry study, school board members are the voice of their community. These individuals are
13
responsible for working as a team to set the vision and mission for the district (Delagardelle,
2008).
Modern School Boards
Today’s school boards are typically comprised of five or seven members. Boards can be
as large as 13 or as small as three. The individuals are either elected or appointed. Members must
be registered voters in their region of election, must be 18 years of age, and must be eligible to
hold office (CSBA, 2018d). These local political systems are involved in the democratic process
in which the pressures of community values, student achievement, and efficiency are of
importance (Kirst & Wirt, 2009). Board members can be elected as trustees at large, meaning
that they live somewhere in the voting region and all voters may vote for them. They can be
elected by trustee region, meaning that only the residents in their particular trustee region can
vote for them (CSBA, 2007).
History of the Superintendency
The superintendent is the individual who oversees and direct the educational organization
of a school district and is considered the most crucial member in a school system (Callahan,
1966). Over decades of time stretching back to the 1800s, the expectations of and demands on
the superintendent’s position have grown and evolved into what is currently expected. Each era
has brought additional roles and expectations.
Evolution of the Superintendent Role
Superintendent as Teacher Scholar
In the late 1890s, the need for a superintendent emerged. According to Callahan (1966),
the decade between 1890 and 1900 was critical for the development of school systems and their
leadership. At this time, the populations were booming and there was no infrastructure to handle
14
the needs of educating students. Classes were overfilled with students, and students were being
physically abused in schools. School boards were operating but did not have control over what
was happening in the classrooms (Callahan, 1966). Glass et al. (2000) explained that during this
period of time, the superintendent’s role had evolved to that of a school master, head teacher, and
clerk for the school systems. Kowalski (2005) noted that the superintendent was responsible for
implementing curriculum and supervising teachers. In these early years of the position,
superintendents were expected to be teacher-scholars (Callahan, 1966; Cuban, 1976; Glass et al.,
2000; Kowalski, 2005).
Superintendent as Manager
As society changed and evolved, the expectations of the superintendent grew to include
the responsibility of managing the school system. Between 1900 and 1930, the corporate model
of management and government emerged in society and was quickly passed along to the
superintendent (Glass et al., 2000). According to Björk et al. (2014), school boards shifted to a
focus on policy and the superintendent was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the
school system. Superintendents were now responsible for managing personnel, facilities, and
budget development. The superintendents were now planners and thinkers, designing systems for
the growing urban school systems. They were now expected to evaluate programs and use the
evaluations to guide their decision making (W. Thomas & Moran, 1992).
Superintendent as Democratic Leader
The third prominent era of superintendent evolution happened between 1930 and 1950.
During this time frame, there became a need for superintendents to advocate on behalf of the
school systems. This change pushed them into the realm of lobbyists, political strategists, and
community relation specialists (Björk et al., 2014). It became a necessity for superintendents to
15
engage in political activity to ensure that public schools could compete with other governmental
services to secure state funding for operations (Kowalski, 2005).
Superintendent as Applied Social Scientist
As the economy recovered in the 1950s, spanning to the 1970s, the role of the
superintendent evolved again to include another essential skill. Superintendents were now
expected to operate as applied social scientists (Björk et al., 2014; Glass et al., 2000; Kowalski,
2005). Superintendents were expected to be experts in research and theoretical models in order to
solve the problems that existed in their schools, including poverty, racism, violence, as well as
academic achievement (Glass et al., 2000; Kowalski, 2005).
Superintendent as Effective Communicator
From 1970 to modern times, the expectation that superintendents operate as effective
communicators has been critical. Superintendents are asked to build culture, solve problems, and
access information. These responsibilities are followed by the need to engage stakeholders in
vision and mission setting, marketing their programs, and informing the public about the
educational goals and accomplishments of their districts (Björk et al., 2014; Kowalski, 2004).
As the expectations and obligations have increase for the superintendent from the 1800s
to present day, all of the layered roles have increased the responsibilities. Superintendents are
expected to embody each of the essential skills outlined in order to fill their role as the head of
the organization.
Modern Role
Superintendents now carry the responsibilities and expectations of over 200 years of
evolution. The role of the superintendent has clearly expanded to encompass many facets of
educational leadership. Waters and Marzano (2006) have delineated the expectations of the
16
superintendent of the modern era, outlining five major areas for superintendent leadership. The
first is collaborative goals setting. The authors have emphasized that effective superintendents
must be able to communicate with and to create a vision for all stakeholders with respect to what
has to be accomplished. The outcome is goals that have buy in at various levels, depending on
the level of involvement in the collaborative process. The second area is nonnegotiable goals for
student achievement; student achievement and instruction come to the forefront. The third area is
board alignment with district goals. Waters and Marzano noted that the board must align with
and support the district’s goals in order for the goals to be accomplished. The fourth area of
leadership is monitoring achievement and student goals. To solidify the importance of
achievement goals, Waters and Marzano stated that these must be measured and monitored; if
not, the goals become meaningless. Superintendents must work with the board and stakeholders
to monitor goals. The fifth and final area for superintendent leadership is using resources to
support goals. An effective superintendent will align the resources allocated to the district with
the main stakeholder goals. Superintendents must provide the resources needed for programs that
support district goals and cut initiatives that do not support these goals.
Roles and Responsibilities of School Boards
School board members are elected officials who serve at the will of their constituents. As
representatives of their region, they are expected to engage their community in the educational
process and to share information and understandings (Land, 2002). Their responsibility is to
provide oversight of and accountability for the educational systems and to communicate with
their constituents (Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002). School board members have roles and
responsibilities that are clearly defined by the CSBA (2018d). These roles and responsibilities
cover five main areas: (a) “setting the direction for public schools in the community,” (b)
17
“establishing an effective and efficient structure,” (c) providing a supportive environment, (d)
“ensuring accountability to the public,” and “demonstrating community leadership” (p. 2).
Setting the Direction
Central to the responsibility of governing on behalf of your local community is setting a
vision and direction for the educational system (CSBA, 2018d). School board members engage
in conversation with the community about the direction of the local schools and their students’
needs. A vision helps to establish the consensus of the community, school sites, and district
leadership (Land, 2002). In their study of school districts, Korelich and Maxwell (2015) reported
that effective school districts have governance teams that are focused on students first when
setting collective goals and that all parties must support those collective goals. The vision and
mission of the school district should reflect the community values and student needs (Land,
2002; Weiss et al., 2014).
Establishing an Effective and Efficient Structure
According to CSBA (2018d), school boards are responsible for hiring the superintendent
as well as ensuring that the organizational structure of the district is supportive of the overall
vision and mission. The board creates the policy that is enacted, including the personnel structure
and programs. These structural pieces include policy for hiring all personnel, board rules and
regulations, curriculum adoption, budgeting, facility use, and acceptance of collective bargaining
agreements.
Policymaking is an important form of organizational structural support for a school
district in achieving desired outcomes and goals (CSBA, 2018d; Campbell & Greene, 1994;
Danzberger et al.,1987; Ehrensal & First, 2008; Grissom, 2009; Hill et al., 2002; Hopkins et al.,
2007; Johnson, 2011; Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999). Policy guides the implementation of
18
programs, curriculum, personnel hiring, and adherence to educational code. Ehrensal and First
(2008) stressed the importance of state educational codes being followed at the local governing
level. Within the organizational structure, school boards are expected to operate as a unit and not
as individuals (Carol et al., 1986). Within their roles and responsibilities, board members must
learn to come to consensus in order to operate effectively (Land, 2002).
Creating Supportive Environments
Board member are responsible for creating a supportive environment for the district. The
CSBA (2018d) outlined the types of behaviors and actions that are supportive in nature,
explaining that board members should be professional in their demeanor, uphold policies that are
in place, work to create a positive climate, and have knowledge of the initiatives of the district.
Campbell and Greene (1994) reported that attitude, norms, and common practices set the tone
that can result in patterns of behavior.
Ensuring Accountability to the Public
As board members are elected officials, they inherently have accountability to the public.
Board members are charged with monitoring student progress, evaluating programs, and
reporting to their constituents. School boards fulfill these responsibilities by evaluating the
superintendent and setting policy, tracking student achievement and program effectiveness, and
monitoring district finances and bargaining agreements (CSBA, 2018d). Goldhammer (1964)
emphasized the need for board members to uphold the values of their community; he noted that
they are accountable for promoting the public interest in education.
Demonstrating Community Leadership
Board members are expected to show leadership in their community. The CSBA (2018d)
has reported that showing leadership can be accomplished by soliciting input from constituents
19
and advocating for children within the district. Board members are expected to be involved in
community activities to help to build connections between the larger population and the school
district (Resnick, 1999).
Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities
J. Y. Thomas (2001) presented an overview of research to define an effective
superintendency. J. Y. Thomas explained that a lack of clarity in roles and expectations,
combined with differing opinions between school board members and superintendents,
contributes to a poor relationship. Clarity of roles and expectations between entities can
significantly increase working relationships. Superintendents acting as chief executive officers
and educational leaders can operate at the direction of the school board, whose primary role is to
establish policy. Another issue creating a strain on superintendent–school board relationships is
the imbalance of training between the superintendent, who is highly educated and versed in
running a school system as opposed to school board members, who frequently have not taken
part in any professional training for diplomacy. School board members would find it difficult to
govern a school system that they do not readily understand (J. Y. Thomas, 2001). These factors
contribute to the lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities. Danzberger (1994) stated
that governing boards appear to be ineffectual due to an absence of clear roles, which results in a
lack of clear vision and direction for the district.
School Board–Superintendent Relationships
School boards have only one employee, the superintendent. The traditional governance
structure can create role confusion for boards and superintendents. Dawson and Quinn (2000)
reported that board members should set policy-level concerns and leave the administrative details
to the superintendent. The authors contended that there are four major policies about which the
20
board should be particularly concerned: governance processes, board–staff relations policies,
ends policies, and executive limitations policies. These policies are primarily concerned with
how board processes and business are carried out, how board members interact with one another,
benefits that the district will provide for its students, and the limitations placed upon the
superintendent in working to achieve district goals.
The superintendent and the school board must work collaboratively to orchestrate the
running of the school district. This relationship is essential to the mission, vision, programs, and
outcomes of a school district. A study conducted by Glass (2003) revealed that superintendents
felt that their role was in a state of peril. Of the superintendents surveyed, 71% indicated that
their position was in a state of crisis; only 29% felt that they were hired because of their ability to
be an instructional leader. This finding is concerning due to the fact that the superintendent has
the ability to be the lead reformer. Superintendents serve at the will of the board, and 37% of
those surveyed in the study reported that they spent a significant amount of time responding to
insignificant demands, thereby impacting their effectiveness. However, 93% of the surveyed
superintendents reported that they had a collaborative relationship with their board, and 88% felt
that their board was effective.
Glass’s (2003) study also surveyed the views of school board members. Glass reported
that 75% of school boards felt that their governing model worked and there was no need to
change the model. The turnover rate for superintendents is high. Three or more superintendents
had served in 64.2% of the districts in the previous 10 years. Board members surveyed were
dissatisfied by the former superintendent at the rate of 42.7%. The Hanover Foundation (2014)
noted that there are five principles that are considered best practices for building strong school
board– superintendent relations. The first is clarifying roles and expectations for the board
21
members and the superintendent. The second is establishing and implementing a clear process
for communication between board members and the administration. The third is actively working
to build trust and mutual respect between the board and the administrative team. The fourth best
practice is to evaluate all members of the team. The fifth best practice is actively working on
improved decision making. Strategies associated with best practices for superintendent and board
member communications enhance relationship building.
The Hanover Foundation (2014) described the necessary practices to increase positive
communications: (a) establishing a system of clearly defined events and procedures that take
place during board meetings, (b) conducting a series of workshops to bring board members up to
speed on district issues and their role in decision making, (c) establishing long-term goals by
using strategic planning, (d) establishing a communication protocol when special circumstances
arise (e.g., school closure), and (e) creating a crisis communication system.
School Board Training
Purpose of Training
Expectations for school boards have grown through the years to the point that school
board members may be overwhelmed with the responsibilities of governing a district (Bianchi,
2003). The roles and responsibilities of school boards are demanding, and it is imperative that
members of this elected team are equipped with the proper tools and knowledge to carry out their
job responsibilities. Dillon (2010) reported that districts have an obligation to provide
professional development to board members in order for them to understand their role in
governing the district. Dillon further stated that board members are leaders expected to bring
about change. To be successful with change processes, board members must understand
educational initiatives and reform practices. Morehouse (2011) explained that professional
22
learning for board members is focused on the skills required to govern effectively and does not
depend upon the amount of preservice education that a member may have received. This
professional learning is predicated on the roles and responsibilities of governing. Roberts and
Sampson (2011) noted that training must focus on skills, behavior, and information that support
running a school district. The heightened awareness of roles, responsibilities, and information
pertaining to school governance has positive effects. Maricle (2014) explained that school
districts with high achievement have board members who support professional development and
have a willingness to learn. Canal (2013) noted that school boards that have undergone
professional learning demonstrate an increased focus on student achievement. Training in
governance also has a positive effect on role clarity. Bianchi (2003) contended that there can be
role confusion between board members and the superintendent that could create a situation
where the board is taking on the responsibilities that are actually those of the superintendent.
This situation can create a power struggle between the parties as well as a strain on a positive
working relationship.
According to Alsbury (2008b), only 24 states have mandatory training programs for
school board members. Of these 24 states, there is a wide range of structures and complexity for
these training modules. Some states require that all members be trained, while others require that
only new members undergo training. Although the regulations may be in place for states, some
states do not enforce the training and therefore it does not take place (NSBA, 2019). The state of
California does not mandate any formal training and requires only a minimum level of education.
This situation can create complications when board members take their elected seats for the first
time and are immediately required to make decisions for the district concerning vision, finances,
policy, and personnel (CBSA, 2018d). Roberts and Sampson (2011) reported that because of the
23
low threshold for qualifying and being elected to a school board, board members must be trained
in order to effectively understand the operation of the school system.
Texas School Board Training
The state of Texas requires that board members receive training. Roberts and Sampson
(2011) reported that the School Board Association of Texas realized the need to be trained
because the staff members with whom they were working were highly trained. Their systems of
training include 18 hours of professional development in year 1 and 8 hours of follow up in the
following years. The training topics include local district orientation; the Public Information Act,
which gives citizens the right to access public information; and Texas education codes.
The Texas Educational Agency (TEA; 2019) provides a framework for school board
development. The framework was enacted in 1996 and updated in 2012. The purpose of the
framework is to provide the vision, structure, advocacy, accountability, and cohesiveness needed
to run a school district effectively. The framework guides the training and expectation of board
members in the state and includes vision setting to promote achievement. Vision setting deals
with current needs and the projected future needs of students. It includes the importance of a
shared vision by all board members rather than independent goals and agendas.
The second portion of the framework focuses on the structure necessary to accomplish
the vision of the board. The structural framework recognizes the roles and responsibilities of the
members of the organization. The board is focused on policy planning, policy creation, and
policy evaluation in reference to goals set within the vision. The superintendent is hired and
evaluated by the board in this structure. The board evaluates the superintendent’s ability to
manage daily operations and to support the district’s vision. The third portion of the framework
addresses the accountability system used to measure outcomes related to the vision. The board
24
must show that there is progress being made in the area of student achievement. All progress
must be reported to the community. During the accountability cycles, the board must determine
the effectiveness of programs and operations that support shared district goals. The fourth section
of the framework covers advocacy. Board members are partners with the community and, as
such, must create systems for collaboration with the community. The board is expected to
communicate the requirements of the school system to the local legislators to ensure that the
needs of the students are being represented in local government and policy decisions. The final
portion of the Texas framework deals with the importance of unification of the school board. The
school board is expected to work collaboratively with the superintendent to ensure that the
district is moving toward the shared vision. The need to function as a team is described. An
emphasis is put on developing the skills of teamwork, problem solving, and decision making
(TEA, 2019).
Compliance with school board training in the state of Texas is supervised by the
Commissioner of Education. Districts that do not comply with the mandated training will be
ordered to attend a Lone Star Governance training, which is considered an intervention for
educational agencies that have disregarded the expectations of the state. The workshop is 2 days
in length and focuses on the commitment that is needed and expected for board members
concerning improving student outcomes (TEA, 2019).
MIG Training in California
California is the home to the CSBA, an organization comprised of superintendents and
school board members across the state. This organization creates a network for California board
members to communicate, collaborate, and engage in professional learning. Although training
for school board members is not mandatory in the state, CSBA has created a series of
25
professional learning modules called the MIG program for school board members in California.
This program is open to new or veteran board members and may be attended with the
superintendent if desired. Over 2,000 board members and superintendents have taken part in the
MIG program. Approximately 90% of the participants have recommend the program to
colleagues, and over 80% of the participants reported that they gained the essential knowledge to
govern the school district. The program consists of five modules, each of which cover a
professional development topic. These courses consist of 60 hours of targeted instruction and are
offered across the state at various times to facilitate participation. In order to be considered
trained, board members must complete the modules within a 2-year time frame (CSBA, 2018c).
According to the CSBA (2018c), the MIG modules are as follows:
1. Foundations of Effective Governance and Setting Direction. Topics include vision
setting, beliefs, and stakeholder engagement, with a focus on student learning.
2. Policy and Judicial Review and Student Learning and Achievement. In the first
portion of the course, topics include policy development, policy use, and the role
of the board in the judicial process. The second portion of the course includes
topics on meeting achievement demands and alignment of proper policies and
support for student learning.
3. School Finance. This course covers the need to budget for district priorities and
how to adopt, revise, and monitor the established budget.
4. Human Resource and Collective Bargaining. The first portion of this course
covers the framework for hiring and evaluating the superintendent, along with
developing a culture for accountability. The second portion focuses on working
26
with bargaining units to communicate effectively, to work through stressful
situations, and to build a positive culture.
5. Community Relations and Advocacy and Governance Integration. This final
course in community relations develops the ability to be a strong, responsive,
communicative, community leader. The second portion of the course focuses on
governance as a team effort.
The MIG program offered by CSBA has a focus on these key areas for professional
development. The five areas reflect professional standards that are necessary to run a district
effectively. The CSBA (2018c) claims that these modules for professional development must be
grounded in the premise that student learning and achievement are at the center of decision
making.
Accountability
Accountability has established itself in public education. In 1983 the National
Commission on Excellence in Education published a study entitled A Nation at Risk. The study
predicted the downfall of the U.S. position as a leader among nations if the educational system
did not make vast changes. What followed were school reforms with accountability in mind. Due
to the increasing demands for accountability measures, school systems and communities have
shifted their focus to student performance as the bedrock for accountability measures (Timar,
2003).
Federal and State
School boards in the modern world are challenged by the task of accountability for
federal and state measures. Although they have no control over federal and state policy or
mandated compliance measures, they must learn to conduct business according to these
27
mandates. Current state and federal initiatives are based upon school sites working to meet
accountability measures (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004).
School boards face a history of accountability measures that include the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (2002), Annual Yearly Progress, and annual measurable outcomes for
English language learners (CDE, 2020a). More recently, school boards have been responsible for
overseeing the Every Student Succeeding Act (ESSA), the California Dashboard, the LCAP, the
English Language Proficiency Assessment for California, and other grants and services (CDE,
2020a, 2020b). The California Department of Education (2020a) has outlined 10 state priority
areas that are used to measure school districts’ achievement. These 10 areas are captured in the
LEAs’ LCAP plan for achievement, spending, and providing goods and services. The 10 state
priorities are also captured in the California School Dashboard system. Each year the dashboard
is published as a display of a district’s health and overall achievement based on the state
priorities (CDE, 2020a). The Dashboard is a colorful display to assist with the identification of
areas of strength, weakness, and need for immediate improvement.
Each year school boards review their accountability data and have an obligation to
respond to those numbers. Gemberling et al. (2000) reported that evidence exists to display the
significance of school board leadership on student achievement. Gemberling et al. stated that
effective leadership conducted by board members creates a collaborative and shared
accountability system.
School boards are accountable for following regulations and policies created by the state
and federal government. School boards must follow regulations for the educational code, board
policy, contracts with bargaining units, school safety, and more. The changing climates create
more accountability demands on school boards. Ultimately, school boards must be well versed in
28
their role as directors of accountability. Measures and outcomes used to determine achievement
levels, compliance, and ultimately school district success must be thoroughly understood by the
board (NSBA, 2019).
Accountability to the Community
School boards are expected to respond to their community constituents when concerns
arise. Kirst and Wirt (2009) explained that school board members are expected to have total
oversight of the educational systems that serve their community. They are to ensure that all state
and federal mandates are being followed. This task can become extremely complicated
considering that in California, the constituent-to-board member to ratio is 38,000:1 (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2017). School boards are also expected to communicate
information about the local educational policies and practices to the community. Communication
with constituents in the state of California can be difficult due to the diversity of the state.
Grissom (2007) noted that the population of Caucasian school board members in California was
77% while the actual makeup of the state was 61% Caucasian. There are also variations in
educational level. Board members have reported that 100% had received a high school diploma
and 69% had earned a bachelor’s degree versus only 80% of the state’s population over 25
having attained a high school diploma and 29.5% having a bachelor’s degree (Grissom, 2007).
Accountability to Superintendent and Teachers
School board members are accountable to the superintendent and the teaching staff
members. Although the superintendent works for the school board, it is necessary for the board
to allow the superintendent to manage the day-to-day operations of the district and not interfere
with the roles and responsibilities of the superintendent. Farkas et al. (2001) noted that when
29
surveyed, 65% of superintendents believed that board members were seeking a superintendent
who could be easily controlled and micromanaged.
School boards must understand the nature of accountability when considering their role
as leaders within a district. Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) described accountability as a
hierarchical relationship between two parties. The director in this relationship is responsible for
directing the provider to meet the measures of accountability and is in the position to reward,
punish, or replace the provider. School board members are directors with regard to school
programs, finances, and personnel matters. They are in a position of power in that they can
reward, punish, or replace providers as needed. The providers in a school district setting can be a
number of entities, including the superintendent, teaching staff, consultants, programs, and other
goods and services for students. Similarly, school board members as elected officials are also
considered providers, with their voting constituents acting as the directors. If schools are not
meeting accountability measures and board members do not respond as directors, they can be
replaced by the community.
Leadership
Leadership is a concept that has evolved in the school systems over the last 100 years
(Northouse, 2016). Effective leadership within a school system is imperative to the success of the
school district. Ghasemy and Hussin (2016) reported that quality leadership leads to better
schools and better student outcomes. Northouse (2016) outlined the changes in leadership over
the years, dating back to the early 1900s. Leadership expectations and styles have shifted vastly
over the decades and are still evolving today. In the first half of the 19th century, leaders were
expected to control power in a centralized unit. This system gave way to influential leadership
over domination in the 1930s. Leaders shifted again in the 1940s and 1950s by applying a group
30
approach to relationships, with overall effectiveness as a central theme. The 1960s and 1970s
brought leadership styles that promoted harmony, shared goals, and maintained organizational
structures and the goals that went with them. The 1980s brought a focus on transformational
leadership. Transformational leadership was defined by Northouse as the process by which
leaders can engage and create connections with people who, in turn, motivate others to raise the
level or morality.
Northouse (2016) has further reported that in modern times, leadership falls into four
categories with which leaders will identify: authentic leadership, spiritual leadership, servant
leadership, and adaptive leadership. Authentic leadership emphasizes genuine and real
interactions between leaders and followers. Communication is open and honest. Authentic
leaders lead from their own convictions and do not simply copy what others are doing. Spiritual
leadership flows from a place of care, concern, and meaning between leaders and their followers.
This type of leadership embodies feeling and purpose as a way to motivate the whole. Servant
leadership is when the leader takes on the role of the servant and put followers first. This style of
leadership serves as a role of both servant and influencer. Adaptive leadership takes place in
response to stressors. This leadership approach emphasizes the need for leaders to maximize the
work of the team. Leaders encourage their followers to adapt to change by problem solving
together.
Both school board members and superintendents sit in the seat of leadership. These
individuals must be versed in leadership skills in order to effectively govern a school district.
The changing educational landscape requires that the governing team has the ability to lead the
organization through change. Ghassemy and Hussin (2016) reported that effective leadership has
positive outcomes on student achievement. They explained that effective leadership is change
31
oriented. Change-oriented leadership begins by evaluating the trends in education and what is
happening. This step is followed by organizational development thinking, in which group
members collectively determine the desired outcomes. This phase leads to the determination of
values to be acquired by the organization. Once determined, the group must plan the strategies
needed to accomplish the outcomes and allot resources for the change to occur.
Bolman and Deal (2017) explained that leadership and management are different. They
described management as a focus on current systems and following an authoritative manager–
worker mentality. Leadership affects positive change and relies on human qualities such as
collective view, character, and courage. The authors also noted that leadership and position are
not synonymous, meaning that leaders can come from any area or level of the organization.
Leadership is not necessarily confined to authority or position, and obtaining the power to get
things done is very important.
Bolman and Deal (2017) presented the idea that leadership is inevitably political. Rather
than viewing conflict as splintering, political leaders see it as a positive means of moving toward
cohesion and integration. Political leadership seeks to set an agenda and to create supportive
coalitions and alliances that make the desired things happen. Bolman and Deal stated that
leadership can be encouraged; they said that leadership is cultivated through experience.
Learning to lead can come from positive and negative experiences and exposure to difficult
challenges. They also expressed the importance of reflection and dialogue with others. Reflection
can offer new learning opportunities. Identifying exemplary leaders can help to promote
leadership.
Finally, Bolman and Deal (2017) claimed that leadership can be taught but not the way
that it is currently taught. Even after one assumes a leadership position, training must continue.
32
Developing leadership requires a shift in emphasis from issues of control to human and spiritual
dimensions. Programs must emphasize the softer side of management. There also have to be
major revisions in the way in which the content is taught. Bolman and Deal argued that there is
an urgent need to create human organizations that are equal to today’s complex challenges.
Leadership must be redefined in a more human, moral and spiritual terms.
Effective Governance and Student Achievement
School boards are often referred to as high achieving or highly effective if they have
implemented initiatives that have proven to improve student achievement. Delagardelle (2008)
noted that the beliefs, decisions, and actions of the school board impact the decisions within
school systems and therefore have an impact on classroom achievement. There are specific
performance actions that can be enacted for school boards to support improved student
achievement. These actions are in line with the roles and responsibilities of school boards, but
they go further by determining other actions required to support achievement within the
organization.
The first action is vision setting. Supovitz (2006) claimed that the most essential role of
district leadership is to create, communicate, and support a coherent vision for instruction in the
classroom. These clear goals will guide the decisions and efforts of the organization. Senge
(1990) reported that all organizations that share great success also share common goals that
become a part of the organization. This is the critical first step to school boards having an impact
on student achievement.
The second critical action needed from school board members is systems coherence.
School boards must foster coherent district actions that coordinate to support the goal of student
achievement. Rice et al. (2000) reported that high-achieving districts have a districtwide
33
direction balanced with autonomy at the school sites. Data are examined in order to measure the
district–wide and school site-aligned goals.
This examination of goals leads to the third step for board of education actions for
improving student instruction: using data to inform and support improvement. The effective use
of data along with a commitment to constant improvement falls in line with evaluating the
instructional goals set by the district. Data are used to inform improvement plans that will be
carried out by the organization. Waters et al. (2003) noted that there is evidence that using data
to monitor the programs and initiatives will improve student outcomes. They claimed that
monitoring progress toward student achievement goals and aligning resources to those efforts
create positive outcomes.
The fourth step that board members should enact is a culture of support. Board members
must be positive, contributing members to the overall culture of the district. Although no one
person can control culture, board members can model values and expectations through their
professionalism and rapport with teachers. This culture of support fosters effective teaching and
learning. Devarics and O’Brien (2015) reported that effective school boards believe that their
schools and teachers have the ability to teach all students at a high level. Less effective boards do
not share the same belief.
The fifth step that board members can enact in order to support student achievement in a
highly effective district is investing in the human capital and building staff member capacity.
Rice et al. (2000) reported that the school boards provide support to the organization by building
the capacity of the staff members. The school sites are able to provide onsite professional
learning that is aligned with the districtwide goals. This is an essential function to success of
students (Rice et al., 2000).
34
The final step that can be enacted by school boards in order to promote student
achievement is planning for leadership turnover in the midst of improvement efforts. Leadership
turnover is a reality in school systems. These types of changes can challenge the ability to
contribute improvement efforts. Alsbury (2008a) revealed that student achievement had a
significant decline in an era of leadership turnover. Conversely, student achievement was higher
in districts with low school board turnover. These findings support the idea that school board
actions have a direct impact on student achievement.
Maricle (2014) compiled research to support the link between school board governance
and student achievement. In his report, he emphasized the role of the school board in setting
vision for the district and ensuring that the vision is linked to success for all students. Policy and
practice will then be set based on the vision of success for all students. He stated that the board
must rely on the professional opinions of the district leaders who have experience in the field of
education. This process allows board members to make informed decisions in the best interest of
students.
Theoretical Frames
Theoretical frameworks provide a structured framework for recurring concepts and
themes within the research found in the literature review. The need for developed leadership and
superintendent–school board relationships is critical to the success of school districts. The
conceptual frameworks studied within the realm of leadership for the purposes of this research
were Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frame model of effective leadership, the IASB’s Lighthouse
Inquiry study (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000), the professional government standards of
the CSBA (n.d.), and Maricle’s (2014) Governing to Achieve.
35
The Four Frames
In the four-frame leadership model presented by Bolman and Deal (2017), effective
leaders have the flexibility and self-awareness to approach varying situations with appropriate
strategies so as to bolster the desired outcomes. The varying approaches are the structural,
political, human resource, and symbolic frames. Bolman and Deal explained that successful
leaders can work in all four frames. depending upon the situation presented to them.
The structural framework makes an assumption that there is organization and systemizing
in place and that policies and rules are present (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The structural framework
defines the rules and responsibilities of members. This organizational structure takes into
account the organization’s culture, purpose, and goals. A district school board is an example of
an organizational structure in place that is used to support decision making and accountability.
Based on the review of the literature, school boards must understand their role within the
organizational structure.
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) human resource frame explores how organizations place
individuals within the system to support common goals. Human capital in the organization is a
critical piece of the functioning of the organization. Within this framework, leaders promote
positive relationships and can work toward motivating employees by creating meaning within
their work. The human resource framework supports the culture of the organization. Concerning
school board members, individuals are elected rather than hired. Their obligation is to the
community members for which they serve. They are also responsible for hiring the
superintendent and allowing that individual to direct human resource decisions for district staff.
36
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) political frame focuses on the power struggle that occurs
within organizations. The political frame holds the power to influence decisions. It is necessary
to leverage politics in order to support the collective goals of the organization.
The fourth frame described by Bolman and Deal (2017) is the symbolic frame, which
captures emotional connections and meaning within an organization. The symbolic frame can be
depicted in spiritual beliefs, tradition, and standard practices that take place in an organization.
School board members and superintendents must be supremely conscious of symbolic meaning
within the organizations they serve in order to continue to harbor positive and collaborative
relationships with one another as well as the community that they serve. School board members
and superintendents must work within all four frames in order to strategize the best way to reach
their collective goals.
The Lighthouse Inquiry
The IASB’s Lighthouse study (Rice et al., 2000; also see Delagardelle [2008]) compared
school boards and superintendents in high- and low-performing districts. The Council for School
Performance created a database to help identify these districts. For the purpose of the Lighthouse
study, three high-achieving and three low-achieving districts were chosen. All six districts
showed achievement at a particular level that had been stable over the period of 3 years.
Researchers went into these schools to conduct their research without knowing if they were at a
high-achieving or low-achieving school. A survey was given to over 156 individuals, including
board members and superintendents, who were asked to rate their district in various areas as
either moving or stuck. The research showed that the higher achieving districts rated themselves
as moving and had similar characteristics. The research team of five then analyzed their findings
37
for patterns and trends. What they concluded was that there are seven key areas for school board
performance that fell into five overarching concepts, as follows:
• The concept of clear expectations corresponds to the actions of creating and
sustaining initiatives.
• The concept of accountability corresponds to the actions of supporting sites
through data sharing and information.
• The concept of structure corresponds to the actions or creating human
organizational systems and providing staff development.
• The concept of concept of shared commitment corresponds to the actions of
creating a supportive workplace for staff.
• The concept of teamwork corresponds to the actions of fostering community
involvement and integrated leadership.
In high-achieving districts board members were well versed in their role and felt
responsible for student learning, along with their superintendent. The researchers also noted that
board members in successful districts were more well versed in reform policy and their role in
supporting such policy. Board members’ beliefs and knowledge of such policy translated into
initiatives that affected the classroom level. The ability of the superintendent to be the chief
executive officer was present at schools in the high-achieving districts. Low-achieving districts
were described as having poor communication between the superintendent and school board,
coupled with a lack of clarity over roles and responsibilities. These districts desired to
micromanage the superintendent (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000).
38
CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards
The CSBA supports school board members across the state of California. This
organization emphasizes the importance of board members and administrators working together
to bolster student achievement (CSBA, 2018b). The CSBA (2018b) promotes effective school
governance with a focus on educational policy, advocacy, and board member training. The
framework for effective governance is comprised of the following: (a) “setting the direction for
public schools in the community,” (b) “establishing an effective and efficient structure,” (c)
providing a supportive environment, (d) “ensuring accountability to the public,” and (e)
“demonstrating community leadership” (p. 2). These foundational principles for effective
governance are the basis from which the MIG training modules were created.
The CSBA (2007) has outlined professional governance standards for school board
members. These standards were developed in partnership with board members and
superintendents across the state of California:
• keeps learning and achievement for all students as the primary focus;
• values, supports and advocates for public education;
• recognizes and respects differences of perspective and style on the board and
among staff, students, parents and the community;
• acts with dignity, and understands the implications of demeanor and behavior;
• keeps confidential matters confidential;
• participates in professional development and commits the time and energy
necessary to be an informed and effective leader;
39
• understands the distinctions between board and staff roles, and refrains from
performing management functions that are the responsibility of the superintendent
and staff; and
• understands that authority rests with the board as a whole and not with
individuals. (p. 8)
Board members are also expected to communicate the district vision, to operate in the open with
trust, to display professionalism, to evaluate the board’s effectiveness, and to follow district
policies (CSBA, 2007). These foundational principles contribute to the underlying framework for
the study.
Maricle’s Governing to Achieve
Maricle (2014) outlined a framework with four main points regarding school board
governance, the first being governance defined. Governance defined refers to the roles and
responsibilities of school board members. Maricle emphasized the importance of clarity of roles.
The second is governance commitments to partnerships and working relationships. There is a
clear need to foster positive working relationships from the top of the organization to the bottom,
including community partnerships. The third is governance practices, which encompass
evaluating their own board performance and distributing leadership among the administrative
team to accomplish goals. The fourth area outlined by Maricle is governance actions, which
include vision mission setting, making students a priority, and setting expectations for the
district.
Chapter Summary
School systems in modern times are in an age of accountability. School board members
have an immense responsibility to meet the increasing demands of educating the nation’s young
40
people. It is imperative that board members be equipped with the necessary knowledge and tools
to work collaboratively with the superintendent to ensure the success and prosperity of the
students and community served. The changing landscape of education, including state and
federal policy, educational programs, and accountability, creates a challenge to governing board
members. Research has demonstrated that school board members and superintendents should
have clearly defined roles and responsibilities (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Danzberger, 1994;
Land, 2002). Clarity of roles and responsibilities can come from various sources, such as school
board training programs. It is unclear whether school board training programs have a correlation
with student achievement. There is a need to evaluate the impact of and necessity for school
board training programs and the effect they have on student achievement.
41
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Team
The research team consisted of 20 doctoral candidates under the advisement of Dr.
Michael Escalante, dissertation chair, at the University of Southern California (USC). The team
met bimonthly to collaborate around the literature review and to determine the research design.
The cohort researched the topic and developed the purpose, research questions, research tools,
and the methodology for the study using a collaborative structure. For this reason, the
dissertations of the cohort members and some of the basic proponents are similar.
The three research questions developed by the team to address the purpose of the study
were as follows:
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?
42
Chapter Three provides an overview of the main components of the study: (a) the
research design, (b) sampling, (c) instrumentation development and design, (d) data collection,
(e) data analysis, and (f) ethical considerations. The study was framed in the work of Bolman and
Deal’s (2017) four leadership frames, the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice
et al., 2000), CSBA’s (n.d.) standards for governance, and Maricle’s (2014) governing for
achievement. These four frameworks provided a foundation on which to focus the research.
Figure 1 illustrates how the frameworks were aligned to show themes that occurred across the
literature.
Research Design
A qualitative research design was employed by the research team to collect the data
needed to address the research questions. An inductive approach was used to understand the
implications of school board training. The rationale of the study was to examine the results of
school board member training on superintendent–school board relationships and the impact that
training had on student achievement, if any. Participants held specific positions within their K 12
district to address the research questions. The collection of data took place through the following
research instruments: (a) school board and superintendent surveys and (b) school board and
superintendent interview protocols. Data collected from the research tools were coded and
reviewed for patterns and themes related to the research questions.
The tools were created in collaboration with the cohort for the purpose of collecting in-
depth, specific information, aligned with the research questions. The research tools were
designed to capture data that would effectively address the research questions (Patton, 2002).
The surveys and interview questions were framed in the work of Bolman and Deal (2017), the
IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000), and CSBA’s (n.d.)
43
professional governance standards for school board members. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
presented types of interview questions that are best suited for qualitative interviews. For the
purpose of this study, interview questions were semi structured and thus had a less structured
flow than standardized interview questions. The interview questions were also less informal and
open ended than an unstructured format. The cohort agreed that a semi structured approach
would allow for elaboration, probing questions, and follow-up questions that would add to the
collection of rich data. Online copies of the surveys were available to enhance the participation
of MIG-trained board members.
Superintendents were asked to promote participation in study by their school board
members who met the criteria for this study. Virtual (Zoom) interviews were conducted with
both superintendents and board members who had participated in MIG training.
Sampling
For the purpose of this study, a nonprobability, purposeful sampling method was used.
This format for sampling was appropriate for qualitative research. The goal of this type of
sampling was to garner an in-depth understanding of specific cases (Patton, 2002). The sampling
was purposive. Participants were chosen on the basis of the role they played within their district.
Participants in the study had to meet the following criteria:
1. Must be a school board member or superintendent in a K 12 public school district
in California, and
2. Must serve on a board that had the majority of its members trained in MIG
modules.
Targeted counties had randomly selected public-school districts and school boards
districts to determine if the district met the specific criteria to participate in the study.
44
Figure 1
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks for Study
Four Frames of
Leadership (Bolman &
Deal, 2017)
IASB’s Lighthouse
Inquiry (Rice et al.,
2000)
Masters in Governance
Training (CSBA,
2018c)
Governing to Achieve
(Maricle, 2014)
· Structural frame:
defines rules and
responsibilities
· Clear expectations;
creating and sustaining
initiatives
· Policy, judicial review,
and school finance
· Governance defined as
the roles and
responsibilities of
board members
· Human resource frame:
promotes the
supportive culture of
an organization
· Human organizational
structures and
providing staff
development
· Human resources and
collective bargaining
related to the staff
· Governance
commitments to
partnerships and
working relationships
· Political frame: how to
leverage politics to
influence decisions
· Fostering community
involvement and
integrated leadership
· Community relations
and advocacy as a
priority
· Governance practices
evaluating board
performance and
distributive leadership
· Symbolic frame:
emphasizes
connections, beliefs,
and traditions
· Shared commitment
and supportive work
environment
· Foundations of effec-
tive governance found
in goals and vision
setting
· Governance actions
making student
learning a priority,
prioritizing goals and
setting expectations
Note. CSBA = California School Boards Association; IASB = Iowa Association of School
Boards. Based on Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (6th ed.), by L.
Bolman and T. Deal, 2017, Jossey-Bass; The Lighthouse Inquiry: School Board/Superintendent
Team Behaviors in School Districts With Extreme Differences in Student Achievement
(ED453172), by D. Rice, M. Delagardelle, M. Buckton, NC. Jons, W. Lueders, M. J. Vens, J.
Bruce, J. Wolf, and J. Weathersby, 2000, ERIC, https://files .eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453172 .pdf;
What It Takes to Lead: The Role and Function of California’s School Boards, by CSBA, 2018d,
https://www.csba.org/-/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/
EffectiveGovernance/20180613_WhatItTakesToLead_Final.ashx?la=en&rev=b99adf0f20bb4e1
45
2ae bf41edb468c 4fb; and Governing to Achieve: A Synthesis of Research on School Governance
to Support Student Achievement, by C. Maricle, 2014,
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicy Resources/~/
media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/GovernanceBriefs/201408GoverningToAchieve.ashx
Recruitment letters were followed by emails to the district superintendent to verify
whether the district met the study’s criteria. Once potential participants districts were identified,
specific calling efforts accompanied the recruitment letter and emails so as to coordinate surveys
and interviews. The superintendent of the district also participated in the surveys and interviews.
The sample population consisted of nine school board members in California and their three
corresponding superintendents.
Instrumentation Development and Design
Qualitative research tools were designed by the research team to address the research
questions and to triangulate the data between the two tools and the literature review. This method
supported the validity of the research study (Patton, 2002). Particular research instruments were
mailed to participating districts within the 12 California counties and included the recruitment
letter (Appendix A), and school board member and superintendent surveys (Appendices B and C,
respectively. Besides the surveys, the following instruments were developed: a school board
member interview guide (Appendix D) and a superintendent interview guide (Appendix E).
While the recruitment letters outlined the invitation to voluntarily participate in the interview,
they were followed by a formal consent document (Appendix F), which explained the purpose of
the research study and provided an explanation of the research questions.
46
The instrumentation was designed with consideration for the theoretical frameworks of
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames of effective leadership, the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry
(Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000) and the CSBA’s (n.d.) Professional Governance
Standards. The interview questions were flexibly worded and were a combination of structured
and unstructured questions. Miriam and Tisdell (2016) outlined types of questions such as
knowledge, devil’s advocate, and ideal position. These forms of questioning were included in the
study. The superintendent survey and the board member survey were comprised of 20 questions
that asked participants to include open-ended and scaled responses (Strongly Agree to Strongly
Disagree). The superintendent and school board interview protocols consisted of 14 open-ended
questions that aligned with the research questions and provided insight into the impact of MIG
training on effective governance and student results. The interview questions and surveys were
designed to be symmetrical in nature to create continuity to the data collection from the
superintendent and school board members. All instruments were aligned with the research
questions, as shown in the Question Alignment Matrix (Appendix G).
Data Collection
Data collection began in the spring of 2020. A recruitment letter was sent via U.S. mail to
potential participant districts to determine whether they (a) met the specific criteria for the study
and (b) were willing to give consent to participate. Once this information was established, the
superintendent was asked to help promote participation by the school board members who had
participated in MIG training. The surveys were administered and interviews conducted in an
effort to gain specific insight into the effects that MIG training had on a school district and its
effectiveness. The following documents were used to collect data: recruitment letter, school
board member survey, superintendent survey, school board member interview guide, and a
47
super-intendent interview guide. The survey was distributed with the assistance of the cohort
members and was based on the research questions
Online surveys were deployed to gather information. Due to the outbreak of the COVID-
19 pandemic, online interviews were conducted via Zoom.
Ô
An interview protocol was used by
the research team to control for bias, to explain the purpose of the study, and to gain consent
from the participants. The interview protocol established rapport with the participants. The
information from interviews was collected through notetaking, recording, and coding. The
qualitative approach to data collection supported inquiry and the collection of specific
information (Patton, 2002).
Data Analysis
Analysis began once the first results of the survey were received. The interview questions
were aligned to the research questions displayed in the Question Alignment Matrix (Appendix
G). The questions on both the surveys and the interviews were organized in a way to collect data
that would align to a priori codes. The method for data coding followed the structure outlined in
Miriam and Tisdell’s (2016) process for data coding. A list of a priori codes was created using
the conceptual frameworks from the literature review.
Survey question responses were gathered and categorized to determine emergent themes
and recognize a priori codes. Responses were charted to easily determine themes and patterns.
Interviews were audio recorded, and notes were taken during interviews. Interviews were
transcribed and reviewed to determine both a priori and emergent codes. Interview transcriptions
were reviewed both by reading and by listening to determine codes. Memos and notes were taken
at each stage of the data review process. Primary and secondary coding were used modeling
Miriam and Tisdell’s (2016) structure. Questions were categorized in an effort to pre-code the
48
potential responses. Analysis tools such as Google Highlight
Ô
were employed to organize the
results. A list of a priori codes was established by the cohort prior to the data collection phase.
Once the data were coded, a code book was established for reference while determining findings.
Ethical Considerations
In order to prepare for the ethical considerations of the study, the cohort applied to the
USC IRB. All members of the research team completed the IRB training modules and submitted
a certificate of completion from the Collaborative IRB Training Initiative. Upon completion of
the IRB process, the study was approved as an exempt study.
Further considerations for ethics included the recruitment letter and the consent form,
both of which had verbiage relating to voluntary participation. According to Rubin and Rubin
(2012), individuals are more likely to participate and to answer honestly if their information is
kept confidential and pseudonyms are used to protect their identity. Bogdan and Biklen (2007)
further urged researchers to ensure participants that the study pertained to the topic and research
questions in general and was not a study on their particular situation. The participants were not
the focus of the study; rather, the research questions were. For the purpose of this study, the
research team agreed that all identities would be kept confidential; that data would be collected
by a team no larger than two; and that the purpose, rationale, and guarantee of anonymity would
be presented to all participants prior to their voluntary consent. This process ensured that all
participants were aware of the ethical considerations taken by the team to protect their identity.
Chapter Summary
This chapter outlined the research methodology for the study, including the research
design and a matrix for theoretical and conceptual frameworks. It dealt with the sampling
49
procedures, participant criteria, and the instrumentation development and design. Data collection
and analysis processes were explained, along with ethical considerations.
50
Chapter Four: Results
School board members have an incredible responsibility of providing leadership and
direction to the education of their students (CSBA, 2018a). Board members make critical
decisions that directly impact and direct services and outcomes of the students in their district.
The role of the school board member is complex, and accountability has increased. School board
members are responsible for vision and mission setting, policymaking, financial solvency,
student success, and more (CSBA, 2018b).
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
This chapter presents a thorough analysis of the qualitative research results. Data were
collected individually and collectively by the 20-member research team. The team conducted
discussions regarding the findings of the study. The research cohort examined literature
regarding effective governance, leadership, and school board member training. Interview
questions for both superintendents and school board members along with surveys for each group
were examined. This chapter contains an analysis of the data collected in relation to the study’s
research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG
training program?
51
2. How does the MIG the program encourage and equip school board members to exhibit
the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
The MIG modules were the basis of learning for the board member participants. The
modules cover the following topics: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction,
Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement, School Finance, Human
Resource/Collective Bargaining Community Relations, and Advocacy and Governance
Integration.
The theoretical frameworks provided the structure for recurring concepts and themes
within the research and were discussed in the literature review. The conceptual frameworks
studied within the realm of leadership for the purposes of this research were Bolman and Deal’s
(2017) four frame model of effective leadership, the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry study
(Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000), the professional government standards of the CSBA
(n.d.), and Maricle’s (2014) Governing to Achieve.
Participants
Participants in this study met the outlined criteria. Participants were either a school board
member or a superintendent in a K 12 public school district in California. Each member served
on a board that had the majority of its members trained in MIG modules. Each of the 20
members in the cohort recruited participants, with a goal of having nine board members and
three superintendents participate in both the interviews and surveys. The research team sent
recruitment letters to districts in the southern California region. Of these, less than the necessary
number of 60 districts qualified and agreed to participate in both the survey and interview
portion of the research. This factor prompted the research team to expand the recruitment to
52
central and northern California districts. The sample population at the focus of this dissertation
consisted of nine school board members in California and their three corresponding
superintendents. The cohort collected data from 62 superintendents and 186 school board
members. Ultimately, 62 districts were identified for participation across the state of California.
The overall participation numbers can be found in Table 1.
Table 1
Summary of Participation
Participants
n
%
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses
62
100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses
180
97
Interviews
177 95
53
The three participant districts of focus in this study came from the following counties:
Marin (one) and Los Angeles (two). All three districts were relatively small in size and served a
diverse population of students in an urban setting. The findings of this study had a 100%
participation rate for superintendents regarding completion of both the survey and interview.
Board members had a 97% return rate on the survey and 95% completion rate for the interviews.
Pseudonyms were created as follows for each of the districts to protect the anonymity of the
participants:
1. East Bay Unified School District (USD): Superintendent Hauser and board
members Chin, Bellar, and Casas;
2. Garden View Unified: Superintendent Chan and board members Brackins, Miller,
and Alvarez; and
3. Rolling Hills Unified: Superintendent Queen and board members Coach, Shelby,
and Roseanne.
East Bay Unified was a K 8 district in Marin County led by Superintendent Hauser. He was in
his 4th year as a superintendent of East Bay, which was his first superintendency. He had been in
the educational field for 20 years and had previously served as a teacher, principal, and assistant
superintendent. At the time of this study, East Bay was home to 1,546 students in Grades K 8.
East Bay had a five-member board of education. The district had less than 10% of the students
who qualified as low socioeconomic (CDE, 2020a). All three school board participants were
parents in the district.
Garden View USD was an urban school district in Los Angeles County. At the time of
this study, the district served 4,600 students in Grades K 8. Superintendent Chan was serving in
her first superintendency. The district had a five-member board of education. Board Members
54
Miller and Alvarez were parents in the district, and Member Brackins was a former teacher and
community member. The school consisted of 71% low socioeconomic students (CDE, 2020a).
Rolling Hills USD covered nearly 200 square miles of territory and served 15,819
students in Grades K 12 at the time of this study. The district had a five-member trustee board
and a relatively new superintendent; Superintendent Queen was in his 4th year as superintendent.
The district had three traditional schools as well as charter schools and a virtual academy.
Superintendent Queen was a lifelong educator with experience as a teacher, site principal,
assistant superintendent and superintendent. Rolling Hills USD was his first superintendency.
The district had approximately 45% of its students qualifying as low socioeconomic (CDE,
2020a). Board Member Coach was a former teacher and football coach in the district. Member
Shelby was a parent and local educational administrator, and Member Roseanne was a former
parent who had continued to serve after her children graduated.
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 review of literature, surveys, and interviews
showed that school board members are elected to office without any formal training in most
cases. Delagardelle (2008) explained that the Lighthouse Inquiry study board members had not
had experience with the standards of governance prior to being part of a board of education.
Once school board members take office, they are apprised of their duties and responsibilities that
include the oversight of finances, board policy, mission, vision, and student achievement
(Delagardelle, 2008, Rice et. al., 2000). Recruiting for the research in the present study revealed
that many districts did not have a majority of their school board members trained. Finding at
least 60 districts to participate in this study became increasingly difficult for the cohort.
55
Understanding what motivated the board members to participate and evaluating what the barriers
might be generated findings as to why members chose to be trained.
Data analysis from the first research question revealed three emerging themes that
impacted the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG program:
1. Motivation to participate was intrinsic due to the desire to know how to do the job
well,
2. There was a culture of participation, and
3. Participation would increase if there were more accessible opportunities for board
members.
Intrinsic Motivation
Research says that a leadership role such as school board member has a need for
professional development (CSBA, 2018a). Embedded and ongoing professional development
allows individuals to expand their knowledge and to gain insight and the necessary skills
required to carry out the role of a school board member. Professional development improves the
base knowledge that board members are seeking and builds their confidence as members of the
group (CSBA, 2018a). The CSBA offers the training necessary to equip board members for
success in their new-found position. The symbolic frame from Bolman and Deal (2017) reveals
the need for a sense of purpose and performance that inspires people to learn and know the job
that they are now being asked to perform. School board members feel overwhelmed with the
responsibilities of governing a district due to the high expectations (Bianchi, 2003). The roles
and responsibilities of school boards are demanding, and it is imperative that members of this
elected team are equipped with the knowledge to conduct their job responsibilities.
56
Survey results showed that school board members were self-motivated to participate. The
initial introduction to school board responsibilities helped motivate them to learn how to do the
job well. Of the three districts of focus, six out of nine board members indicated that they were
self-motivated to participate while eight out of nine were seeking to increase their ability to
effectively govern. In the cohort data of the 180 board members surveyed, 132 choose to
participate due their own motivation to learn. Likewise, 128 board members expressed that their
desire to become more effective governing members also motivated them to participate, as
reflected in Table 2, which illustrates the various factors that motivated school board members to
attend MIG training. Table 2 clearly shows that self-motivation was the most significant factor
influencing the decision to participate in MIG, with the desire to become a more effective
governing team a close second. Both factors were internal motivators for board members.
Table 2
Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the Masters in
Governance Training
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f f
School board expectation 33 84
Self-motivation 37 133
Encouraged by board members 35 71
Increasing student achievement 9 53
Increasing effective government 31 128
Unable to determine 0 0
Other 3 10
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
57
Garden Valley Board Member Alvarez noted, “I just wanted to be a better school board
member. I wanted to make sure that I’m doing things the way I was supposed to be doing them.”
Board Member Chin of East Bay said, “We were looking, at that time, for any local resources
where we could get just more background training.” East Bay Board Member Bellar was elected
and immediately approached her superintendent to ask “how I could learn more,” and that is
when she learned of the MIG program. Member Bellar also shared her initial reaction to being
appointed to the board and realizing that she did not know what the responsibilities entailed:
So, it was just one of those things where I was just thrown into it. And obviously I
approved of it, but I had no idea about it. I had no idea what the school board does, what
I’m going to be doing. What are the rules? What are the different regulations and
expectations? And so, also about just school finance itself—it’s so complex and just
everything. How do the schools run? How about the district and the unions—what is their
relationship?
Board members new to the board of education are saddled with major responsibilities
with no real knowledge of how to conduct themselves. In the present study, this was a factor in
participants’ self-motivation to learn the job and to do it well. They expressed an overall desire
to have the knowledge required to effectively conduct their duties and responsibilities.
Culture of Participation
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) symbolic frame explains the concept that the culture of an
organization can carry with it the expectations of what should happen within that organization.
The research indicated that the symbolic frame played out with respect to school board members
participating in the MIG training. Results highlighted the importance of school board–
superintendent influence in the decision to participate in the MIG program.
58
East Bay Board Member Chin noted that “the first thing that I sought out right away was,
as I asked our superintendent how I could learn more. I learned about the Master’s in
Governance program.” The encouragement from her superintendent was a motivating factor in
her participation. Board Member Shelby from Rolling Hills responded the following:
we are a district that engages in governance workshops annually. Because we’re all
working off of the same baseline, we can reflect on our work against the principles of
good governance as outlined by CSBA and taught in Master’s in Governance.
This comment revealed that the district was a regular participant in MIG and that the
expectation was there annually. Rolling Hills Superintendent Queen solidified this statement
when he said, “It was really a 100% my encouragement that the board went. I don’t think they
would have probably done it had a superintendent not recommended it.” The encouragement
received by both board culture and superintendents’ suggestions had a strong influence on the
participation of these members. Rolling Hills Board Member Coach stated,
there were a lot of board members that had been on the board for a very long time. It was
kind of a fresh start. And the new superintendent really was fairly new, and he was kind
of like, “Let’s just learn how a school board should function.”
Superintendent Queen encouraged his members to attend the training to learn about the functions
of governance. Their conversations centered around the idea that more seasoned members of the
team were not running for reelection and the new team would not have the experience to govern
on day one.
The same sentiment was expressed by East Bay Superintendent Hauser:
I would say probably the biggest one was we had more of our seasoned trustees roll off
[the] board. And so, I think of that—we didn’t have any legacy type or trustees on the
59
board anymore with a long-standing tenure on it. So, I think when a few people rolled
off, I think that really made the others look at—they needed additional training and those
different things. I think that’s one. And then I think the other was, it was also my 1st year
that they rolled off—it was that year where they had to complete a 4-year term. And a
couple of members were like, “We signed up for 4; our kids are out of the district. We
can only do 4; we’re both going to roll off.” And they told me that right after I was hired.
Superintendents and board members were in agreement that the culture of the board and
the encouragement of the superintendents constituted a factor for participation in the MIG
modules.
Of the nine school board members surveyed as part of this research, eight out of nine
agreed or strongly agreed that their school board culture encouraged participation in the MIG
training. The whole cohort’s data supported these findings in that 100% of superintendents
agreed or strongly agreed that the school board culture encouraged participation in MIG.
Similarly, 166 of 180 school board members agreed or strongly agreed that the culture of their
district encouraged participation in MIG. Table 3 summarizes the percentage of board members
from the cohort that were encouraged to participate in MIG.
60
Table 3
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Culture Encouraged Participation in
the Masters in Governance Program
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
Of the superintendents surveyed, 100% agreed or strongly agreed that MIG training
should be encouraged by local policy. Of the school board members surveyed, 138 of 180 board
members agreed or strongly agreed that MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy. Table 4 summarizes the frequency of board
members and superintendents who felt that taking MIG courses should be encouraged by a local
district policy.
Of the 180 school board members, 84 said the MIG training was an expectation and 71
said MIG training was encouraged by other members. This evidence indicated that the culture of
participation was present in the cohort of board members surveyed.
61
Table 4
Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Masters in Governance Training
Should Be Encouraged for School Governance Teams by the Local District Policy
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 46 74 116 64
Agree 16 26 53 29
Disagree 0 0 11 6
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
Increasing Access to Training Opportunities
The final theme emerging regarding the factors that impacted a school board member’s
decision to participate in the MIG program was the accessibility of the training program. Bolman
and Deal’s (2017) structural frame outlines the importance of having an accessible structure.
Systematically creating opportunities for participation in MIG should have an impact on board
members’ participation rates. In this case, MIG training was not readily accessible to board
members and impeded their ability to participate. Table 5 summarizes the preferences of board
members in relation to methods for receiving training.
62
Table 5
Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the Masters in Governance Program
Would Increase Chances of Participation
Response Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Online 14 54
Hybrid 29 105
Locally hosted 45 125
Other 2 4
Note. Some participants contributed mor than one answer.
Interviews supported the finding that locally hosted modules would increase the
participation rate. Garden View Board Member Miller commented, “But honestly, having them
in person is challenging because it’s hard to find the time to commit an entire day and they’re
usually not particularly in convenient locations.” Board Member Coach from Rolling Hills
stated, “I think instead of having big, global, northern California, southern California, one or two
sessions, break it down into quarters.” Coach’s colleague, Member Roseanne, said, “So I think it
would be having more options to take the modules, to have more opportunities to take them. I
Results Summary: Research Question 1
The results of the data analysis for Research Question 1 revealed that board members had
a desire to do their job well and were intrinsically motivated to participate in a training
opportunity. Results also showed that board members were encouraged to participate by the
culture of the organization in which they served. Finally, board members expressed that the
barriers to participation could be mitigated by increasing access to opportunities for training to
63
increase overall participation. These findings were consistent with the review of literature in
Chapter Two.
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “How does the MIG the program encourage and equip school
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?” Governance is a new
concept to many school board members elected to office. There are many procedures, policies,
practices, and standards that are a part of the governance expectations. The CSBA (2007)
presented a standard for governance that explained the need for board members to work together
to govern effectively. Board members must understand their roles and responsibilities so that the
governance team can operate collectively to ensure that the culture and focus of the organization
is student centered. School board members who are trained in MIG have an opportunity to learn
these common practices and expectations through the MIG coursework. The research shows that
the MIG program encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective school governance in three ways: (a) MIG defines clear roles and responsibilities; (b)
MIG promotes school board efficiency and teamwork; and (c) MIG facilitates building
relationships around common governance principles.
Roles and Responsibilities
The literature revealed that the structural framework is critical to an organization and that
systematizing is needed so that policies and rules are present (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The
structural framework defines the roles and responsibilities of members. This frame takes into
account the organization’s culture, purpose, and goals. A district school board is an
organizational structure in place that must carry out decision making. School board members
64
must understand their role within the organizational structure. The clarity of roles and
responsibility is essential to the governance of the school board (CSBA, 2018c).
Participants echoed the need for clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Board Member
Chin of East Bay stated that “a lot of districts don’t have superintendents . . . who are properly
training their board on how to be a governance team.” Board Member Alvarez of Garden View
noted that MIG is “just the foundation. It tells you how you should be running your board
meetings. You have to understand the governance, what you can and can’t do.” Rolling Hills
Superintendent Queen stated that “the governance piece . . . really clearly delineates the role of
the board member and what we call the fence. My side of the fence and their side of the fence.”
Interview responses supported the importance of understanding the roles and
responsibilities of the team members. Board Member Roseanne of Rolling Hills said to
“remember that white fence—remember where it was, Masters of Governance . . . ‘This is where
you stay. You’re over here, guys.’” Participants clearly had gained knowledge of their job
responsibilities for governing.
Survey responses from the three focus districts supported the theme that knowledge of
roles and responsibilities is critical. All of the nine board members surveyed agreed or strongly
agreed that the MIG training clarified the differences between their roles and responsibilities as
school board members and those of the superintendent. The whole cohort’s data for
superintendents’ responses (see Table 6) and for school board members’ responses (see Table 7)
also supported this finding. Of the superintendents, 96% agreed or strongly agreed that MIG
training clarified their roles and responsibilities. Likewise, 95% of board members agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement that MIG clarified roles and responsibilities.
65
Table 6
Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles
and Responsibilities and Those of Their Superintendent
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 1 2
Table 7
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles
and Responsibilities and Those of Their Superintendent
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 117 65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly Disagree 1 1
66
School Board Efficiency and Teamwork
The MIG program supported effective governance by creating a shared knowledge base
and set of principles to refer to when needed. This finding supported school board efficiency and
teamwork by strengthening their ability to govern as a team. Bolman and Deal’s (2017) human
resource frame explains how organizations need individuals within the system to support
common goals. Human capital in the organization is a critical piece of its functioning. Within the
human resource framework, leaders promote positive relationships and can work toward shared
knowledge and practices within their work. The human resource framework supports the culture
of the organization. Concerning school board members, individuals are elected rather than hired,
and developing their capital is essential to effective governance.
Board Member Bellar of East Bay noted, “I think that it’s good to have as a place to fall
back on if you’re ever having questions about whether you are acting in a matter of governance.”
The East Bay Superintendent Queen supported this notion by saying, “We have our governance
team handbook; we use the governance team standards, . . . if ever any issues that come up, we
do lean on that, and I lean on it as a superintendent.”
Survey data from the whole cohort supported the finding that the MIG training
encouraged school governance teams to contribute to the effectiveness of school board meetings.
Table 8 shows that 171 board members agreed or strongly agreed with this. Likewise, 60
superintendents agreed or strongly agreed that MIG contributed to effective governance. Table 9
shows that 90% of superintendents and 86% of board members agreed or strongly agreed that the
MIG training impacted their ability to govern effectively. The outcome of the MIG modules was
viewed by participants as contributing to their ability to work together effectively.
67
Table 8
Participants’ Responses to Survey Statement That Masters in Governance Training Encouraged
School Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of Their 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
Table 9
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Impacted
Their Ability to Govern Effectively
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 20 32 72 40
Agree 36 58 82 46
Disagree 6 10 20 11
Strongly Disagree 0 0 6 3
68
Building Relationships
MIG training enhanced positive working relationships between board members and the
superintendent. J. Y. Thomas (2001) explained that a lack of clarity in roles and expectations,
combined with differing opinions between school board members and superintendents,
contributes to a poor relationship. Clarity of roles and expectations between entities can
significantly increase working relationships. Clarity of roles and a common language and
knowledge base contribute to the building of positive relationships. When board members have
the ability to attend training with their superintendent, there is an additive effect to the
relationship building aspect. Eight out of nine board members felt strongly that they should
attend the training with their superintendent. Bolman and Deal’s (2017) human resource frame
supports the notion that through professional development, participants are able to increase
human contact, grow personally and professionally, and understand one another better.
Rolling Hills Superintendent Queen described the MIG team experience by expressing
his affirmation that the team could grow together during this training and strengthen their
relation-ships: “That’s probably one of the biggest bangs for your buck to me, is you have so
little time with your board to learn and grow together. … I would give the training a 10.”
Survey data from the whole cohort showed that board members had an easier time
accepting majority decisions after the training and recognized that they must govern as a team.
Table 10 shows that 86% of board members believed that MIG has improved their ability to
accept a majority decision even when they were in the minority. Of the three districts at the
center of this study, eight out of nine board members agreed with this notion.
69
Table 10
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training Had
Improved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even
When They Held the Minority View
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 78 43
Agree 75 42
Disagree 26 14
Strongly Agree 1 1
Results Summary: Research Question 2
The results of the data analysis for Research Question 2 revealed that the MIG modules
defined clear roles and responsibilities for superintendents and board members. MIG modules
promoted school board efficiency and teamwork by defining a common set of standards and
principles by which to govern. The MIG training experience enhanced positive working
relationships between board members and the superintendent. These combined factors
encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school
governance and were supported by the literature.
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth?” The research set out to discover if there was a connection between MIG training
and student achievement. Time, money, and energy were invested in the MIG modules. While
research indicated that the MIG modules helped to build the capacity of members in governing
70
their district, the question remains as to whether that training had any impact on student
achievement. The Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000) revealed that in
high achieving districts board members were well versed in their role and felt accountable to
student learning, in partnership with their superintendent. The researchers also noted that board
members in successful districts were better versed in reform policy and their role in supporting
such policy in regard to student achievement. The CSBA (n.d.) has outlined professional
governance standards for school board members, the first of which is that school board members
are to keep learning and achievement for all students as the primary focus.
The literature reviews indicated that critical action needed from school board teams is
systems coherence. Members must encourage and create coherent district actions that work
together to support the goal of student achievement. Rice et al. (2000) reported that high
achieving districts had a districtwide direction. Data were examined to measure the districtwide
and school site aligned goals leading to student achievement. Two themes emerged within the
research as to whether MIG had an impact on student achievement: (a) that high functioning
school boards foster academic achievement and (b) that a culture of achievement has a positive
impact.
High-Functioning School Boards Foster Academic Achievement
In their study of school districts, Korelich and Maxwell (2015) reported that successful
school districts have governance teams that are focused on students first when setting shared
goals and that the team, including the superintendent, must support those collective goals. This
finding was in agreement with the CSBA (2007), which has student achievement as the number
one focus for school boards. School board members provide community leadership as advocates
for children and the school district. Board members fulfill their responsibilities by working
71
together as a governance team with the superintendent to make decisions that will best serve all
the students in the community and will contribute to academic achievement.
Maricle (2014) explained the link between school board governance and student
achievement. In his report, he highlighted the role of the school board in setting a vision for the
district that is achievement centered and linked to success for all students. He further explained
that policy and practice should follow and reflect the vision of success for all students. He put an
emphasis on the importance of board members relying on the professional opinions of the district
leaders who have experience in the field of education. This process allows board members to
make informed decisions in the best interest of students. It also indirectly supports the
importance of understanding the roles and responsibilities of board members versus the
superintendent when student achievement is the focus. This information combined with the
research supports the finding that MIG training has an impact on collective governance in high
functioning boards. High-functioning boards indirectly have a positive impact on student
achievement.
Superintendent Hauser of East Bay Unified commented:
I think that one [Foundations of Effective Governance module] is the most important
module because it really goes over what their [board members] role is and how effective
teams work together. And how effective teams keep the focus on student achievement. I
think it touches on a lot of the overarching principles of the other courses, but really sets
the stage for their work as a trustee. I think that one just because it really goes over what
their role is and how effective teams work together.
72
Hauser was emphasizing the need for the team of board members to have a strong foundation of
governance in order to become highly efficient. This efficiency would allow them to keep the
focus on student achievement.
Superintendent Chan of Garden View Unified responded:
Because if the board members have a deep understanding of the roles and responsibilities
and conduct themselves that way and have the focus in the right place and can definitely
respect that the superintendent is doing what the superintendent should be doing. And so,
then all the energy and all the resources will be channeled to the right focus instead of the
other peripheral areas. Then the resources will be given to the student achievement,
which is the number one mission of the district.
Chan felt strongly in her interview that board members had a role and responsibility to fulfill that
should not overlap her roles and responsibilities to a fault. She felt strongly that the efficiency of
the board would contribute to the overall academic success of the students. She also expressed
that her current board was not necessarily high functioning and that made the focus on student
achievement difficult due to their focus on peripherals.
Board Member Miller of Garden View noted:
I think one of the main messages that I took away from the Foundations in Governance
and Setting Direction is that, high functioning school boards, always—they spend the
majority of their time focused on students and student achievement and try not to get
sidetracked by other things.
Miller emphasized the importance of staying focused on student achievement. Board members
can be easily distracted by other factors that fall within their purview and subsequently pull their
focus away from student achievement.
73
Rolling Hills Superintendent Queen stated, “It’s not something you would see an
immediate result of [student achievement]. Although our strategic plan was a direct result of the
training. I won’t say it’s [student achievement] a direct result of it [MIG training].” While
Superintendent Queen did not feel that MIG was directly related to the achievement of his
students, he explained that the vision and goal setting that took place to create the strategic plan
came from MIG training. This strategic plan was the model that the team was following to
ensure that students had academic success.
One of Queen’s board members had similar sentiments. Member Shelby commented:
Well, I guess it is because when we talked about setting the focus, we did have some
discussions about like, “Hey, we don’t have enough conversations about tying anything
back to student achievement. You guys are going off in the weeds a little bit.” We had to
have a conversation about sometimes we’re kind of getting in the weeds.
This statement reinforced the idea that members could get distracted and lose focus on student
achievement but could then use their knowledge and experience from MIG training to move the
conversation back toward student achievement.
Board members and superintendents who were MIG trained saw the importance of
aligning the district’s vision and goals with the decision-making process. This process was an
indicator of a high-functioning board. Survey results from the whole cohort indicated that the
majority of board members and superintendents agreed or strongly agreed that school board
members who were MIG trained understood the importance of aligning the decision-making
process to the district’s vision and goals. Table 11 shows that 92% of school board members felt
that MIG helped them to align vision and decision making. Table 12 shows that 98% of
74
superintendents agreed or strongly agreed that MIG training helped their board members to align
vision with decision making.
Table 11
School Board Members’ Responses Regarding Whether Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With
the District’s Vision and Goals
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 104 58
Agree 62 34
Disagree 13 7
Strongly Agree 1 1
75
Table 12
Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With
the District’s Vision and Goals
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 31 50
Agree 30 48
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 0 0
The sentiment from the participants supported the idea that aligning goals and vision with
a focus on student outcomes could have a positive impact on student achievement. The
participants also overwhelmingly agreed that the MIG training prepared them for this alignment.
MIG Fosters a Culture of Achievement
While participants saw the alignment of resources and goals as an indicator of students’
success and achievement, they also recognized the importance of having a culture and climate of
achievement. The focus on achievement could drive policy decisions, data talks, and lead to an
increase in student results. Delagardelle (2008) noted that the beliefs, decisions, and actions of
school board members impact the decisions within school systems and therefore have an impact
on classroom achievement. School boards are often referred to as “high achieving” and “highly
effective” when they implement initiatives that lead to improved student achievement. This
process includes the school board members’ ability to understand achievement data.
Board member Bellar from East Bay noted:
76
I mean, just learning how to study the test scores and certain evaluations and certain
statistical reports about how students are doing and learning how. What are the ways that
the school could improve and maybe program quality? Student achievement—I don’t see
it as just academically—I see it as social and mental and emotional, too, and just better
preparing your teachers and just all the different . . . The school culture and everything is
important and so I think that on the training, they do talk about that and so I think that,
that’s very important to really emphasize that.
East Bay Board Member Casas focused on achievement with regard to equity and looking at data
to monitor the achievement of special populations:
How do you use what you’ve learned in training in your role? The training talks about the
achievement gaps, and so I think that, that’s something that especially me individually—I
feel like I’ve really focused a lot on that more than other members. The training also
emphasized that we have to advocate for everyone and yes, I believe in that, but
sometimes you need to advocate a little more for that equity gap, right, and so I feel like
that’s something that I really just try to advocate a lot for that as well.
Casas reviewed achievement data to ensure that there was a culture of closing the achievement
gap. This sentiment was developed in her training as she learned to look at data from a board
member’s perspective. She also had an intrinsic desire to focus on achievement. The MIG
training provided her with the knowledge to evaluate data.
Board Member Alvarez of Garden View stated: “And I don’t think you would have much
in the way of gains in student achievement without a pretty high-functioning school board, just
because of the direction that they would hopefully be setting for the district.”
77
Survey results from the whole cohort showed that MIG training had an overall positive
impact on board members’ focus on student achievement. Table 13 shows that 138 board
members felt that MIG training had a positive impact on their focus on student achievement.
Likewise, a large majority of superintendents felt that MIG had an impact on their board
members’ focus of student achievement. Table 14 shows the breakdown of results.
Table 13
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,
Their Focus Was on Student Achievement
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 49 27
Agree 91 51
Disagree 39 22
Strongly Agree 1 1
78
Table 14
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Had Earned Masters in
Governance Certification Demonstrated an Increased Focus on Student Achievement
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 14 23
Agree 44 71
Disagree 4 6
Strongly Agree 0 0
Survey results also showed that a majority of superintendents and board members felt
that the MIG training had a positive impact on students’ achievement. Table 15 displays the
percentages. The majority of board members and superintendents believed that they did have an
impact on student achievement; these beliefs were part of the culture of the organization. A
culture of achievement is synonymous with data review. School boards are accountable for
student achievement and have an obligation to respond to student numbers. Gemberling et al.
(2000) reported that evidence exists to display the significance of school board leadership on
student achievement. Gemberling et al. contended that effective leadership on the part of board
members creates a collaborative and shared accountability system. Accountability happens when
board members review data. Table 16 shows the percentage of board members and
superintendents who used data to evaluate student achievement. This table supports the idea that
MIG training had an impact on boards’ ability to evaluate data and use the results to inform the
decisions that they make. The majority of superintendents and school board members felt that
MIG had had an impact on their actions.
79
Table 15
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in Governance Training Had
Positively Impacted Student Achievement in Their 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
Table 16
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether, as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,
They Encouraged 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 69 38
Agree 28 45 88 49
Disagree 3 5 21 12
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1
80
Results Summary: Research Question 3
The results of the data analysis for Research Question 3 revealed that the MIG modules
had an impact on the ability of the board and superintendent to function at a high level. The
survey results and interviews revealed that board members and superintendents believed that
functioning at efficient board will have an impact on student achievement. Results also showed
that a culture achievement would support overall student success and that the MIG modules
promoted this culture of achievement. Board members and superintendents attested that
MIG helped them to stay focused on student achievement and to look at data to make informed
decisions. These combined factors led to the finding that MIG can positively impact students’
achievement in an indirect manner, as supported by the literature.
Chapter Summary
This chapter summarized the results of the research questions regarding the MIG
program: (a) what factors impacted the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program, (b) how the MIG the program encouraged and equipped school board
members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance, and (c) whether MIG training
had an impact on student achievement and growth.
Analyzing the data included a review of current literature, a compilation of cohort survey
results from both superintendents and school board members, and interview data from board
members and superintendents. The research results were triangulated and compared to the
research framework used for the purpose of the study.
School board members were intrinsically motivated to participate in MIG training to
ensure that they would be able to conduct the duties and responsibilities of their elected position.
They expressed a need to know the job and to do it well. The fact that the majority of board
81
members were encouraged to participate by board colleagues or the superintendent promoted a
culture of participation in MIG. Barriers to participation could be mitigated by increasing access
to opportunities for training, which should increase the overall enrollment of board members in
the MIG program. These findings were consistent with the review of literature from Chapter
Two.
The MIG training modules present clear roles and responsibilities for superintendents and
board members. The MIG modules foster school board efficiency and teamwork by outlining a
common set of standards and principles by which to govern. The MIG modules can enhance the
relationships between the board members and their superintendent. Collectively, the MIG
modules equip school board members to display the behaviors of effective school governance.
Training in the MIG modules has an impact on student achievement by enabling the board and
superintendent to function at a high level. MIG supports a culture that focuses on student
achievement. A culture of achievement within a governing team supports overall student success.
Board members and superintendents in this study believed that MIG helped them to stay focused
on data to make informed decisions. MIG can indirectly impact students’ achievement in a
positive direction by helping the team to function at a high level and to focus on success.
The emergent themes from the research questions supported the following findings:
1. School board members are more likely to participate in training if they are intrinsically
motivated and have access to training modules;
2. The MIG modules support effective governance by equipping board members with
knowledge of an effective governance structure; and
3. Although indirect, student achievement is positively affected by school board members
who have been trained in the MIG modules.
82
Chapter Five: Discussion
Educational governance is demanding and ever changing. Since the mid-1800s, small
districts serving their immediate communities have conducted the educational systems led by a
group of elected trustees. These individuals often came into their elected positions with little or
no training in politics and governance. Their responsibilities have increased from hiring a
superintendent to complete oversight of budgets, policy, achievement, and accountability (Kirst,
1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The importance of training in such a demanding position has become
apparent and, as such, 24 states across the United States have mandated training for their board
members (Alsbury, 2008b). The state of California is not one of these states; training in the state
is still voluntary.
Purpose of Study and Research Questions Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
The three driving research questions at the center of this study were the following:
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?
83
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
The research conducted has demonstrated that school board members and superintendents
need clearly defined roles and responsibilities (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Danzberger, 1994;
Land, 2002). These basic knowledge pieces for governance come from training programs such as
MIG training program. The CSBA (2018c) has developed training modules to impact the
effective governance of school board members. According to the CSBA (2018c), the MIG
modules are as follows: (a) Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction; (b) Policy
and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement; (c) School Finance; (d) Human
Resource and Collective Bargaining; and (e) Community Relations and Advocacy and
Governance Integration.
Summary of Findings
At the conclusion of the analysis of research and literature, there were emergent themes
that supported the following findings:
1. School board members are more likely to participate in training if they are
intrinsically motivated and have access to training modules;
2. MIG modules support effective governance by equipping board members with the
knowledge of an effective governance structure; and
3. Although indirectly, student achievement can be positively affected by school
board members who have been trained in the MIG modules.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “What factors impact the decision of school board members
to participate in the MIG training program?” When investigating what motivated board members
to seek out training, the research pointed to three common themes. The first was that board
84
members had a desire to be successful in their new role and were thus intrinsically motivated to
participate in a training opportunity. Board members clearly expressed their lack of preparedness
once they were selected to serve as well as their eagerness to learn their job responsibilities.
Secondly, board members were prompted to participate in MIG training by the culture of the
organization in which they served. The majority-trained boards in this study expressed that their
colleagues and their superintendent encouraged them to participate in MIG training. Third, board
members expressed that the obstacles to MIG participation could be reduced by offering greater
access to opportunities for training, which would increase overall participation. The distance and
time commitment required to participate in MIG training made it inaccessible to some board
members.
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 data
analysis for Research Question 2 produced three emergent themes. The MIG training modules
successfully define clear roles and responsibilities for superintendents and board members to
operate by. Defining roles and responsibilities is critical to effective governance, as this helps to
minimize overreach by either side and to quell competing efforts that distract from effective and
efficient governance. The MIG modules construct a framework for school board efficiency and
teamwork by formalizing a common set of standards and principles to govern by. Members
remarked about how their consistent reliance on the standards and structures learned through the
MIG program helped to keep their governance efforts focused. The MIG training modules
strengthened productive working relationships between board members and the superintendent.
Superintendents and board members could develop effective teamwork by clearly outlining the
85
goals, purpose, and roles and responsibilities learned through the MIG program. Collectively,
these findings resulted in more efficient governance where board members were encouraged and
equipped to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth?” The results of the data analysis for Research Question 3 revealed that MIG could
positively impact students’ achievement in an indirect manner. The MIG modules had a direct
impact on the ability of the board and superintendent to function at a high level. The interviews
and surveys affirmed that board members and superintendents believed that they positively
impacted students’ results when they functioned at a high level. The literature supported the
findings that highly efficient boards will have an impact on student achievement. Analysis of the
research also demonstrated that a culture of achievement supports student success and that the
MIG modules foster this culture of achievement. Board members and superintendents indicated
that MIG helped them to stay focused on student achievement and to look at results to make
informed decisions. Their ability to evaluate data and results came only after their collective
efforts to set goals, to move the district toward a shared vision, and then to monitor their progress
toward achievement.
Implications for Practice
The analysis of research in this study produced clear and common themes that may
provide direction to school districts. School board members and superintendents are expected to
collectively and effectively run a school district with clear goals and ideals that will ultimately
result in student achievement. The research from this study provides insight to effective
governance ideals that, when enacted, should result in student achievement. The success of
86
young people on their educational journey eventually lands in the care of the governing board
and the superintendent. The collective efficacy between a school board and their superintendent,
as well as their ability to function as a team, is critical to the success of any district. Guidance
from this research includes the importance of understanding roles and responsibilities, keeping
student achievement at the center of district efforts, and fostering opportunities for professional
development of school board members. The professional development presented by the CSBA
(2018c) offers a broad range of topics that cover all the necessary concepts required to
effectively govern.
Roles and Responsibilities for Effective Governance
Research has demonstrated that school board members and superintendents should have
clearly defined roles and responsibilities (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Danzberger, 1994; Land,
2002). The results in this study supported this ideal in both the survey and interview responses.
The MIG modules offer a structure for governance with clearly defined roles for the board
members and the superintendent. School board members have roles and responsibilities that are
defined by the CSBA (2018d). These roles and responsibilities are as follows: (a) “setting the
direction for public schools in the community,” (b) “establishing an effective and efficient
structure,” (c) “providing a supportive environment,” (d) “ensuring accountability to the public,”
and (e) “demonstrating community leadership” (p. 2). Each entity serves a distinct purpose; and
the more that roles and responsibilities are understood, the more highly efficient a governance
team will be.
The role of the superintendent has grown to encompass multiple areas of educational
leadership. Waters and Marzano (2006) outlined five areas of focus for superintendent
leadership: (a) collaborative goals setting, (b) nonnegotiable goals for student achievement, (c)
87
board alignment with district goals, (d) monitoring achievement and student goals, and (e) using
resources to support goals. Superintendents must artfully lead in each of these areas, working to
keep their boards informed as they act as the lead administrator for the district.
Working collaboratively as a cohesive superintendent–school board unit is critical to the
success of the district. Superintendents must invest in the professional development of their
school board members in order to support a culture of collaboration. Whenever possible, the
superintendent should participate in the professional development alongside their board
members.
Student Achievement as a Central Focus
The research has shown that student achievement should be at the center of decision
making within a district. Both board members and superintendents expressed that it was easy to
become distracted from the main purpose of their efforts—student achievement. Governing a
school district is very demanding and creates causes for distraction, or what one participant
described as “getting in the weeds” (Board Member Shelby). Proper vision and goal setting
along with monitoring of progress can assist with keeping a focus on student achievement.
Delagardelle (2008) reported that the beliefs, decisions, and actions of the school board have an
impact on the decisions within school systems that impact classroom achievement. Maricle
(2014) supported the link between school board governance and student achievement. In his
report, he emphasized the role of the school board in setting a vision for the district and ensuring
that the vision is linked to achievement for all of their students. With this concept in mind, it is
critically important for board members to rely on the professional background and training of
their superintendent and leadership teams. The collective education knowledge and experiences
88
of the district leadership team will support informed decision making that has to take place in the
board room with regard to student achievement.
Professional Development Opportunities
Board members and superintendents must be prepared to participate in their own
professional development. Maricle (2014) suggested that school districts with high achievement
have board members that support professional development and are willing to learn. The CSBA
(2018c) has outlined professional governance standards for school board members that include
the importance of members participating in professional development and committing the time
and energy to be informed and effective leaders. Recognizing that there is a lack of knowledge
when board members join a school board and seeking out opportunities to learn is the first step
toward becoming a well-informed member of the collective group, superintendents have the
ability to create a culture of professional growth within their districts. The research showed that a
culture of professional development has a positive impact on the group to participate in growth
opportunities. Learning is essential in any forum and has its place in school board governance.
The CBSA organization has opportunities that take place throughout the year at multiple
locations. Board members expressed the need for expanded offerings. They also expressed the
need to consider a hybrid or online model to make the training modules more accessible to board
members. Many trustees have become members of the board in order to serve their community
and do so for no monetary compensation. When the time comes to attend MIG training, board
members must account for their everyday responsibilities, such as their job or family. These
factors can prevent them from signing up, as they will have to travel a distance and stay in a
hotel in most cases to attend the modules. The CSBA should consider expanding its offerings to
89
encompass more participation from board members across the state of California. An online
module series and more locations and times for modules will positively impact participation.
Recommendations for Further Studies
The findings of this research supported the importance of school board training and
should contribute to the collective literature on the topic. Emergent themes supported the
importance of school board members’ collective governance and the need to ensure that decision
making is centered around student achievement. Research on the topic of school board training
and the link to student achievement is limited. Research on majority-trained boards is also
limited. The findings indicated a need for further research in the following areas:
1. A follow up study could investigate the link between specifically high-achieving
school districts and majority-board-trained participants, thus creating a narrower
participant group. Such a study could examine the ideals and beliefs behind
participation in training and how board members specifically link their
governance practices to achievement.
2. A study could be conducted in a state that mandates school board training and the
resulting student achievement. Data could be used to compare to board members
in states that do not mandate training.
3. This study could be expanded to include majority-trained board members from
various training models in addition to MIG, in order to net a larger participant
group.
Conclusion
In conclusion, leading a school district and carrying the responsibility to ensure academic
success constitute a heavy load. Professional development around the most important aspects of
90
governance is critical to trustees. A willingness to participate in learning and to commit to a
shared vision and goals, along with a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities, is crucial
for effective governance. The CSBA’s MIG training program encourages and equips school
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance.
91
References
Alsbury, T. L. (Ed.). (2008a). The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation.
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Alsbury, T. L. (2008b). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 7(2), 202–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701748428
Bianchi, A. B. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast, 1(3), 1–4.
https://www.nyssba.org/news/2003/10/01/forecast/school-board-training-mandatory-vs.-
voluntary/
Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). The school district superintendent
in the United States of America. Educational Leadership Faculty Publications (Paper
13).
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/eda_fac_pub/13?utm_source=ecommons.udayton.edu%2F
eda_fac_pub%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations artistry, choice and leadership (6th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
California Department of Education. (2020a). California School Dashboard and system of
support. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/
California Department of Education. (2020b). Local Control Accountability Plan.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
92
California Department of Education. (2020c). Local Control Funding Formula.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards.
https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrdLeadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2018a). About CSBA. https://www.csba.org/About/
AboutCSBA
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Effective governance: Resources, training and
support. https://www.csba.org/en/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance
California School Boards Association. (2018c). Masters in Governance: Governance education
for school board members and superintendents.
https://www.csba.org/TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance.aspx
California School Boards Association. (2018d). What it takes to lead: The role and function of
California’s school boards. https://www.csba.org/-
/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/EffectiveGovernance/20180613_WhatItTakes
ToLead_Final.ashx?la=en&rev=b99adf0f20bb4e12aebf41edb468c4fb
California School Boards Association. (n.d.). Professional Governance Standards.
https://www.csba.org/en/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/Professi
onalGovStandards/CSBA_PGS_Brochure.ashx?la=en&rev=5fc78a303c5b45c4a6d89d51
9f991e56
Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools—a historical analysis (ED010410) ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED010410.pdf
93
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 391–395.
Canal, S. A. (2013). California school boards: Professional development and the Master’s in
Governance training (Publication No. 3563807) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan,
M. D. (1986). School boards: Strengthening grass roots leadership. Institute for
Educational Leadership.
Cuban, L. (1976). The urban school superintendent: A century and a half of change. Phi Delta
Kappa Educational Foundation.
Danzberger, J. P. (1992). School boards: A troubled American institution. In J. P. Danzberger
(Ed.), Facing the challenge: The report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on
School Governance (pp. 19–24). Danforth Foundation.
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.
Dawson, L. J., & Quinn, R. (2000). Clarifying board and superintendent roles. School
Administrator, 57(3), 12–14.
Delagardelle, M. L. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board
leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In T. L. Alsbury (Ed.), The future
94
of school board governance: Relevance and revelation (pp. 191-223). Rowman &
Littlefield Education.
Dervarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2015). Eight characteristics of effective school boards
(EJ1105469). Illinois School Board Journal, 83(4), 10–12. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED608840.pdf
Dillon, N. (2010). The importance of school board training. American School Board Journal,
197(7), 1–7.
Ehrensal, P. A., & First, P. F. (2008). Understanding school board politics: Balancing public
voice and professional power. In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds.),
Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 87-102). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887875
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., & Foleno, T. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the game:
Superintendents and principals talk about school leadership. Public Agenda.
Gemberling, K. W., Smith, C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key work of school boards
guidebook. National School Boards Association.
Ghasemy, M., & Hussin, S. (2016). Review of theories of educational leadership and manage-
ment. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300048835_Theories_of_Educational_
Management_and_Leadership_A_Review
Glass, T. E. (2003, April 21–25). The superintendency: A managerial imperative? Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL.
95
Glass, T. E., Björk, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.
American Association of School Administrators.
Goldhammer, K. (1964). The school board. Center for Applied Research in Education.
Grissom, J. A. (2007). Who sits on school boards in California? Institute for Research on
Education Policy & Practice, Stanford University.
Grissom, J. A. (2009). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations:
The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 20, 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup043
Hanover Research. (2014). Effective board and superintendent collaboration.
http://bit.ly/2pXE5w1
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, n.v., 17–19.
Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., & Campbell, C. (2002). Big city school boards: Problems and
options. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/pub_crpe_bigcity_dec02_0.pdf
Hopkins, M., O’Neil, D., & Williams, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence and board governance:
Leadership lessons from the public sector. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(7),
683– 700. 10.1108/02683940710820109
Johnson, P. A. (2011). School board governance: The times they are a changin’. Journal of
Cases in Educational Leadership, 20(10), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1555458911413887
96
Justia. (2020). Local education agency (LEA).
https://www.justia.com/dictionary/local-educational-agency/
Kirst, M. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 378–
381.
Kirst, F. M. (2008). The evolving role of school boards: Retrospect and prospect. In T. L.
Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 37-
59). Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Kirst, M. W., & Wirt, F. M. (2009). The political dynamics of American education (4th ed.).
McCutchan Publishing.
Korelich, K. & Maxwell, G. (2015). The Board of Trustees’ professional development and
effects on student achievement (EJ1056179). Research in Higher Education Journal.
ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1056179.pdf
Kowalski, T. J. (2004). School public relations: A new agenda. In T. J. Kowalski (Ed.), Public
relations in schools (3rd ed., pp. 3–29). Merrill, Prentice-Hall.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L. G. Björk &
T. J. Kowalski (Eds.). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and
development (pp. 1–18). Corwin Press.
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
Maricle, C. (2014). Governing to achieve: A synthesis of research on school governance to
support student achievement. California School Boards Association.
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/CSBAGoverningAchieve2014.pdf
97
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.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: Findings and
recommendations. U.S. Department of Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Table 214.10. Number of public school districts
and public and private elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1869– 70
through 2015–16. Digest of Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_214.10.asp
National Association of School Boards. (2019). About us. https://www.nsba.org/About
National School Boards Association. (2019). Resolutions, beliefs and policies, constitution and
bylaws. https://www.nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/nsba-constitution-and-bylaws-adopted-
march-29-2019.pdf?la=en&hash=6F204B2F8EDD606495B1B50DA272D45DCADE627
0
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and tomorrow’s
promise. Education Commission of the States.
Rice, R., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Bruce, J., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2000). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/superintendent team
98
behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student achievement
(ED453172). 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
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed). Sage
Publications.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Doubleday/Currency.
Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining
school improvement. Harvard Education Press.
Texas Education Agency. (2019). The latest TEA news. 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 and 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.
Thurlow Brenner, C., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. IPED Technical
Reports (Paper 15). http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/iped_techrep/15
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
99
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Weiss, G., Templeton, N., Thompson, R., & Tremont, J. W. (2014). Superintendent and school
board relations: Impacting achievement through collaborative understanding of roles and
responsibilities. School Leadership Review, 9(2), Article 4.
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&context=slr
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
100
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails
School Board Recruitment and Information Email
Date
Dear School Board Member ,
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule 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 that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in
Governance (MIG) training program has 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. 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 to
complete the EdD program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to
participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions
asking you to rate the impact of MIG training on effective governance. You will also be asked to
participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom
™
interview at a time convenient to you and the
researcher. The interview will be audio recorded with your permission and 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 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 in this study, 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
Superintendent Recruitment and Information Email
Date
Dear Superintendent ,
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule 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 that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA)
Masters in Governance (MIG) training program has 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 to
complete the EdD program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to
participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions
asking you to rate the impact of MIG training on effective governance. You will also be asked to
participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom
™
interview at a time convenient to you and the
researcher. The interview will be audio recorded with your permission and 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 in this study, 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
102
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey
Our school board culture encourages participation in Masters in Q Strongly Agree
1 Governance (MIG) training. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school governance teams
by the local district policy.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
School board training is mandated in 24 states. The MIG training Q Strongly Agree
3
should be mandated in California. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
What platform of the MIG training program would increase your Q Online
4
chances of participation (check all that apply)? Q Hybrid (online and in-person)
Q Locally hosted
Q Other
The primary factor that influenced my participation in the MIG Q School board expectation
training was . . . (check all that apply): Q Self-motivation
Q Encouraged by board members
5 Q Increasing student achievement
Q Increasing effective governance
Q Unable to determine
Q Other
The current cost of the MIG training program impedes school Q Strongly Agree
6
board members from participating. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
7
As a result of the MIG training, my focus is on achievement. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek community input Q Strongly Agree
8
through a variety of methods (email, town hall meetings, surveys,
etc.)
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
As a result of the MIG training, I understand the importance of Q Strongly Agree
9
aligning the decision-making process with the district’s vision and
goals.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
The MIG training clarified the differences between my roles and Q Strongly Agree
10
responsibilities as a school board member and those of the
superintendent.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
103
The MIG training encourages school governance teams to Q Strongly Agree
11
contribute to the effectiveness of our school board meetings. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school governance teams. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
The MIG training helps school board members to differentiate Q Strongly Agree
13
among policy, leadership, and management. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your superintendent. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern effectively. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
Please rank the following five MIG modules in order of importance Foundation in Governance
to your role as a member of the governance team. Policy and Judicial Review
16 School Finance
Human Resources
Community Relations
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage governance team Q Strongly Agree
17
members to consistently use data to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
As a result of the MIG training, my ability to constructively accept Q Strongly Agree
18
the majority decision, even if I hold the minority view, has
improved.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
I believe that all California school board members could benefit Q Strongly Agree
19
from MIG training. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
Attending MIG training has positively impacted student Q Strongly Agree
20
achievement. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
104
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey
Our school board culture encourages participation in Masters in Q Strongly Agree
1
Governance (MIG) training. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school governance teams
by the local district policy.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
School board training is mandated in 24 states. The MIG training Q Strongly Agree
3
should be mandated in California. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
What platform of the MIG training program would increase your Q Online
4
school board members’ chances of participation (check all that
apply)?
Q Hybrid (online and in-person)
Q Locally hosted
Q Other
The primary factor that influenced school board members to Q School board expectation
participate in MIG training was . . . (check all that apply): Q Self-motivation
Q Encouraged by board members
5
Q Increasing student achievement
Q Increasing effective governance
Q Other
Q Unable to determine
The current cost of the MIG training program impedes school Q Strongly Agree
6
board members from participating. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
School board members who have earned MIG certification Q Strongly Agree
7
demonstrate an increased focus on student achievement. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
School board members who are MIG certified actively engage the Q Strongly Agree
8
community and utilize a variety of communication methods (email,
town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
School board members who are MIG trained understand the Q Strongly Agree
9
importance of aligning the decision-making process with the
district’s vision and goals.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
School board members who are MIG trained exhibit a clearer Q Strongly Agree
10
understanding of the difference between their roles and
responsibilities and those of the superintendent.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
105
The MIG training encourages school governance teams to Q Strongly Agree
11
contribute to the effectiveness of our school board meetings. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school governance teams. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
The MIG training helps school board members to differentiate Q Strongly Agree
13
among policy, leadership, and management. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
It is important to attend MIG training with your school board Q Strongly Agree
14
members. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern effectively. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
Please rank the following five MIG modules in order of importance Foundation in Governance
to your role as a member of the governance team. Policy and Judicial Review
16 School Finance
Human Resources
Community Relations
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage governance team Q Strongly Agree
17
members to consistently use data to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
The MIG training has improved school board members’ ability to Q Strongly Agree
18
accept the majority decision, even when they hold the minority
view.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
I believe that all California school board members could benefit Q Strongly Agree
19
from MIG training. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
MIG training has positively impacted student achievement in my Q Strongly Agree
20
district. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
106
Appendix D: Interview Guide: School Board Members
1 What factors impacted 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 individuals 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 and Judicial Review/Student Learning and 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 and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration
6 How could MIG be improved, if at all?
7
How has the MIG training affected how you govern your school district, if at all? If so, please
explain.
8
What role did the 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/superintendents?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12 How do you use what you learned in 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?
107
Appendix E: Interview Guide: Superintendents
1 What factors impacted 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 individuals 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 your board members and why?
Which of the following modules was least important to your board members and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and 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 most important to you and why?
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration
6 How could MIG be improved, if at all?
7
How has the MIG training affected how your school board members govern your school
district, if at all? If so, please explain.
8
What role did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if any?
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/superintendents
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12 How do you use what you learned in 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?
108
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 this study is to examine the perceptions of school board members and
superintendents regarding the Masters in Governance (MIG) training and the 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 that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) MIG training program has 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: _______________________________
109
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 was conducted to determine the impact that the Master’s in Governance (MIG) training program had on effective governance and student achievement and to determine what factors influenced school board members to participate in the trainingㅡspecifically, what factors of the MIG training contributed to cohesive governance and how, if at all, the training contributed to an increase in student achievement. The study was framed around the work of the California School Board Association’s (CSBA) Professional Governance Standards, Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s 4 frames of leadership and management, and the Lighthouse Inquiry study conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards. The study included public, K 12 California school districts where a majority of the school board members had trained in the MIG modules. Interviews and surveys were conducted with trained school board members and their district superintendent. A literature review was conducted to triangulate the findings in the study. Findings indicated that school board members were more likely to participate in MIG training if they were intrinsically motivated and had easy access to training modules. Findings also indicated that MIG modules supported effective governance by equipping board members with the knowledge of an effective governance structure and that, although indirectly, student achievement could be positively impacted by school board members who had been trained in the MIG modules. This study supported the notion of professional development for school board members working to lead their local district in collaboration with their superintendent.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
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
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
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
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
PDF
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
PDF
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
PDF
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Impact of the Masters in governance training program on effective school board leadership and governance
PDF
The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice
Asset Metadata
Creator
Harrison, Julie Anna
(author)
Core Title
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/05/2021
Defense Date
01/29/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Board of Education,Masters in governance,MIG,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board,superintendent,Training
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael F. (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy (
committee member
), Doll, Michele T. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jubocka@aol.com,juliehar@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-436898
Unique identifier
UC11668102
Identifier
etd-HarrisonJu-9397.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-436898 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-HarrisonJu-9397.pdf
Dmrecord
436898
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Harrison, Julie Anna
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
Masters in governance
MIG
school board
Training