University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

(USC Thesis Other)

Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Influence of Formalized School Board Training on California School Districts
by
Jayne Darlene Nickles

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 Jayne Darlene Nickles 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jayne Darlene Nickles certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Rudy M. Castruita
Charles Hinman
Katherine Thorossian
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv

Abstract
This study examined the perceptions of school board members and superintendents regarding the
Masters in Governance (MIG) training offered by California School Boards Association and its
impact on school governance and student achievement. The purpose of this study was to
determine whether formalized school board training improved the relationship between school
board and superintendents and affected the impact on performance indicators for school districts.
The participants in this qualitative study were comprised of 180 board members and 62
superintendents in California public school districts. Data were collected through surveys of and
interviews with all participants and then analyzed and coded in relation to the study’s 3 research
questions. Findings from this research indicated that motivation to attend formalized training was
influenced by a board members’ intrinsic desire for knowledge and being prepared, the
accessibility of the training, and the culture of expectation among the governing board members
to attend formal training. Findings further indicated that the MIG training did encourage and
equip board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance by clearly defining
the roles and responsibilities of the governing team, deepening board members’ understanding of
the importance of providing direction for the district, and emphasizing the value of cohesiveness
for the governing board. Finally, findings also indicated that governing boards did see the impact
that MIG training had on student achievement, as it equipped board members with the
knowledge and skills to become strong, effective governing teams who understood how to
allocate resources to support student growth. However, data from this study also suggested that
the impact of MIG training on student achievement might be viewed as minimal, as it depended
on the mindset of the MIG participant with respect to how they embraced the training and

applied it. This study further adds to the research regarding effective leadership and the impact
that formal training has on school board governance.

vi

Dedication
To my most wonderful family and friends, my beautiful support system: It is their support that
helped me to persevere in my doctoral journey. Along with the craziness that life brings, this
journey consisted of the failing health and eventual death of my incredible father as well as life
during the COVID-19 pandemic. My family and friends were amazing encouragers and pillars of
strength, for which I am grateful. I am truly blessed to have them.

vii

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and thank all who have supported me on my doctoral
journey: I thank Dr. Kathy Thorossian for her encouragement to be a part of something greater
than myself: the Trojan Family. I am grateful for the conversations that I had with Dr.
Thorossian that led me to open the doors before me and to accept new challenges.
My time at the USC Rossier School has been filled with inspiring professors who
challenged me to make a difference not only in the field of education but also in everyday life.
To begin, I would like to thank Dr. Michael Escalante, my dissertation chair, for his
encouragement to pursue the EdD degree at USC Rossier and for his guidance during the last 3
years. I thank Dr. David Cash and Dr. Rudy Castruita for sharing their wisdom and encouraging
us to ask hard questions. I must also acknowledge and thank Dr. Artineh Samkian for her
unending patience as she stretched our minds in the methods courses.
I am so grateful for my colleagues in the USC cohort. This has been an amazing journey,
and I am so proud to have gone through it with them all. I will miss our study groups, Thursday
nights, and carpooling with Jen. We have accomplished so much together; and I am so thankful
for how we encouraged, supported, and challenged one another. I am thankful for the friendship
of everyone in the cohort.
My family members are my unwavering source of support and unconditional love. I have
been blessed with an amazing husband and two children who have been incredibly understanding
and encouraging when I needed to devote time to the doctoral program instead of being with the
family. I am also very grateful for the support and encouragement from my sister, especially
when our dad’s health was failing and I was juggling the demands of family needs with this

viii

program and work. I love them all and am so appreciative if their love, encouragement, and
support.

ix

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
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 .................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 5
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 5
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 5
Delimitations ....................................................................................................................... 6
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 6
Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
Historical Background of School Boards ......................................................................... 11
History of the Superintendency ........................................................................................ 14
Role of School Board Members ........................................................................................ 18
Role of the Superintendent................................................................................................ 23
MIG Program .................................................................................................................... 27

x

Accountability ................................................................................................................... 30
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 32
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 36
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ........................................................................................ 38
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 38
Research Design................................................................................................................ 38
Sample Population and Participants.................................................................................. 40
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 41
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 43
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 44
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 45
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 45
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 47
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 47
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 51
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 63
Results for Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 73
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 82
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 84
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions Restated ................................................... 84
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 85
Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................... 91
Delimitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 91

xi

Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 91
Recommendations for Future Study ................................................................................. 93
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 94
References ..................................................................................................................................... 95
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails .................................................................... 106
School Board Member Recruitment Email ..................................................................... 106
Superintendent Recruitment Email ................................................................................. 107
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey .............................................................................. 108
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 111
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ........................................................... 114
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ....................................................................... 115
Appendix F: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 116
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix .................................................................................. 117

xii

List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participants 48
Table 2: Summary of Pseudonyms Used in Study 49
Table 3: Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the
Masters in Governance Training

54
Table 4: Superintendents’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in
Order of Importance to Their Roles as a Member of the Governance Team (N
= 62)

55
Table 5: School Board Members’ Rankings of the Five Masters in Governance Modules
in Order of Importance to Them as Members of the Governance Team (N =
180)

56
Table 6: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Culture Encouraged
Participation in the Masters in Governance Program

57
Table 7: Responses of Superintendents and Board Members Regarding Whether
Masters in Governance Training Should Be Mandated in California

59
Table 8: Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the Masters in
Governance Program Would Increase Chances of Participation

60
Table 9: Participants’ Responses to Whether the Current Cost of the Masters in
Governance Training Program Impeded School Board Members From
Participating

62
Table 10: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance
Training Clarified the Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of a
School Board Member and Those of the Superintendent (N = 180)

64
Table 11: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Were
Masters in Governance Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the
Difference Between Their Roles and Responsibilities and Those of Their
Superintendent (N = 62)

65
Table 12: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training
Impacted Their Ability to Govern Effectively

66
Table 13: 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 (N = 180)

68

xiii

Table 14: 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 (N = 62)

69
Table 15: 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 (N = 180) 71
Table 16: Superintendents’ 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 (N = 62) 72
Table 17: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in Governance
Training Had Positively Impacted Student Achievement in Their District 76
Table 18: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in
Governance Training, Their Focus Was on Student Achievement (N = 180) 79
Table 19: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Would Recommend
Masters in Governance Training to School Governance Teams 81

xiv

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Study 40

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The governance of public schools has progressed into a complex responsibility for school
boards and the superintendent as the demand for accountability has increased. Growing pressure
from the community to raise student achievement, to decrease student dropout rates, and to
assure the safety and well-being of all students are challenges that have steadily grown over the
last several decades (Moody, 2011; Weiss et al., 2014). To effectively address the needs of all
students, board members and the superintendent must form a partnership of shared leadership to
carry out the vital functions of a school district (Waters & Marzano, 2006). The locally elected
school board members act in behalf of their constituents to oversee accountability systems and to
provide direction for the school district, policymaking, and the hiring and firing of the
superintendent (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). To be highly effective in governing a school district,
the board members and superintendent must work cohesively and be equipped with the
appropriate knowledge and skills. It takes professional learning to build shared knowledge in a
collaborative format while focusing on continuous improvement (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
School governance in California does not require an individual to have experience or
training to hold a position on the school board (National School Boards Association [NSBA],
2010). To effectively govern public education, school board members and superintendents must
have a thorough understanding of their roles and responsibilities so that they can capitalize on
their individual strengths while functioning interdependently. Participating in formal training
would assist school board members in maximizing their working relationships and developing
the required skill set to effectively govern the school district. Masters in Governance (MIG) is a
formalized school board training program offered by the California School Board Association
2

(CSBA). It is a series of five modules that focus on specific areas of knowledge and expertise
necessary for school governance (CSBA, 2018b).
This study looked specifically at school board members and superintendents in California
who had participated in the MIG training. Their participation was analyzed to determine whether
the training had positively influenced how they governed their respective school districts.
Because formal training such as MIG s not mandatory in California, it was important to consider
what motivated individual board members to attend MIG training. Finally, there was an analysis
to determine whether there was a correlation between an increase in student performance and
board members with respect to attending formal MIG training.
Background of the Problem
School boards have been governing the public school system for centuries. It continues to
be an avenue for community members to have local authority over their schools, decreasing the
influence of state politicians (Land, 2002). Over time, the demands on the school board have
evolved as the needs of the school community increase, yet the qualifications for becoming a
school board member have virtually remained the same (Hess, 2002). The decisions of the school
board have a long and substantial impact on all students and their communities. Members’
responsibilities include areas such as policymaking, overseeing the budget, hiring and evaluation
of the superintendent, establishing the direction of the school district, and reviewing data to
determine student growth and school performance (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). In spite of these
vast responsibilities and the long-term impact that the school board has on children, there is no
requirement for those seeking a position as a school board member to have experience or training
in education or school governance.
3

Although school board members in California have access to MIG training through the
CSBA (2007), it is not mandated. Some school boards may enact a policy requiring specific
training for board members that can vary from district to district. Many districts do not have any
obligation to attend formalized training by either state legislation or local school board policy.
The CSBA (2018b) has asserted that training should be mandatory for all members of the school
board. Studies suggest that formal training is essential in order to prepare a school board member
to serve the needs of all students sufficiently and is integral to the progress and success of the
school district and its community (Canal, 2013; Dillon, 2010; Gomez, 2013; Roberts &
Sampson, 2011). This view is supported by the 2006 Michigan Association of School Boards
survey, which found that 76% of school board members believed that school board development
is necessary (Dillon, 2010). This survey also found that there was more confidence in board
members who participated in school board training.
With the demand for an increase in accountability and transparency, it is essential that the
leadership of the governing board be cohesive and effective as they communicate their vision
and goals for the district (Gemberling et al., 2000; Waters & Marzano, 2006). In many instances,
the fact that school board members and superintendents find it challenging to establish clear roles
and responsibilities leads to a dysfunctional and ineffective governing team. This situation, in
turn, leads to difficulty in meeting the needs of all stakeholders. (Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002;
Waters & Marzano, 2006).
School board training equips school board members with the knowledge and support
required to best govern their school district and to serve their constituents. Studies have shown
that professional development for board members is critical if school districts are to increase
their effectiveness and student learning (Plough, 2014; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Education is
4

complex and always in a flux of change. School board training assists board members in
developing the skills to recognize potential issues and how to advance the progress and success
of the school district (Dillon, 2010). Without proper training, acquiring essential knowledge and
leadership skills is left to chance for the school governing body. In order for school board
members to successfully perform their roles and responsibilities, participation in school board
training is fully recommended.
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 influences the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
5

Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Importance of the Study
The importance of this study was to determine whether there is a connection between
effective school board governance in California public schools and formalized school board
training, specifically MIG. The data from this study should identify the effective components of
formalized training programs such as MIG. The study also provided agencies that support school
boards with the opportunity to gain valuable insight as to what participants find beneficial in
preparing school board members to govern school districts. Additionally, although it is
acknowledged that current school board policy in California does not mandate training for school
board members, it was the aim of this study to identify potential connections between training
and practice that would motivate school board members to attend formalized training. It was also
hoped that this qualitative study would provide policymakers with guidance as future decisions
are made regarding school board member training and requirements.
Limitations
Limitations of the study included the following:
1. Participation in the study was voluntary and confined to school board members
and superintendent.
6

2. The study was limited to the number of participants who are surveyed and
interviewed.
3. The responses of the participants were subjective and reflected personal
perspectives and might not have represented the perspectives of all school board
members and superintendents.
4. The validity of the study was limited to the reliability of the research instruments.
5. Data collection occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, consequently limited
the ability to meet interviewees in person, and this situation may have impacted
individuals’ ability to participate.
Delimitations
Delimitations of the study included the following:
1. Participants were chosen if they were part of a public school district governing
team.
2. The participants were from 12 California counties (Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin,
Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa
Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura), with the majority of participants from
southern California.
3. The majority of the district school board members had participated in MIG
training; trainings from other sources was not considered.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made regarding the findings of the study:
1. That a qualitative approach was appropriate for the study,
2. That the instruments were valid and reliable,
7

3. That the participants would be honest in their responses to both the surveys and
the interview questions,
4. That school boards have a direct governance impact on their districts,
5. That training for board members would positively influence board governance,
6. That training for board members would improve the effectiveness of the board,
7. That training for board members would improve school board–superintendent
relationships, and
8. That the findings of this study might lead to further studies that would influence
legislation to mandate school board training in California.
Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
 Accountability: The concept that schools and school districts will be held responsible
for performance or producing documents and records, creating and following plans,
and reporting student performance on assessments.
 Assessment: The annual summative evaluation of student learning through state-
sanctioned multiple-choice exams.
 California School Boards Association (CSBA) is an organization entrusted with the
responsibility to provide guidance, resources, and training for school board members
throughout California (CSBA, 2007).
 Effectiveness: The “extent to which a plan accomplishes its intended purpose”
(Analytic Quality Glossary, 2019, para. 1).
8

 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).
 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. (California Department of Education [CDE], 2020c, LCAP Overview
section, para. 1)
 MIG: A training program sponsored by the CSBA consisting of nine modules
designed to define roles and responsibilities, improve governance and leadership
through increased knowledge and skills to support an effective governance structure,
and maintaining a focus on student learning (CSBA, 2018b).
 National School Boards Association (NSBA): A nonprofit educational organization
operating as a federation of state associations of school boards across the United
States (NSBA, 2019).
 School board: A group of nonpartisan citizens, either elected or appointed within a
school district, to act as a single unit regarding various aspects of governance (CSBA,
2007).
 Student achievement: The performance by students on the annual summative
assessment given by the state of California.
9

 Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer (CEO) of a public school
district with oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter One has provided a brief overview
of the study. It also contains the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the
limitations and delimitations of the study, the assumptions, and definitions of the study’s key
terms. Chapter Two provides a review of the literature pertaining to the purpose of the study.
Chapter Three outlines the methodology that was used for the study and the research design,
including participant sampling, research instruments, and data collection and analysis
procedures. Chapter Four presents the study’s findings and an analysis of the data collected.
Chapter Five presents a summary of the findings and conclusions, implications, and
recommendations for future research and practice.
10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Over the last couple of centuries, the role and responsibilities of the school board and
superintendent have grown increasingly complex. The role of the superintendent has evolved
from a position of being primarily managerial to the more intricate role of instructional leader,
communicator, collaborator, community leader, child advocate, and politician (Weiss et al.,
2014). Board members are elected community members who serve part-time—not professional
educators—and tend to have limited knowledge in pedagogy and school administration. Most of
the information that board members receive is through two major sources: the superintendent and
school district employees, and disgruntled community members and media (Moody, 2011). The
political and social influences on education have intensified over time and have created for both
superintendent and board members additional stressors that contribute to the instability of
leadership in school districts (Brunner et al., 2002). Growing pressure from the community to
raise student achievement, decrease student dropout rates, and assure the safety and well-being
of all students are challenges that have steadily increased over the decades (Moody, 2011; Weiss
et al., 2014). School board members are sanctioned to lead the district as a unified body—a
challenging task if the governance team members do not understand their roles and work
cohesively to reach consensus. The task is further complicated by the findings of Weiss et al.
(2014) that suggest that the personalities and interpersonal skills of each individual stakeholder
play a large role in the success of the superintendent and school board.
This literature review examines the history and the evolution of roles for local school
boards and superintendents. The review includes the growing responsibilities of the school board
and the various levels of educational accountability. Multiple conceptual frameworks are
discussed to provide a foundation for leadership and effective governance. While there is
11

research studying the relationship between high-performing school districts and the effectiveness
of the school board, there is little research on whether school board training positively enhances
the relationship between school board members and superintendents and thereby improves
school governance and student achievement. Although school board training is not mandated in
California, the CSBA provides school governance members with an opportunity to receive
training known as the MIG program. The decision of whether or not to participate in the MIG
training leads to question the perceptions board members and superintendents have on the impact
MIG has on effective governance and what factors influence the decision to participate in the
training.
Historical Background of School Boards
The U.S. education system can be traced back to colonial times with the Massachusetts
Education laws of 1642 and 1647. According to Goldhammer (1964), education became
necessary so that colonial codes could be literate. Schools were organized and governed by the
citizens through town hall meetings. In 1727, Massachusetts required each town to create its own
governance body to supervise public education, and this became the first semblance of a school
board (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Eventually, the Massachusetts model of regulating and supporting
public schools spread throughout the colonies (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). As the population grew and
the needs of the local schools evolved, school districts were established, thus increasing the
number of school boards (Carol et al., 1986; Danzberger, 1992; Land, 2002). During the late
19th century, the school board acted as the administrative body with each board member having
his or her own responsibility or task (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). In 1891, Massachusetts
passed legislation that gave financial and administrative authority to the school districts (Land,
2002).
12

During the first half of the 20th century, the role and structure of school board members
experienced a shift in focus, moving primarily toward educational policy rather than the
administrative role (Alsbury, 2008; Land, 2002; Danzberger, 1994, Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
According to Callahan (1966), schools were liberated from partisan politics and superintendents
were gradually given the power to hire teachers, select textbooks, and control the educational
program. The size of the school board became smaller and free from political affiliations, and
board members were elected to office (Land, 2002). The governance structure of the school
board was modeled after corporate boards. The reforms of the early 20th century established the
basic structure and administrative policymaking processes that school boards use today.
In the 1950s, more power shifted from the local agencies to the federal government,
which had a notable influence on the educational system. For instance, the 1954 Supreme Court
case of Brown v. Board of Education requires equal opportunities for all students. As a result of
the court’s decision, policies to desegregate public schools were mandated and eventually
implemented, as local agencies would lose funding if they did not comply. Throughout the last
half of the 20th century, the federal government continued to increase its involvement with the
onset of categorically funded programs such as special education; immigration education; and
Title I, which helped to distribute funding to schools that served a high percentage of low-
income families. During this time, the state government also became more involved by creating
guidelines for areas such as graduation, testing, and teacher certification (Land, 2002).
Reauthorizations of the federal legislation have occurred periodically, with the most
recent being Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) that was signed into law by President Obama
in 2015. ESSA reduces federal involvement in schools and returns some authority to the state
and local governments (Klein, 2016).
13

The fundamental purpose of the school board has remained constant since its inception—
that is, to represent the community and their values (Hess & Meeks, 2010; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
According to Delagardelle’s study (2008) of school board leadership, school boards serve as the
voice of the public in developing a vision and direction for education, and their connection to the
community is key to school districts’ progress. However, school boards of today have increased
responsibilities in student achievement, finance, legalities, and ethical issues. The additional
complexities of school governance require the development of knowledge and leadership skills
(CSBA, 2007).
Election of the School Board
Kirst and Wirt (2009) noted that school boards are small political systems reflecting the
pressures in a democracy that are connected to school and community values of equity,
efficiency, and quality of education. As elected officials, board members must find the balance
between the multitude of expectations that their stakeholder value while trying to navigate
policies and practices that improve student achievement. There are three general methods that
school board elections typically follow: at large, trustee area, and trustee area at large. In an at-
large election, all voters residing in the school district may vote for any school board candidate
running, regardless of geographic location. The trustee area method is when voters may vote
only for a candidate who resides in the same specific geographic area within the school district
and the voter. The trustee at-large method is when all voters residing in the school district may
vote for all candidates running, but candidates must reside in specific areas within the school
district (CSBA, 2007). Although the at-large election method was most commonly held (Kirst &
Wirt, 2009), the trustee area election method has supported a change in the demographics of
school board members. To further support the demographic equity of school board officials,
14

California passed the California Voting Rights Act in 2001, which prohibits running at-large
elections if they hinder minority groups from electing candidates of their choice (Fleming, 2013).
While there is still a discrepancy in the equitable representation of school board members,
through the California Voting Rights Act there has been an increase in Hispanic and African
American representation on school boards (Fraga et al., 2010).
Current Profile of California School Board Members
School boards were created to govern public schools while representing the communities’
needs and values (Hess & Meeks, 2010; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). In 2016–2017, California had 945
school districts with 5,006 governing board members (CSBA, 2017). California is one of the
most diverse states in the country, yet over 50% of the California governing board members are
over the age of 55, 66% are Caucasian, and 19% are Hispanic or Latino (CSBA, 2017). Seventy-
eight percent of school board members have reportedly earned a college degree, with 43%
having postgraduate degrees (CSBA, 2017). According to Grissom (2007), the typical school
board member is a wealthier, better-educated, 55-year-old male. Grissom’s (2007) research
pointed out the disparity between the demographics of school board members and the students
whom they served—a situation that can create a level of disconnect when addressing the
community goals and expectations.
History of the Superintendency
Throughout history, the superintendency has evolved in response to the needs of the
community and the heightened level of responsibility as demand for accountability grew. Early
superintendents were viewed as instructional leaders or master teachers. During the Industrial
Revolution, the superintendency evolved into a manager position when the efficiency of school
districts was questioned. With the hardships of the Great Depression, the position included being
15

a democratic leader as superintendents vied for federal funding and support. The
superintendency role then developed into that of applied social scientist as social tensions
demanded changes in the 1960s and 1970s. As society entered into the technology revolution, the
superintendent’s position further evolved into one of an effective communicator and supporter in
the use of technology in all realms of school, including learning, teaching, and administration
(Glass et al., 2000).
The role of the superintendent was created in 1837 and could be considered that of a
teacher-scholar or schoolmaster (Björk et al., 2014; Callahan, 1966; Glass et al., 2000). Their
primary duties were training and supervising teachers, implementing a state curriculum, and
providing leadership (Kowalski, 2005). Eventually, in the 1890s, the superintendents’ role
progressed into having a dual purpose: focusing on education and business. This role was in
response to the demanding needs of the public school system. The urban population was growing
rapidly, and schools did not have the infrastructure or the finances to support the growth. Class
sizes were excessively large; there were not enough facilities or classrooms to educate students;
teachers were not adequately trained; and sickness was spreading in the schools. For the most
part, school boards did not have control of the issues, as they were too concerned with their own
selfish or political gain (Callahan, 1966).
During the Industrial Revolution (1900–1930), the role of the superintendent evolved into
that of a manager and followed a corporate model of governance. According to Glass et al.
(2000), the board assumed the role of a policymaking body that met periodically, while the
everyday decisions were handled by the superintendent. The efficiency of school operations was
often questioned and business-dominated school boards assigned superintendents management
responsibilities such as budget development and administration, standardization of operation,
16

personnel management, and facility management (Björk, 2014). The efficiency movement
reconfigured the superintendent’s role into positions of district business managers where
superintendents were now planners and thinkers who designed programs for expanding urban
school systems and then evaluated the outcomes as a guide for their subsequent decision-making
(Thomas & Moran, 1992).
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, a need emerged for district superintendents to
act as lobbyists and political strategists to gain financial support and engage communities and
parents (Björk et al., 2014). Prior to this time, the behavior of highly political superintendents
was deemed unprofessional (Björk & Lindle, 2001). However, this opinion faded when it
became obvious that public schools had to compete with other governmental services to receive
state funding, and superintendents acted as a spokesman for education (Kowalski, 2005;
Kowalski & Brunner, 2011). Superintendents were expected to have the knowledge and skills for
community relations and politics, as well as collaborative decision making (Kowalski & Björk,
2005). They were expected to work with the school board to motivate policymakers, employees,
and the community to support their initiatives.
Beginning in the 1950s, when social activism was gaining momentum, the role of
superintendents evolved to applied social scientists, and superintendents were seen as leaders in
education. Superintendents strived to make school administration an established academic
discipline by shifting courses toward social science research and theory (Glass et al., 2000).
During this era of social activism, superintendents had to have the expertise necessary to handle
social and institutional issues such as poverty, racism, gender discrimination, crime, and violence
(Glass et al., 2000). They were expected to apply scientific inquiry to identify and solve
17

problems of practice to ensure that schools were equitable socially, democratically, and
productive (Björk et al., 2014; Glass et al., 2000; Kowalski, 2005).
In response to the technology revolution of the 1970s, the role of the superintendent has
evolved into that of an effective communicator (Björk et al., 2014). This communicator role is
shaped by two conditions: the need to restructure school cultures and the need to access and
promptly use information to identify and solve problems of practice (Björk et al., 2014). As the
advancement of technology progresses, so do the expectations for superintendents to master the
art of communication and to support the use of technology in learning, teaching, and
administration (Glass et al., 2000; Kowalski, 2005). Other ways that the superintendent is
expected to demonstrate the art of communicating is by,
engaging others in open political dialogue, facilitating the creation of shared visions,
building a positive school district image, gaining community support for change,
providing an essential framework for information management, providing marketing
programs, and keeping the public informed about education. (Kowalski, 2005, p. 13)
Each era has been influential in the development and complexity of the superintendency.
As the needs of the community evolved, so did the expectations for superintendents.
Superintendents in the 21st century are required to be instructional leaders and experts in school
reform, policymaking, federal and state accountability measures, finances, and politics.
Additionally, superintendents are expected to develop community partners that can contribute
toward the development of an educational system that supports student achievement (Glass,
2010).
18

Role of School Board Members
To understand the effectiveness of school board members, their roles and responsibilities
must be clearly defined. School boards act as the voice of their constituents as they provide
direction and leadership for the school district. The responsibilities of school boards are vast and
require a deep understanding of governance and leadership skills (CSBA, 2007). The CSBA
(2007) has categorized all the responsibilities and roles of the school board into five major areas:
setting the direction of the school district, establishing an effective and efficient structure for the
district, providing support for the superintendent and personnel, ensuring accountability to the
public, and providing community leadership. The latitude of their role is further described in the
following subsections.
Setting the Direction (Vision and Goals)
Developing and communicating a long-term vision for a school district is one of the vital
roles of a school board (CSBA, 2007; Hanover Research, 2014; Land, 2002; Senge, 1990;
Supovitz, 2006; Thurlow Brenner, 2002). According to Land (2002), the vision statement
embraces two functions: (a) reflecting the consensus of the governance team as to what all
students need to reach their fullest potential and (b) providing direction for the district as they
facilitate student success. As representatives of the community, the school board’s vision and
goals must be reflective of the values of the community as well as those of the governing board
(Land, 2002; Weiss et al., 2014). The success of a school district’s improvement efforts is pivotal
on the establishment of a clear vision that is centered on student achievement (CSBA, 2007).
Korelich and Maxwell’s (2015) study supported this through their finding that governance teams
in highly effective school districts strive toward the same goals while prioritizing student
interests in the decision-making process.
19

Establishing an Effective and Efficient Structure
Policymaking
School board members are sanctioned by the state to govern as a unified body, not as
individuals (Carol et al., 1986; Danzberger, 1992; Kirst, 2008). To effectively govern a school
district, board members must have the ability to be collaborative and reach consensus in order to
exercise their authority (Land, 2002). State laws and local policies clearly state that the focus of
board members must be on governance and leadership while keeping in mind high expectations
for student success. Board members are not to focus on administrative issues, as those are for the
superintendent (Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002).
One of the primary functions of school board members is policymaking. It is an essential
role of the school board as it provides structure and guidance to all stakeholders (Campbell &
Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Danzberger et al.,1987; Ehrensal & First, 2008; Grissom, 2009; Hill
et al., 2002; Hopkins et al., 2007; Kirst, 2008; P. A. Johnson, 2011; Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999).
Another important responsibility of the school board is to assure that state policies are being
implemented locally. In order for board members to oversee states policies effectively, they must
have a good understanding of the extensive list of education codes and board policies (Ehrensal
& First, 2008).
Systems Coherence
Systems coherence is defined by each department in a school district interacting together
and is guided by the district’s vision and goals for student achievement. According to CSBA’s
2017 board research report, this necessary for a systemwide improvement. School boards have
an essential role in nurturing a coherent school district through their initiatives, vision, and goals
that are focused on student achievement (CSBA, 2017; P. A. Johnson, 2011). To ensure
20

sustainable improvement, there must be a balance between the authority of the school district and
site-based flexibility. This balance is supported by systems coherence, as it provides direction on
how sites can approach concerns in a consistent manner that is aligned with school board
initiatives for achieving student growth (CSBA, 2017; Rice et al., 2000). Moreover, the research
of Rice et. al. (2000) found that utilizing data assisted schools to identify and meet students’
needs while continuing to support the district’s goals. To be most effective, systems coherence
requires consistent collaboration among all stakeholders and a deliberate focus on the support
system of interrelated and interdependent departments of the school district (CSBA, 2017).
Culture of Support
Although taken for granted, the culture of a school district is fundamental to the success
of improvement initiatives (CSBA, 2017). Simply put, it is how teachers and staff members work
together to get things done. It is the dominant set of norms, beliefs, values, and attitudes that
drive behavior in the district (CSBA, 2017; Campbell & Greene, 1994). According to CSBA’s
2017 report, the governance teams, including the superintendent, are examples for the school
district, as they model positive and professional relationships. Although a district’s culture
cannot be demanded, there are ways to influence it through trust, promoting positive attitudes
and beliefs, and community engagement (CSBA, 2017; Land, 2002; Weiss et al., 2014). Another
method to foster a culture that is collectively responsible and committed to the conviction that all
students can learn is through the collaborative efforts of the board members and the district
office. Developing policies concerning collaboration and professional learning can be
accomplished when partnering together (CSBA, 2017; Devarics & O’Brien, 2016).
21

Using Data to Inform and Support Continuous Improvement
According to the CSBA (2007), a culture of continuous improvement commences with
the school board establishing a vision and aligning available resources to support the goals.
Effectively utilizing data to assess district programs and monitoring goals can improve
student outcomes. This concept was supported by a study by Waters et al. (2003), who found that
student achievement was significantly connected to district leaders’ support of monitoring
progress toward goals and strategically aligning resources with those goals. An example of this is
board members ensuring that the district office allocates money to professional development and
the funding of data support staff so that the school staff is equipped to effectively use data
(CSBA, 2017).
Providing Support for the Superintendent and Personnel
One of the greatest responsibilities of a school board is hiring the superintendent and
holding that individual responsible for managing the district’s application of and progression
toward the school board’s policies and state laws (Carol et al., 1986; Goodman et al., 1997; Hess
& Meeks, 2010; Land, 2002; Mountford 2004; Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002). It is the
superintendent who acts as the CEO of the school district and turns the district’s vision into
reality (CSBA, 2007; Campbell & Greene, 1994; Ehrensal & First, 2008; Elmore, 2000;
Grissom, 2009; Hill et al., 2002; Hopkins et al., 2007; Kansas Association of School Boards,
2011; Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999). According to Weiss et al. (2014), the districts whose school
board and superintendent work cohesively together and act in the best interest of all stakeholders
are the most effective school districts. For this situation to happen, the relationship among all
members of the governing team, including the superintendent, must be fostered on trust while
focusing on a common vision and goals. However, due to the stressors of each role and the
22

complexities of the responsibilities, the relationship between the school board members and the
superintendent is often strained, thereby making superintendent turnover common (Mountford,
2004). Mountford’s (2004) study found that spending time to build trust through honest and open
communication is essential for the working relationship of the governance team to be improved
and to have a promising impact on student growth.
A part of the school board’s responsibility is to be prepared for turnover in district
leadership by developing explicit strategies to ease the transitional stage. If the vision and goals
are clearly communicated and established throughout the system, newly hired employees are
more likely to support the improvement initiatives instead of hindering progress (CSBA, 2017).
At the onset of the hiring process, the board’s vision and goals should be clearly communicated
to the newly hired superintendent so that progress toward these goals is not impeded.
Ensuring Accountability to the Public
As an elected official, school board members are accountable to their constituents for the
oversight of the district superintendent, the governance of the community’s schools, and ensuring
that state and federal mandates are met (Kirt & Wirst, 2009). According to Thurlow Brenner et
al. (2002), board members should monitor student achievement frequently and regularly. To
monitor how the district vision and goals are progressing, as well as observe the success of board
policies, school board members and district personnel should employ strategies such as visiting
school sites. To keep the community informed, Thurlow Brenner et al. also suggested structuring
the school board sessions to focus on school improvement by holding public hearings and
scheduling monthly board information sessions that link the budget to the performance goals.
23

Community Leaders
Board members are elected community members who represent their constituents.
Generating and sustaining public interest is key to fully representing the needs of their
community. As community leaders, it is important for school board members to assist their
constituents in their pursuit of understanding of how the educational system works (Land, 2002).
Resnick (1999) noted that building a good connection between the school district and the
community requires board members to be actively involved in their community.
Role of the Superintendent
Over time, the role of the superintendent has transformed into a leadership position filled
with complexity. Today’s superintendents are expected not only to be instructional leaders and
policymakers but also to build partnerships within the community to support student academic
achievement (Glass, 2010). Edwards’s (2007) study found that although the superintendent’s role
is broad and can vary slightly from district to district, there are commonalities in an average job
description that include the following:
1. Serving as a chief executive officer of the school board and thus assuming
responsibility for all aspects of the work;
2. Providing leadership planning and evaluating all phases of the instruction
program;
3. Selecting and recommending all personnel to the school board for appointment
and guiding the growth of said personnel;
4. Preparing the budget for submission to the board and administering it after its
adoption;
24

5. Determining building needs and administering building programs, construction,
operations, and maintenance; and
6. Serving as a leader of the school board, the staff, and the community in improving
the educational system. (pp. 10–11)
Edwards’s study also found that while the responsibilities of superintendents are fairly consistent
nationally, local school boards have the ability to expand the role of the superintendent.
In a joint effort, the CSBA and the Association of California School Administrators
(ACSA) established the following set of professional governance standards for the roles and
responsibilities of the superintendent:
 Promotes the success of all students and supports the efforts of the Board of Trustees
to keep the district focused on learning and achievement.
 Values, advocates and supports public education and all stake holders.
 Recognizes and respects the differences of perspective and style on the Board and
among staff, students, parents and the community—and ensures that the diverse range
of views inform board decisions.
 Acts with dignity, treats everyone with civility and respect, and understands the
implications of demeanor and behavior.
 Serves as a model for the value of lifelong learning and supports the Board’s
continuous professional development.
 Works with the Board as a “governance team” and assures collective responsibility
for building a unity of purpose, communicating a common vision and creating a
positive organizational culture.
25

 Recognizes that the board/superintendent governance relationship is supported by the
management team in each district.
 Understands the distinctions between board and staff roles, and respects the role of
the Board as the representative of the community.
 Understands that authority rests with the Board as a whole; provides guidance to the
Board to assist in decision-making; and provides leadership based on the direction of
the Board as a whole.
 Communicates openly with trust and integrity including providing all members of the
Board with equal access to information, and recognizing the importance of both
responsive and anticipatory communications. (CSBA, n.d.b, The Superintendent
section, para. 1)
These governance standards for the superintendency fit well with the California Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL) that identify what an administrator must know and
be capable of doing to successfully move the organization toward his or her goals. The CPSEL
provides a foundation that emphasizes equity, access, opportunity, and empowerment for all
students and the school community as all stakeholders focus on the goal of college and career
readiness for all students (WestEd, 2020).
The leadership and vision of the superintendent strongly influences the direction of each
school in the district. Waters and Marzano (2006) found that district leadership correlates with an
increase in student achievement when superintendents follow five leadership responsibilities:
1. Collaborative goal-setting. Effective superintendents include all significant
stakeholders in the process of determining goals. An example is involving site
26

administrators in the goal-setting process, as principals are responsible for the
implementation of the goals.
2. Non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction. Effective superintendents
establish non-negotiable targets for student achievement and pedagogy. Goals are
created with specific targets for the district as a whole, for individual schools, and
for subgroups of students.
3. Board alignment and support of district goals. Superintendents must guarantee
that the primary focus of the district’s goals and efforts are aligned with the
school board. The school ensures that these goals are supported and are
significant for student achievement.
4. Monitoring achievement and instruction goals. Effective superintendents
consistently monitor student achievement and instructional goals to ensure that
they remain the primary factor behind the school district’s efforts. According to
Waters and Marzano, these goals become nothing more than educational fodder if
they are not monitored. Effective superintendents are continually reviewing the
achievement targets to ensure that this does not happen.
5. Use of resources to support goals. Effective superintendents ensure that resources
are allocated and aligned with the district’s goals through continual monitoring.
This process may require the superintendent to make cuts and to drop initiatives
that are not aligned with the district goals.
The literature has shown that although the role of the superintendent has a variety of
perspectives, there are many common factors. Superintendents must demonstrate expertise in
areas such as fiscal responsibility, community relations, personnel, curriculum and instruction,
27

policy-making (law), and school board relationships. A primary strength of an effective
superintendent is adaptability in an always-changing climate (Kowalski, 2005; S. M. Johnson,
1996).
MIG Program
With increasing internal and external accountability systems, school board members are
faced with increasingly complex challenges that include creating a district’s vision, setting
policy, providing financial oversight, and building and sustaining systems of support that foster
student success. The governance of the school board requires skills and knowledge that can only
be acquired through formalized training, networking, and professional learning (Dillon, 2010).
However, school board foundational programs are not universal or standardized across the
nation, thus resulting in a wide assortment of expectations ranging from voluntary to mandatory.
Roberts and Sampson (2011) noted that out of 26 states, most did not require any formalized
preparation for school board members although state board officials and school board
associations did feel that professional learning is important for effective governance. The NSBA
(2009) reported that 20 states did mandate school board training for board members—a figure
that was almost doubled that of 10 years earlier.
Most educational job positions require that an individual either begin the position with
experience or have some training. However, the minimal requirement for an individual to hold
the elected position of school board member in California is a minimum level of education and
no accompanying formal training (CSBA, 2007). Individuals who hold the position of school
board member carry an immense responsibility to all stakeholders in their community, yet are
not required by the state of California to have any formal training. On average, it can take up to a
year for a newly elected board member to settle into the position and to really understand how to
28

serve in the capacity that their position requires (Bianchi, 2003). The governance of the K-12
educational system includes an intricate balance of accountability, commitments, practices,
actions, and interactions with the surrounding community (Maricle, 2014). Roberts and Sampson
(2011) proposed that participating in governance training can significantly reduce the length of
time for a school board member to become familiarized to the position.
In addition to a lack of training, another factor that can complicate matters is the possible
existence of personal and hidden agendas that cause an individual to pursue a school board
position (Mountford, 2004). This situation can impact a board member’s ability to sufficiently
serve the needs of all students as well as the community.
Although states offer different types of training, the premise is essentially the same in
that the goal is to equip board members with the necessary skills to carry out their obligations.
Some states require only a few hours of training or require it only for newly elected officials,
while some mandate workshops of professional learning for both new and veteran school board
members (Dillon, 2010). In particular, the CSBA (2018b) offers an elective MIG training
program to both new and seasoned school board members to provide them with best practices for
effective governance. This program consists of Foundations for Governance, Policy and Judicial
Review, School Finance, Human Resources, and Community Relations and Advocacy.
Researchers have found that formalized training for school board members positively
influences effective governance (Canal, 2013; Dillon, 2010; Gomez, 2013; Roberts & Sampson,
2011). The CSBA provides MIG professional learning seminars for school board members and
superintendents, and it is recommended that both attend the training simultaneously. To date,
over 2,000 school board members and superintendents have taken advantage of this opportunity,
with 90% of participants recommending the training to fellow colleagues (CSBA, 2018b). Of the
29

90%, all but 10% feel that the training provides pertinent information for effective governance
(CSBA, 2017). The MIG training equips board members with a framework for governance from
which to function that defines roles and responsibilities with an unwavering focus on student
achievement (Richter, 2013).
Prior to 2013, there were nine modules that required 60 hours of training to complete.
However, because the CSBA (2018b) recognized the need for training to be cost effective as well
as efficient professional development, the program was redesigned. The complete MIG training
program is currently a total of 40 hours in five overarching modules that must be completed
within a 2-year period (2018b). In addition to defining the roles and responsibilities of school
governance, the five modules provide participants with an opportunity to examine all issues
through the lens of students:
1. Foundations of Governance. This course covers three areas of focus: trusteeship,
governance, and vision setting.
2. Policy and Judicial Review. This course addresses student learning, use and
development of policy, and judicial appeals.
3. School Finance. This course focuses on the district’s priorities and understanding
the budget. It consists of the balance of achievement and budget, the process for
budget development, and the monitoring and auditing of finances.
4. Human Resources. This course covers collective bargaining, employing a
superintendent and personnel responsibilities, and a culture of accountability.
5. Community Relations and Advocacy. This course consists of community relations
and advocacy, which addresses community leadership, crisis management and
media involvement, and building community support (CSBA, 2018b).
30

The commitment of superintendents and school board members to MIG training creates a
cohesive partnership that serves to define the roles and responsibilities of both positions (Canal,
2013; Gomez, 2013). Through this progression of learning, student achievement is delineated as
the foundational basis for the work, where district goals are aligned with a collective vision using
data to consistently inform decision making (Canal, 2013). The collaborative relationship among
the governance team members fosters an acceptance of majority voting even when there is
opposition (Canal, 2013). Maintaining professional relations while keeping students as a top
priority assists in situations that are complex and controversial.
School districts with board members who are eager to acquire new and ongoing
information and to participate in training such as the MIG program demonstrate an increased
focus on student achievement during board meetings, consistently use data to make informed
decisions regarding student achievement, and value the alignment of the district’s vision and
goals with the decision-making process (Canal, 2013; Maricle, 2014). The professional standards
produced from collaborative training establish the focus, behavior, and practices necessary to
facilitate change (Canal, 2013). The positive relationship built between superintendents and
school board members after participating in formal training can have an overwhelming influence
on the success of a school district (Center for Public Education, 2011). Many researchers have
described this relationship as a shared leadership in service to a diverse set of stakeholders
(Waters & Marzano, 2006; Weiss et al., 2014).
Accountability
Public education began to identify a great need for accountability in 1983, when the
National Commission on Excellence in Education published a study entitled A Nation at Risk.
This study predicted the unseating of the U.S. position as a leading nation if substantial changes
31

were not made to the educational system. Since then, the primary element in school reform has
been accountability with student achievement as the foundation for accountability measures
(Timar, 2003). Although school boards do not have control over the state and federal policies
and mandated compliance measures, they are tasked to meet the challenges and to conduct
business according to these mandates and to support school sites as they strive to meet state and
federal accountability measures (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004).
According to McGuinn (2006), school boards have become more accountable to federal
and state oversight and mandates over the last 100 years. The 2001 reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 otherwise known as No Child Left
Behind (NCLB; 2002), was the first to prioritize accountability. Currently, school boards are
responsible for overseeing the Every Student Succeeding Act (ESSA) of 2015 (Klein, 2016; U.S.
Department of Education, n.d.), which is the most recent reauthorization of ESEA. Additionally,
school boards in California are responsible for overseeing the English Language Proficiency
Assessment for California (ELPAC), the California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress (CAASPP) and the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP; CDE, 2020c). The CDE
outlined 10 state priority areas that are used to measure the achievement of school districts. A
district’s LCAP addresses the 10 priority areas as it plans for student achievement, spending, and
providing goods and services. The 10 state priorities are also targeted in the statewide
accountability system, the California Dashboard (CDE, 2020b). The California Dashboard uses a
color scale to represent the school’s current level of performance. This system of accountability
is to ensure that all students are demonstrating growth and have an equitable education (CDE,
2020b).
32

Effective leadership conducted by the school board creates a collaborative and shared
accountability system. Each year, school boards review the accountability measures and have an
obligation to respond to their findings (Gemberling et al., 2000). Today’s climate insists on
increased accountability and transparency, thus creating greater demands on school boards. They
must adhere to regulations and policies created by the state and federal government, educational
code and board policies, and contracts from bargaining units. Measures and outcomes used to
determine achievement levels, compliance, and the success of the school district must be
thoroughly understood by each board member.
Theoretical Framework
Three frameworks were used in this study to analyze the literature and to give context to
the processes that school boards experience as they govern school districts: Reframing
Organizations (Bolman & Deal, 2008); the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000), and
CSBA’s (2018a) Effective Governance System. These frameworks provide foundational
information regarding school board–superintendent relationships and examine the roles and
responsibilities, the setting, and the governance authority and leadership capacity of school
boards and superintendents. Each theory provides an outline for successful relationships and
outcomes.
Four Frames
Bolman and Deal (2008) presented a framework for leadership and management through
four frames: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. The four frames create an
organized method to review leadership models, identify problems, and suggest organizational
solutions. In this framework, both leadership and management are equally important and
33

decisions impact multiple frames. The key to leadership and management is the ability to frame
organizational issues. The four frames can be applied to organizations of any size.
Structural Frame
Working within the structural frame is to focus on the structural elements of an
organization and how each group works together cohesively. When applying this frame to the
school board, it is members understanding their individual roles and responsibilities as they
provide direction, vision, and develop strategic goals. There must be strong communication
between the superintendent and board members to assist in the decision-making process as they
strive to efficiently allocate resources to increase student success.
Human Resource Frame
Simply put, the human resource frame focuses on the people in the organization. Within
this frame are principles for relationships between people and the organization, ranging from
informal roles to leadership roles. Informal roles give members a choice in what responsibilities
they are comfortable with, such as choosing a committee they are interested in serving on.
Leadership roles help the group to develop a shared vision as well as provide direction and
commitment. When looking at the school board through the human resource frame, board
members must effectively manage the processes and their influence over the organization.
Political Frame
According to Bolman and Deal (2008), the political frame is a complex network of
individual and group interests. There are many naturally diverse interests in a school district,
ranging from students to government agencies, which must be continually addressed. As elected
officials, board members have constituents they represent. Although unions often endorse
candidates for school board, if elected, these individuals may not always be able to reciprocate
34

support (e.g., union requesting salary raises) because a school district must be fiscally solvent.
School boards are dependent on accurate and reliable information from the district administration
as school board policies and administrative regulations are being developed and approved. The
distribution of information is a source of power and thus relates to the political frame.
Symbolic Frame
When working within the symbolic frame, a leader is creating meaning. It is the
organization’s culture and core assumptions and traditions. It requires listening and blending
various perspectives, values, and rituals into an overarching theme. The actions that board
members take to implement legislative, executive, and judicial expectations develop a symbolic
frame for the school district. The school board is continually working within the symbolic frame
with actions such as renewing a superintendent’s contract, which symbolizes trust in the
superintendent’s leadership and vision.
The Lighthouse Inquiry
The Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000) is a study to determine whether school board
leadership affects student achievement and whether there are certain behaviors that should be
measured. The Lighthouse Inquiry research suggests that school boards do have an impact on
student achievement. One of the goals of the study was to identify patterns of organizational
behavior and practices that contributed to high student achievement and whether those behaviors
were transferable. Participants (school board and superintendents) in the study were selected
from both high- and low-achieving districts to compare governance practices with student
results. The longitudinal study was conducted from 1998 to 2000 and included 159 interviews by
a five-member research team. The research was founded on a line of inquiry based on questions
such as “Do some school boards generate higher achievement than others do? And, if so, do they
35

do so through patterns of organizational behavior that can be described and learned by others?”
(Rice, et al., 2000, p. 16).
The conclusions for the Lighthouse Inquiry were based on data gathered in three phases.
During Phase I, data were collected to identify demographic, academic, and ethnographic
information concerning numerous districts. In Phase II, researchers examined possible influences
on student achievement. Phase III focused on gathering best practices from districts that
demonstrated strong working relationships between school boards and superintendents, as well
as high student achievement. The findings identified seven conditions for productive governance
change:
 Emphasis on building a human organizational system,
 Ability to create and sustain initiatives,
 Supportive workplace for staff,
 Staff development,
 Support for school sites through data and information,
 Community involvement, and
 Integrated leadership. (Rice et al., 2000, p. 7)
The Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al. 2000) found that the understanding and beliefs of school
boards in high-achieving districts and the presence of the seven conditions for productive
governance changes were markedly different from school boards in low-achieving districts.
CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards
The CSBA (n.d.a) has established professional governance standards to support school
board effectiveness and high student achievement. The Professional Governance Standards
36

encompass two major areas: how to operate as a governing body and how to operate as an
individual.
According to the CSBA (2018a), the key responsibilities of the board are to set a
direction for the district, to provide a structure by establishing policies, to ensure accountability,
and to provide community leadership on behalf of the district and public education. The CSBA
has noted “that the beliefs, decisions, and action of school boards directly impact the conditions
within schools that enable district efforts to improve achievement to either succeed or fail”
(Delagardelle, 2008, p. 240).
Chapter Summary
With increasing demands on schools to produce well-educated and globally competitive
individuals, it is essential for the superintendent and school board members to be in alignment
when developing informed policy decisions. Studies have found that the most successful school
districts have cohesiveness between the superintendent and school board. They are working
together toward the same goals and always have the best interests of students at the forefront of
the decision-making process (Korelich & Maxwell, 2015; Weiss et al., 2014). When the
collective group is united with common values and purpose and is strategically engaged in
achieving the goals, there is little room for conflict and community misunderstanding (Weiss et
al., 2014). Elected board members have limited terms, and this situation can create continuous
change for the school board with respect to the decision-making process and the development of
policy (Korelich & Maxwell, 2015). With continuous change comes the necessity for training on
the role and function of the school board. Dillon’s (2010) study supports this necessity, adding
that formalized training and professional development provide participants with the skills
required to lead an organization through change. The MIG program, a formal training program
37

that is offered through CSBA (2018b), has five modules that are designed to equip school board
members and superintendents with knowledge and skills in the areas of Foundations in
Governance, Policy and Judicial Review, School Finance, Human Resources, and Community
Relations and Advocacy. The Center for Public Education (2011) has contended that formal
training fosters positive relationships among all participants that can have a great influence on
the success of a school district. High levels of accountability from all stakeholders necessitate the
demand for cohesive leadership that has a firm foundation in the knowledge and skills required
to lead a school district.

38

Chapter Three: Research Methodology
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Research Design
The intent of this qualitative study was to determine whether school board training
positively impacted the performance indicators for school districts and improved the relationship
between school boards and superintendents. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), a
qualitative approach is appropriate when studying the relationship between two variables. This
study examined the impact that school board training has on school board governance and
student achievement and the relationship between the school board members and
superintendents, thus making the qualitative approach most appropriate.
39

For this study, the research team consisted of 20 doctoral candidates from the Rossier
School of Education of the University of Southern California, under the leadership of Dr.
Michael Escalante. Because this was a group project, some sections of the dissertations may
necessarily be similar. Data collection for this study was through two research instruments:
surveys for school board members and superintendents and interview guides for both groups of
participants. These instruments were designed collaboratively by the research team, aligned to
the three research questions, and directly correlated to the theoretical frameworks. Utilizing
multiple data sources permitted the data to be triangulated, thereby allowing for increased
credibility and validity in the data collection.
The three frameworks that were foundational to this study were Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) four-frame model for effective leadership; the Lighthouse Inquiry study of key areas of
board performance, commissioned by the Iowa Association of School Boards (Rice et al., 2000);
and CSBA’s (n.d.a) Professional Governance Standards. The four-frame model identifies
practices that contribute to the overall success of school governance through four lenses or
frames (i.e., political, human resources, symbolic, and structural; Bolman & Deal, 2008). The
Lighthouse Inquiry identifies specific behaviors of the governing school board that are associated
with a district’s success factors (Rice et al., 2000). The Professional Governance Standards
(CSBA, n.d.a) identify the expectations of school board members. These theoretical frameworks
are summarized in Figure 1.

40

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework for Study

Note. IASB = Iowa Association of School Boards; CSBA = California School Boards
Association. Based on Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership 4th ed.), by
L.G. Bolman and T. E. Deal, 2008, Jossey-Bass; Professional Governance Standards, by
California School Boards Association, n.d.,
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/ProfessionalGovSt
andards.aspx; and 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, C. Jons, W. Lueders, M. J. Vens, J. Bruce, J. Wolf, & J. Weathersby,
2000, Iowa Association of School Boards, ERIC, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453172.pdf

Sample Population and Participants
According to Maxwell (2013), one of the goals for purposeful selection is to choose
participants who will best allow researchers to answer their research questions. The people are
41

selected to represent the positions needed to gather accurate information about the research
questions—which in the present study was gaining a better understanding of the impact that
school board training has had on school governance and student achievement and how school
board training influenced the relationship between superintendents and school board members.
The sample of this study was from a voluntary population of superintendents and school
board members from 12 California counties: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura.
Participants were recruited via email (see Appendix A) by the research team based on the
districts that met the study’s criteria for participation.
Selection of participants was based on criterion sampling strategies that were developed
and utilized by the research team to ensure that participating districts met specific criteria: (a)
school district was a public school district, (b) district was in California; and (c) majority of
school board members had participated in MIG training.
Instrumentation
The research team worked collaboratively to develop and revise the data instruments for
this study: a school board member survey (see Appendix B), a superintendent survey (see
Appendix C), a school board member interview guide (see Appendix D), and a superintendent
interview guide (see Appendix E). The recruitment and information letter as well as the surveys
were emailed to district superintendents and school board members of the districts meeting the
designated criteria. Potential participants were given the opportunity to show a willingness to
participate in the study by documenting consent (see Appendix F).
42

The surveys for school board members and superintendents were developed by the
research team. Each survey consisted of 20 questions of open-ended and/or a scaled response
with four choices increasing in value (ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree).
Questions were aligned with the research questions (see Appendix G) and frameworks and were
identical in nature. Through the administration of the school board member survey, the research
team was seeking input about training and how it had impacted school board members and
student achievement, if at all. Although identical in design, the survey questions for the
superintendents were constructed to obtain the superintendents’ perspectives on the impact of
MIG training on school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective
governance. These surveys were designed to identify the benefit, if any, of the MIG training and
its implications for improving the relationship between school boards and superintendents, as
well as the impact on performance indicators for school districts.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) provided guidelines to help researchers to determine what
type of structure should be followed, and this research team chose semi structured. The interview
protocol had a list of questions to guide the interview; the questions were read but not necessarily
verbatim. Patton’s (2002) different types of questioning were followed when formulating the
questions for the interview. All the questions were focused on the three research questions and
concepts found in the literature review and were identical in content and format. The interview
guides for both superintendents and school board members consisted of 13 open-ended
questions. Questions were written to include probes that were likely to elicit rich responses. Each
interview guide contained questions to probe participants’ perspectives and beliefs regarding the
impact of the MIG training program on effective governance and student achievement. As stated
by Patton, the specific purpose of interviewing allows an opportunity for the researcher to access
43

the individual’s perspectives and perceptions. The structure of the interviews was designed to
take approximately 30–45 minutes. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted
through the virtual Zoom™ conference platform or over the phone.
Data Collection
A qualitative design approach was implemented to gather research data in the spring and
summer of 2020 and utilize the surveys and interview protocols for data collection. Once the
research team had received IRB approval, recruitment and information letters were sent via email
to potential participants who met the criteria of the study. The recruitment and information letters
provided possible candidates with the purpose of the study, described the confidentiality and
participant anonymity protocols, provided an opportunity to indicate consent to participate, and
included contact information for the research member. Participation in this study was strictly
voluntary, and those who agreed to participate in this study were required to provide written
consent of their agreement, in accordance with the IRB guidelines.
The research team emailed a survey folder to the participating school board members and
superintendents. Each folder contained a recruitment and information letter, a consent to
participate form, and a digital survey.
Interviews were conducted to provide another means of obtaining data to determine
whether school board training improved the relationship between school boards and
superintendents and whether the training affected the impact on performance indicators for
school districts. Interviews began in the summer of 2020 and were scheduled at the convenience
of the participants. Each research member conducted semi structured interviews using the
interview guides developed by the research team. Each interview with the superintendents lasted
approximately 15–20 minutes; interviews with board members lasted between 20 and 25
44

minutes. All interviews included an introduction and overview of the study, a review of the
informed consent, the interview questions, and closing comments.
Each research team member asked all qualifying board members and superintendents
from three districts to participate in the study. Districts that had a minimum of two school board
members and the superintendent agreeing to participate were included in the study. Interviews
were conducted either virtually or held over the phone due to the COVID-19 pandemic—
whichever method was more convenient for the participant. Notes were taken to record thoughts
that the researcher had during and after the interviews. Upon consent of the participants, all
interviews were recorded and transcribed electronically using the audio recording and
transcription service of rev.com to assist in limiting variances and biases.
The research team made every effort to maintain confidentiality and to protect participant
privacy. Audio data will be destroyed immediately after transcription, and all other data and
information will be kept for 3 years.
Data Analysis
All data collected from the surveys and interviews were coded and analyzed by members
of the research team in reference to the study’s three research questions and then compared to the
literature review in Chapter Two, thus allowing for triangulation of the data. According to Patton
(2002), triangulation is essential as it allows for multiple data sources to be combined and
compared as they are analyzed—a process that increases accuracy and strengthens the validity of
the research findings. Data were collected and combined from all participating school districts.
Coding all data from the surveys and interviews involved the thematic analysis of seeking
out relationships, differences, and commonality through the four-step process of empirical
coding (Harding, 2013):
45

1. The survey results and the interview transcripts and notes were analyzed to
identify initial patterns and trends.
2. Codes were written to summarize the data and select the points that were
prominent.
3. The list of code was reviewed and revised. As data were synthesized, strong
patterns and trends were identified and referenced to the three research questions.
4. The researchers looked for themes and findings in each category.
Throughout the coding process, the research team continually referred to the three research
questions to ensure that in-depth understanding of whether school board training had improved
the relationship between school boards and superintendents and whether the training had affected
the impact on performance indicators for school districts.
Ethical Considerations
The research team participated in the IRB’s protocols. The process of obtaining approval
from the IRB included completing the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI)
course entitled Human Research for Social-Behavioral Human Subjects. The course consists of
five elective modules from which each researcher had to complete six and pass each test with a
minimum accumulated average score of 80%. The purpose of the CITI training program is to
train researchers to be aware of all possible ethical considerations that might arise in the research
prior to conducting the study. To protect the anonymity of the participants, pseudonyms were
used.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has described the research methods designed by the research team to acquire
information and data pertaining to the three research questions. The research methodology
46

consisted of a detailed description of the research design, study participants, instrumentation,
data collection, data analysis, and ethical considerations. A grounded-theory approach was
utilized to determine the impact of MIG training on school board governance and student
achievement as well as the relationship between school board members and superintendents.

47

Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this qualitative study was to determine whether school board training
improved the relationship between board members and their superintendents and how it affected
the impact on performance indicators for school districts. This process included examining the
benefit of MIG training and its implications for board members’ ability to exhibit the
characteristics of effective governance as well as the perceptions of school board members and
superintendents regarding the impact of MIG training on school governance and student
achievement.
This chapter presents the findings from the analysis of the data collected through surveys
and interviews both by this individual researcher and collectively as a research team. The
triangulation of data points was guided by the following three research questions to determine
whether California’s MIG training program for school board members did improve the
relationship between board members and their superintendents and positively impact student
achievement and growth. The following questions guided the study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Participants
Each member of the research team identified at least three California school districts to
participate in the study using the criteria stated in Chapter Three: (a) public school districts, (b)
districts located in California, and (c) districts where the majority of school board members had
48

participated in MIG training. All qualifying members of the school governance team were asked
to participate in the study; a minimum of two board members from each district had to agree to
participate for the district to be included in the study. A total of 62 districts participated, with a
total of 62 superintendents and 180 school board members (see 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

49

Each researcher conducted interviews with the superintendents and school board
members from three districts. Additionally, all participants completed the online survey (see
Appendices B and C). In order to protect the anonymity of the participants, districts were
assigned pseudonyms, as summarized in Table 2.

Table 2
Summary of Pseudonyms Used in Study
District Pseudonyms Participants’ Pseudonyms
District A Superintendent A
Board Member A1
Board Member A2
District B Superintendent B
Board Member B1
Board Member B2
District C Superintendent C
Board Member C1
Board Member C2

50

District A
District A was a large urban school district located in San Bernardino County. At the time
of this study, there are 29 schools serving approximately 25,000 students, with nearly 90% of the
student population being socioeconomically disadvantaged. According to the California School
Dashboard (CDE, 2020a), student performance in both English Language Arts (ELA) and math
were in the yellow performance level, which indicated that students as a collective group were
not meeting grade-level standards, as measured by the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment
or the California Alternative Assessment. This state assessment is taken annually by students in
Grades 3–8 and 11. The California School Dashboard also reported a 1.6% growth to the
graduation rate, increasing it to nearly 92%.
Although this district qualified for the study, the majority of the board members chose
not to participate due to current circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing that they were
too busy, had too much going on, or were too stressed. Only two board members volunteered to
participate. The second school board member who participated in the study had served on the
school board for over 12 years and each year had attended classes and training offered through
the CSBA; however, he had not attended MIG. It was determined that with his vast experience,
training, and knowledge of the courses offered by the CSBA, he would be permitted to
participate in the study.
District B
District B was a mid-size urban Transitional Kindergarten (TK) to 8th-grade school
district located in San Diego County. At the time of this study, there were 27 schools serving
over 16,000 students, with approximately 68% of their student population identified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged. According to the California School Dashboard (CDE, 2020a),
51

student performance in both ELA and math were in the orange performance level, which
indicates that students as a collective group were not meeting grade-level standards as measured
by the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment or the California Alternative Assessment. It
must be noted that while the majority of the board members did complete MIG, the
superintendent did not. However, given the experience and the knowledge base that the
superintendent had with the topics covered in the MIG training, this district was part of the study
as the focus was primarily on the effectiveness of school board member training. Only two of the
five board members volunteered to participate in this study; no specific reason was given as to
why there was a lack of participation.
District C
District C was a mid-size urban school district located in Alameda County. At the time of
this study, there were 15 schools serving nearly 15,000 students, with approximately 9% of the
student population identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. According to the California
School Dashboard (CDE, 2020a), student performance in both ELA and math was in the blue
performance level, indicating that students as a collective group were meeting grade-level
standards as measured by the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment or the California
Alternative Assessment. The California School Dashboard also reported a 1% decline in the
graduation rate, which was over 96%. Only two of the five board members volunteered to
participate in this study, citing that this was a stressful and incredibly busy time.
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. Over the years, the roles and responsibilities of the
governing board have grown more complex as they have been entrusted by their community to
52

demonstrate a thorough understanding of what is needed to lead their organization. However, as
most board members are elected with little knowledge or training to assume their roles as
members of the governing school board, professional learning is needed to build capacity in a
collaborative format while focusing on continuous improvement (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). In
order to be a highly effective governing board, each member must work cohesively and be
equipped with a strong understanding in areas such as policy making, school finance,
accountability, and human resources.
Participants in this study were asked to identify the factors that motivated them in their
decision to participate in the MIG training. When analyzing the data collected through the
surveys and interviews, three primary themes could be found for determining factors that
impacted board members’ decisions to participate in the MIG training program: having a desire
to learn and being prepared, the cultural expectations or influence of other board members and
the superintendent, and the accessibility of the training.
Having a Desire to Learn and Be Prepared
The data collected from interviews and surveys revealed that all participants had a desire
to learn all facets of their position and thereby to be prepared for their role as members of the
school board governance team. The MIG training provides best practices for effective
governance, including Foundations for Governance, Policy and Judicial Review, School Finance,
Human Resources, and Community Relations and Advocacy (CSBA, 2018b). Looking at this
theme through the lens of Bolman and Deal’s (2008) structural frame, it affirmed the need of the
governing board members to understand their role and responsibilities in an organization as they
provided direction and vision and developed strategic goals.
53

Feeling the urgency to be prepared, Board Member C1 commented that “it seems like it
should be your responsibility, right? You’re signing up for this thing to represent the community
and provide governance to an institution that’s educating our kids and our community.”
Additionally, superintendents were motivated to attend MIG to learn more and to be prepared.
Superintendent A stated that they attended MIG training because of the “need to acquire more
knowledge, more information on what the job entails,” while Superintendent C shared that he
attended MIG “to get as much information as I possibly could.” These statements collected in the
interviews were aligned with Bolman and Deal’s (2008) structural frame.
Table 3 shows the group survey results from the superintendents and board members
when asked to identify the primary factor(s) that influenced school board members to participate
in the MIG training. Participants were allowed to select multiple answers. Both superintendents
and board members identified self-motivation as a primary reason to attend MIG training.
However, effective governance ranked close to self-motivation for board members as the main
reason to attend MIG. These results aligned with this individual researcher’s survey results.

54

Table 3
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.

When asked to rank the MIG modules in order of importance to their role as a member of
the school governance team, both superintendents and board members ranked the module
Foundation in Governance as their top choice. This finding concurred with this individual
researcher’s survey results with a slight variance in the board members results, where three out
of six ranked Foundation in Governance as their top choice, two out of six ranked School
Finance as their top choice, and one out of six selected Community Relations as their top choice.
Table 4 shows the results of the responses from the superintendents; Table 5, the results of the
responses from the board members.

55

Table 4
Superintendents’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in Order of Importance to
Their Roles as a Member of the Governance Team (N = 62)

Ranking

Module #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Foundation in Governance 54 3 2 1 1
Policy and Judicial Review 2 19 22 9 9
School Finance 2 25 16 16 2
Human Resources 2 6 6 23 24
Community Relations 1 8 15 12 25

56

Table 5
School Board Members’ Rankings of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in Order of
Importance to Them as Members of the Governance Team (N = 180)
Ranking
Module #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Foundation in Governance 119 34 9 10 8
Policy and Judicial Review 21 63 48 27 21
School Finance 30 56 57 26 11
Human Resources 2 10 33 67 68
Community Relations 8 17 33 50 72

Cultural Expectations (Influence)
The Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000) identified the seven conditions for productive
governance change in high-achieving school districts, one of which was the emphasis on
building a human organizational system. This includes cohesiveness and functioning as a team.
For this condition to happen, members of the governance team must have a deep understanding
of their role and nurture an expectation of acquiring knowledge among the board members.
Most of the participants in this study agreed that board members did influence one another to
attend MIG. Board Member B2 noted, “It [attending MIG] was highly encouraged by the current
board members that were on the board serving with me at that time.” This comment was
supported by the survey results that found that 167 out of 180 board members agreed or strongly
57

agreed that their school board culture encouraged participation in MIG, as summarized in Table
6.

Table 6
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

58

When discussing the culture of expectation and what influenced board members to attend
MIG, Superintendent C shared:
Actually, quite a bit in that all of them [board members] kind of agreed that it’s
something that new board members need to go through. It’s not a policy per se, but it’s
just a shared commitment of the group. It’s [attending MIG] one of the shared
commitments that the board has that they hold each other accountable to. They have
expectations with regards to new board members coming onto the board. I think
everybody together agrees that they need to go through the course.
The superintendent’s influence regarding MIG also impacted the board members’
decision. Most of the board members from these three districts had worked with multiple
superintendents and had mixed experiences of being encouraged to attend MIG. For instance,
Board Member C1 had worked with three superintendents in the 12 years that she had been on
the board. The experience with the first superintendent was very different from that with the
current superintendent. When reflecting as a new board member, Board Member C1 stated that
“he’d really discouraged us. We didn’t even have support, so we went into it [MIG] not really
even having support [of the superintendent].” This opinion was contrary to the data collected
from the superintendents, who indicated positive support for board members to attend MIG.
Superintendent C stated, “I think helping the board members, especially newly elected board
members, see the value [of] investing that time . . . I think there’s a lot of value there.”
All participants in the study were asked whether school board training should be
mandated in California. Fifty-seven out of 62 superintendents agreed or strongly agreed that
school board training should be mandatory (see Table 7). Although Superintendent A’s interview
response to that question supported the survey results of the group, he did add a qualifying
59

statement to his answer, “My first reaction would be yeah, absolutely it should be mandated or
required, [but] it still depends on the individual and whether or not it makes a difference for
them.” One hundred thirty-eight out of 180 board members agreed or strongly agreed that school
board training should be mandatory. Board Member B2s interview response aligned with the
survey results of the group: “I agree completely. I think that there’s a lot of folks that don’t take
the opportunity or the time to be educated on their job once they get it, and because of that it
creates discord.”

Table 7
Responses of Superintendents and Board Members Regarding Whether Masters in Governance
Training Should Be Mandated in California
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 40 65 73 41
Agree 17 27 65 36
Disagree 5 8 37 20
Strongly Disagree 0 0 5 3

60

Accessibility to Board Members
The third primary theme that impacted a board member’s decision to participate in MIG was
accessibility. The factors in this theme included proximity of location, cost, and time.
Although there was not much research to support this theme, the CSBA redesigned its program
in 2013 from nine modules to five modules and reduced the time required to complete the
training from 60 hours to 40 hours. These changes were made as the organization recognized the
need for the training to be cost effective as well as efficient with time (CSBA 2018b). In the
surveys and interviews, both board members and superintendents contended that it would be
more advantageous to have the training at their own site (see Table 8). Superintendent B stated,
“It would be more effective for a board to have a facilitator come and do it [the training] with the
board and the superintendent.” However, Superintendents A and C agreed that holding the
training in more locations would make it easier for people to fit it into their schedules because it
was a “big time commitment.”

Table 8
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.
61

When considering the cost to attend MIG, this individual researcher found that only
board members mentioned the cost of the training as factoring into the decision to attend MIG
during the interviews. For example, Board Member B1 stated:
Maybe if we could schedule one [MIG training] through the county offices, then maybe
that would alleviate a lot of travel, a lot of spending that we probably can’t afford to do.
Staying overnight and hotels, meals, all that stuff. Maybe we could eliminate that if we
just had cost efficiency.
This individual researcher found the survey results did align with the data collected from
the interviews. All three superintendents disagreed that the cost of the MIG training program
impeded board members from attending while one out of six board members agreed that the cost
deterred them from attending. While the superintendents’ results aligned with the group of 62
superintendents, the results from the board members varied slightly, as shown in Table 9.

62

Table 9
Participants’ Responses to Whether the Current Cost of the Masters in Governance Training
Program Impeded School Board Members From Participating
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 3 5 14 8
Agree 11 18 62 34
Disagree 35 56 89 50
Strongly Disagree 13 21 15 8

Summary of Results for Research Question 1
The complexity and accountability of school district governance are continually
advancing, and with this continuous change comes the necessity for school board members to be
equipped with the knowledge and skills that MIG offers. When focusing on the factors that
motivated board members to attend MIG training, the data collected for Research Question 1
suggested that there were three primary motivating factors. First, board members decided to
attend MIG training because they had a desire to learn and be prepared for their position as one
of the members of the governing board. Second, the cultural expectations or influence of other
board members and the superintendent weighed considerably into the board members’ decision
to attend MIG training. Third, the accessibility of the training did impact a board member’s
decision to attend MIG training, especially the proximity or location of the training and the cost.

63

Results for Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked how the MIG training program encourages and equips school
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance. The governance of the
school board must be prepared to address the growing demands placed on school districts.
Continuous change leads to the necessity for professional learning; and according to Dillon
(2010), school board governance requires skills and knowledge that may be acquired only
through formalized training, networking, and professional learning. Roberts and Sampson (2011)
found that in addition to acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills, all members of the
governance team must work cohesively to be highly effective. Additionally, much research has
shown that formal training for school board members has a positive influence on effective
governance (Canal, 2013; Dillon, 2010; Gomez, 2013; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Participants in this study were asked how the MIG training encouraged and equipped
them to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance. When analyzing the data collected,
three prominent themes emerged: that MIG clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of the
governance team, that board members understood the importance of setting the direction
(vision), and that MIG strongly encouraged cohesiveness among the governance team members.
Defining Roles and Responsibilities
The roles and responsibilities of a school board have grown more challenging and
complex as accountability measures have increased (Bianchi, 2003; Danzberger, 1994; Land,
2002; Timar, 2003). For the governance team to be effective, they must have a strong
understanding of governance and leadership skills (CSBA, 2007). The CSBA (2018a) has
established professional governance standards to support school board effectiveness and high
student achievement. Additionally, the structural frame of Bolman and Deal’s (2008) leadership
64

model focuses on the structural elements of an organization where school board members must
understand their individual roles and responsibilities as they provide direction, vision, and
develop strategic goals.
Data collected from this individual researcher’s interviews found that board members
attributed the MIG training for acquiring an understanding of their role on the school board.
Board Member B1 remarked:
Yeah, [it] a 100% helped me govern my district because I understood my role better. No
one on the face of the planet can tell me what to do in my role unless they have the
credentials and the credibility, because they’ve gone through MIG.
Board Member C2s statement affirmed this finding: “I think we all have a clear understanding of
the role of a board and the function of a board, and also what isn’t the role of the board.” This
comment aligned with the data collected from the board members’ survey of 180 participants, as
shown in Table 10.

Table 10
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Clarified the
Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 117 65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly Disagree 1 1
65

During the interviews and in response to how MIG equips board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective school governance, board members shared how they have noticed the
growth in their colleagues after attending MIG training. Board Member B2 noted:
I have seen new board members come onto the board and take the training right away,
and they are so much more well equipped to handle and understand things. They ask
more poignant questions. They dig deeper into their board docs. They dig deeper into the
finance pieces rather than just rubber-stamping things. I think that they have tools that
they wouldn’t have had otherwise that help them do a better job at being on the board.
Superintendent B had also noticed the impact MIG training had on board members. He stated
that “board members come back from it [the training] understanding their job and their role.”
This opinion aligned with the data from the results from the survey of 62 superintendents, as
shown in Table 11.

Table 11
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether Board Members Who Were Masters in Governance
Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the Differences Between Their Roles and
Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 1 2

66

Both board members and superintendents indicated that MIG training impacted their
ability to govern effectively (see Table 12). Board Member C2 noted: “It gives you a good
background. It gives you things, perspectives that you don’t necessarily think about. Then it
walks you through processes of how you can gather input, how you can make decisions.” Board
Member A2 shared that “these trainings help school board members understand different aspects
and different areas of governing.” These opinions were supported by Superintendent C, who
commented that “it gives everybody a base understanding of what the laws are surrounding
school governance and how it relates to them.”

Table 12
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

67

Setting the Direction (Vision)
The school board, as elected officials, serves as the voice of their constituents and sets
goals that are reflective of the community values as well as the governing board (Land, 2002;
Delagardelle, 2008; Weiss et al., 2014). The CSBA (2007) identified setting the direction or
vision as one of the key responsibilities of the school board, emphasizing that establishing a clear
vision centered on student achievement is pivotal for the success of a school district’s
improvement efforts. Studies have shown that governance teams in highly effective school
districts focus on common goals (Korelich & Maxwell, 2015). Bolman and Deal’s (2008)
structural, political, and symbolic frames were integrated throughout this theme. Structurally, the
board must work together to provide direction, vision, and to develop strategic goals. Politically,
board members must accurately represent their constituents as they govern the school district.
Symbolically, the board is listening and blending various perspectives, values, and rituals into a
common focus to create meaning and provide direction.
Data collected from the interviews of this individual researcher affirmed that the MIG
training equipped board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance as they
set the direction. As a representative of the community, board members must integrate the voice
of their constituents with the ideas or innovation of the school district staff—a situation that can
be challenging. Board Member B1 stated, “It helped me to understand how to really bring unity
between district and community.” When asked what improvements and growth could be
attributed to MIG, the superintendent from the same district (Superintendent B) noted:
Well, I think that the vision and the community engagement aspect, having the board act
as the brand ambassador and helping them lead the communication with their constituent
groups, allows the district to be able to innovate. So, our district, we use quite a lot of
68

innovation and technology and specialty programs, and that wouldn’t be possible without
a shared vision.
Throughout the interview, Board Member C1 indicated that the “Setting Directions [module]
was probably the most helpful” and then later in the interview added that “if you’re not a high-
functioning team, you can’t set the direction.” Board Member A1 shared that “[MIG helps]
everyone to get on the same page and ask [questions] like, “What do you want to see the students
achieve specifically for your community? It focuses a board.” Tables 13 and 14 show the survey
results regarding the impact that MIG training had on the importance of aligning the decision-
making process with the district’s vision and goals through the perspective of the board members
and the superintendents.

Table 13
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of the Masters in Governance
Training, They 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 3 1

69

Table 14
Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process to the
District’s Vision and Goals
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 31 50
Agree 30 48
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 0 0

Cohesiveness
In addition to the importance of having the knowledge and skills to lead a school district,
the effectiveness of school governance relies strongly on the members’ ability to work
cohesively. Research has shown that the most effective school districts have cohesiveness
between the superintendent and school board as they are working together toward the same goals
and always have the best interests of the students in the decision-making process (Korelich &
Maxwell, 2015; Weiss et al., 2014). Both Bolman and Deal’s (2008) political frame and the
CSBA’s (2007) professional governance standards emphasize the importance of collaboration
and operating with transparency to promote trust and integrity among all stakeholders.
Additionally, Land’s (2002) research found that in order for school board members to exercise
their authority, they must have the ability to be collaborative and to reach consensus. Having a
cohesive relationship among the governing board cultivates an acceptance of majority voting,
even when there is opposition (Canal, 2013).
70

Results from the data collected demonstrated that MIG training promoted collaboration
and unity. Data from the interviews indicated that MIG training encouraged the governance
teams to be “unified and together,” as noted by Superintendent A. School Board Member B2
concurred:
I do think that MIG played a great role in creating and developing this sense of unity on a
team, and a school board really is a team. Time is spent during the MIG modules
understanding that you are only as strong as the five or seven of you.
Through the interviews, this individual researcher found that six out of six board
members understood the importance of being unified and supporting the decision, even if
someone did not vote for it after attending MIG. Board Member C2 remarked, “We all have
different opinions on things, but once we make a decision, then we support the board’s vision
and then we move forward.” Board Member A1 contended:
The board really needs to be united. It [MIG] reminds you that you’re 20% on a five-
member board, which we are. You’re one of five members, so you can’t do anything
without them. So, the board needs to be united for students, and that is the most effective
thing that I, as one board member, can try to achieve—unity on the board.
Data from the survey of 180 board members differed slightly from this individual
researcher’s findings in that 153 board members out of 180 agreed that MIG improved their
ability to accept the majority decision even if it is contrary to their view as seen in Table 15.

71

Table 15
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of the Masters in Governance
Training, Their Ability to Constructively Accept the Majority Decision, Even If They Held the
Minority View, Had Improved
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 78 43
Agree 75 42
Disagree 26 14
Strongly Agree 1 1

Table 16 shows the results of the superintendent survey when they were asked whether
MIG training had improved school board members’ ability to accept the majority decision, even
when they held the minority view. The three superintendents whom this individual researcher
interviewed agreed 100% with this survey question—a result that differed slightly from the
collective group.

72

Table 16
Superintendents’ 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 = 62) %
Strongly Agree 17 27
Agree 42 68
Disagree 3 5
Strongly Agree 0 0

Summary of Results for Research Question 2
As the demand for accountability and transparency continues to grow, it is imperative
that the governing board members remain cohesive as they provide direction and communicate
their goals for the district (Gemberling et al., 2000; Waters & Marzano, 2006). When the
participants were asked how the MIG training encouraged and equipped board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance, the data collected for Research Question 2
suggested three prominent themes. First, the MIG training defined the roles and responsibilities
of the governance team, equipping them with the knowledge and understanding of effective
governance. Second, the MIG training assisted in deepening board members’ understanding of
the importance of setting the direction or vision for the district. Third, MIG training emphasized
the value of cohesiveness and the necessity for the board members to function together as a
whole.
73

Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked whether MIG training had an impact on student achievement
and growth. According to the CSBA (2007), the success of a school district’s improvement
efforts hinges on the establishment of a clear vision that is focused on student achievement. To
do this, the school board must act as a unified body—a situation that can be complicated by the
personalities and interpersonal skills of each individual member of the school board (Weiss et al.,
2014). The MIG training equips board members with a framework for governing as a functioning
team that clearly defines roles and responsibilities while focusing on student growth (Richter,
2013). Participants in this study were asked whether MIG training had an impact on student
achievement and growth. When analyzing the data collected for Research Question 3, three
themes emerged: (a) that MIG training does have an impact on student achievement as it equips
board members to become strong functional governing boards; (b) that MIG prepares board
members to understand how to allocate resources to support student growth; and (c) that the
impact on student achievement may be perceived as minimal, as it depends on the mindset and
the collaborative spirit of the individual attending the training for MIG.
The research from the Lighthouse Inquiry study (Rice et al., 2000) suggested that school
board leadership does affect student achievement and identified seven conditions for effective
governance in high-achieving school districts. This finding aligns with the CSBA’s (2018a)
effective governance system, which establishes standards to support school board effectiveness
and high student achievement.
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames of effective leadership were interwoven
throughout the data collected for Research Question 3. Structurally, board members had a strong
understanding of their roles to support student achievement. With respect to the human resource
74

frame, board members must consider the needs of the staff and students in order to allocate the
appropriate resources, whether this involves staffing or materials, to successfully meet the vision
and goals of the district. Regarding the political frame, board members must be transparent and
trustworthy as they represent their constituents and keep the lines of communication open with
their community. Symbolically, board members must be aware of the message and culture that
they are creating as initiatives and policies are created.
Strong, Functional Boards Do Impact Student Achievement
According to the Center for Public Education (2011), the positive relationship that is
created between the governing board and the superintendent after participating in formal training
can have an overwhelmingly positive impact on the success of a school district. Weiss et al.
(2014) found that when the governance team is united with a common purpose and is
strategically engaged in attaining the goals of the district, there is little room for dissension and
misunderstanding among stakeholders. The structural frame of Bolman and Deal’s (2008)
effective leadership emphasizes clearly defined roles and responsibilities, in addition to
understanding policies and procedures as being instrumental for effective governance. The
theoretical framework of the Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000) and the professional
governance standards established by the CSBA (2018a) suggests that school boards do have an
impact on student achievement.
Results from the data collected in interviews by this individual researcher found that five
out of six board members and all three superintendents agreed that strong, functional boards do
impact student achievement. When asked how the MIG training impacted student achievement,

75

Board Member B2 responded, “I think better boardsmanship always impacts student
achievement.” Board Member C1s response concurred that “having a functional board is the best
way to impact student achievement.” Board Member A2 affirmed:
Working in a positive and productive manner with my school board colleagues and our
superintendent. Through the training we realize that serving on a school board and
serving a community is a lot more important than worrying about our own wants and our
own agendas.
The responses from the superintendents aligned with those of board members.
Superintendent A stated:
The training allows the board or the governance team to operate with a lot more unity. . .
It allows staff to focus on policy, on initiatives that directly impact student achievement.
In that regard, it allows for that sense of freedom that we need in order to be more
effective at what we do.
Superintendent B affirmed,
if a board is managing the district and finances and understanding policy and procedures
well, understands their role, understands why we do things in personnel and hiring
practices, then the ultimate outcome will be better student achievement. A poorly
managed and run district has negative consequences for the kids.
Superintendent C’s response was more specific in how this question pertained to his district:
Well, one of the key pieces of information that gets shared in MIG is that boards should
pay attention to the amount of time that they spend [on nonacademic topics] where they
should look at their agenda and see how much is on academic issues and how much is
not. When you see yourself doing too much nonacademic stuff, it might mean that you’re
76

getting out of focus. So, it’s a very simple guideline that people can relate to and that’s
been helpful.
The data from the surveys of 180 board members and 62 superintendents differed slightly
from this individual researcher’s findings. Whereas the data collected by this individual
researcher found that all nine participants agreed or strongly agreed that MIG training had
positively impacted student achievement, the data collected from the whole group indicated a
lower percentage; 54 out of 62 superintendents agreed or strongly agreed, and 128 out of 180
board members agreed or strongly agree (see Table 17).

Table 17
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

77

Allocating Resources and Providing Support
The allocation of resources plays a vital role in the success of student achievement and
growth. This includes not only materials and well-maintained environments but also schools
being appropriately staffed with qualified individuals. Additionally, teachers and staff must have
the proper professional development to support the various needs of all students. Through
collaborative efforts, the governing board focuses on improvement initiatives and develops
policies concerning professional learning (CSBA, 2017; Devarics & O’Brien, 2019). Research
has shown that student achievement was notably connected to the support of the district
leadership in monitoring the growth toward goals and strategically aligning resources with those
goals (CSBA, 2007; Waters et al., 2003). These findings concurred with the CSBA’s (n.d.a)
professional governance standards that were established to support board effectiveness and
student achievement.
Analysis of the data collected by this individual researcher indicated that MIG equipped
board members with the critical understanding of supporting student achievement and growth
through allocation of resources, including human resources, professional development, and
materials. When asked what improvements in student achievement and growth could be
attributed to school board members’ experience with MIG training, Board Member C2
responded, “I think it gives you a sense of what your role is, which is [to] support instruction,
and how to work collaboratively in doing that . . . and looking at all types of instruction,
policies . . . everything supports students.” Later in the interview, Board Member C2 added that
learning about budgets and what would be available to improve student achievement had a
positive impact. Superintendent B’s statement aligned with the response from Board Member
C2:
78

If a board is managing the district and finances, and understanding policy and procedures
well, understands their role, understands why we do things in personnel and hiring
practices, then the ultimate outcome will be better student achievement. A poorly
managed and run district has negative consequences for the kids.
Board Member B2 affirmed that “MIG modules really encourage you to get out there, feet on the
ground, and spend some time to better understand what types of decisions you’re making and
how they impact students.”
During the interview process, two participants, one superintendent and one board
member, mentioned that supporting teachers had the greatest impact on student achievement.
Superintendent A shared that “we’re supposed to provide support for teachers, and that’s what I
believe where the impact happens.” Board Member C2 concurred when she stated that teachers
have the greatest impact on students.
Survey results from this individual researcher found that three out of six board members
agreed or strongly agreed that as a result of MIG training, their focus was on achievement. This
finding differed from the results of the whole group, where it was found that 140 out of 180
board members agreed or strongly agreed (see Table 18).

79

Table 18
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Their Focus Was on Achievement as a Result of
Masters in Governance Training
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 49 27
Agree 91 51
Disagree 39 22
Strongly Agree 1 0

Minimal Impact on Student Achievement, Depending on Mindset and Collaborative Spirit
of Individual Board Members
The research of Weiss et al. (2014) has shown that the governing team of most effective
school districts work cohesively and act in the best interest of all stakeholders. For this situation
to happen, trust and open communication between the board members and the superintendent
must be fostered as the team focuses on a collective vision and goals (Mountford, 2004; Weiss et
al., 2014). However, school governance may not always be unified or cohesive. Mountford’s
(2004) study suggested that personal agendas can impact a board member’s ability to adequately
serve the needs of all students and those of the community.
Analysis of the data collected by this individual researcher suggested that MIG may be
perceived as having minimal impact on student achievement, as it depends on the mindset and
collaborative spirit of the individual board members. When asked how the MIG training
impacted student achievement, Board Member A2 responded:
80

The knowledge that the school board members can attain if they apply themselves to
learning and to growing. … I think it can benefit the students, the community, and the
employees of the school district tenfold if the school board member decides to actually
apply themselves and what they’ve learned.
Board Member C1 commented:
From my experience, I don’t think it does. I think the best way that training could impact
student achievement is again, everybody really understanding the different parts of their
job and then being able to do it well. [We are] providing direction for student
achievement if everybody’s clear on the goals, and that’s a whole other problem.
Later in the interview, Board Member C1 added:
If you’re [the school board] not getting along, then everybody can’t really do their work.
Everybody’s worried if the board’s going to fight about it or if they can make anything
happen. And then they’re trying to give you presentations to make this dysfunctional
board agree . . . the board doesn’t get along so the staff can’t really do their job.
During the interviews, two of the three superintendents interviewed by this individual
researcher responded similarly regarding the impact that MIG had on student achievement and
the individual mindset or personal agendas of board members. Superintendent A stated that “it
depends on each individual, their interests, their personalities, their disposition towards their
responsibilities as members of the governing board.” Superintendent B responded that the impact
was dependent on “the level the person attending [MIG] wants to be a good board member, it’s
effective.”
Although participants may have responded that MIG training may have minimal impact
on student achievement during the interviews, 100% of the participants (both board members and
81

superintendents) whom the individual researcher surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that they
would recommend the MIG training to school governance teams. This finding generally aligned
with the whole group’s response data for this question, as shown in Table 19.

Table 19
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Would Recommend Masters in Governance
Training to School Governance Teams
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 48 77 128 71
Agree 14 23 46 26
Disagree 0 0 6 3
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0

82

Summary of Results for Research Question 3
Analyzing the data collected from the participants’ interview and survey responses for
Research Question 3 revealed three themes. First, MIG training does have an impact on student
achievement as it promotes and equips board members to become strong, functional governing
teams. Second, MIG equips board members with the knowledge of how to allocate resources to
support student growth. These resources include appropriately staffing schools, professional
development for staff, and materials. Third, the impact on student achievement can be viewed as
minimal as it depends on the mindset and the collaborative spirit of the individual attending the
MIG training.
Chapter Summary
This chapter reviewed the findings from the data collected for the three research
questions that were asked to examine the perceptions of the governing team regarding MIG
training and its impact on student achievement. The data analysis included triangulating the
results of the surveys and interviews of school board members and superintendents with the
literature review and theoretical frameworks discussed in Chapter Two.
The analysis of the data collected revealed that board members were motivated to attend
MIG because they had a desire to learn and to be prepared for their role as members of the
governing board. There is a great responsibility to be a member of the governing team, and
members wanted to do what was best for students and their community. In many school districts,
the influence of other board members and the superintendent greatly impacted a board member’s
decision to attend MIG training as there was a culture of expectation to attend training among the
governing team. The accessibility or proximity of training also factored into board members’
decision to attend MIG training.
83

The MIG training did encourage and equip board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective school governance in several ways. The training clearly defined the roles and
responsibilities of the governing team and equipped them with the knowledge of effective
governance. It also deepened their understanding that strong leadership has a vision and provides
direction for the district. MIG training emphasized the value of cohesiveness and the necessity
for the board members to function as a whole.
Data from the interviews and surveys revealed that governing boards did see the impact
that MIG training had on student achievement. MIG equipped board members with the
knowledge and skills to become strong, effective governing teams who understood how to
allocate resources to support student growth. Data from this study suggested that the impact of
MIG training on student achievement may be viewed as minimal, as it depends on the mindset of
the MIG participants as to whether they actually embraced the training and applied it.

84

Chapter Five: Discussion
The complexity of the demands on the educational system requires each member of the
governing board to thoroughly understand their roles and responsibilities in order to be prepared
to make informed decisions that will influence the quality of student education. Studies have
shown that the most successful school districts have governing boards that are cohesive and are
working toward the same goals that are student centered in the decision-making process
(Korelich & Maxwell, 2015; Weiss et al., 2014). In spite of the tremendous responsibilities and
the long-term implications that the decisions of governing boards have on students, formalized
training is not mandated for school board members in California. Research suggests that formal
training is essential for school districts to increase their effectiveness and student achievement
(Plough, 2014; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school board 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 research team consisted of 20 doctoral students who worked collaboratively to
collect data from 62 districts. Each individual researcher identified at least three California
school districts to participate in the study and conducted interviews with the superintendents and
school board members from the three districts; a total of 62 superintendents and 180 school
85

board members were involved in the study. In addition to interviews, all participants completed
the online surveys. Each individual researcher analyzed the data that they had collected and
compared it with the data of the cohort.
Three research questions guided this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Summary of Findings
The data analysis revealed three themes for each research question. In relation to
Research Question 1, it was concluded that the determining factors to impact a board member’s
decision to participate in the MIG training program were (a) that they were highly motivated to
attend MIG training to acquire knowledge and be prepared for their role on the governing board,
(b) that the culture of expectation among the board members and superintendent constituted a
strong influence to attend MIG training, and (c) that the accessibility of the training factored into
the decision of whether or not to attend MIG training. In relation to Research Question 2, it was
concluded (a) that MIG training encouraged and equipped board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective school governance by clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of the
governance team, (b) that MIG training articulated the importance of setting the direction or
vision, and (c) that MIG training strongly encouraged cohesiveness among the governance team.
In relation to Research Question 3, it was concluded that MIG training did have a positive
impact on student achievement as it equipped board members to become strong, functional
86

governing boards and increased their understanding of how to allocate resources to support
student growth. However, the third theme for Research Question 3 revealed that the MIG
training might have been perceived as having minimal impact on student achievement as it was
dependent upon the mindset and collaborative spirit of the individual attending the training.
Research Question 1
The findings related to Research Question 1 identified the factors that impacted a board
member’s decision to participate in the MIG training program. Data indicated that board
members chose to attend MIG because they had a strong desire to learn and to be prepared for
their role on the governing board. As elected officials who represented their constituents, a
common response in the interviews was that being on the school board is a vast and complex
responsibility and board members wanted to have a solid understanding of their role and
responsibilities. This finding aligned with Bolman and Deal’s (2008) structural frame, which
indicated that the governing board must understand their role and responsibilities in an
organization as they provide direction, vision, and develop strategic goals. This finding indicated
that board members and superintendents viewed MIG training as informative and beneficial to
improving school governance.
Data suggested that another factor to impact board members’ decision to attend MIG was
the cultural expectations or influence of other board members and the superintendent. Although
there was no policy or mandate to attend training, board members indicated that the expectation
of the governing team and the opinion of their colleagues greatly influenced their decision to
attend MIG. Some board members also revealed that the superintendent’s input impacted their
87

decision as well. This theme aligned with the findings from the Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al.,
2000), which identified the significance of building a human organizational system as one of the
seven conditions for productive governance change in high-achieving school districts.
Additionally, the influence of cultural expectations was supported with Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) symbolic frame. Through this frame, the leadership of effective or functional governance
teams creates a positive culture as it builds mutual accountability. The findings of this study
indicated that the culture of expectation was highly effective in motivating board members to
attend MIG. Finally, the data suggested that the accessibility of the training program factored
into board members’ decision regarding whether to attend or not. The majority of participants
shared that the location of the training weighed heavily on the decision to attend MIG. If the
training was not local or convenient in proximity, then the board members had to consider
additional accessibility factors such as the time commitment involved and time away from their
professional career, as well as further costs for traveling and hotels in attending the training. In
recent years, CSBA (2018b) redesigned the MIG program. Currently, there are five modules that
require 40 hours of training that must be completed within a 2-year period. Although there are
online options for MIG, adjustments in location and costs factors should be made so that it would
be more conducive to the needs of the governing team who desire training and must balance time
with family, career, and serving on the school board.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 provided an analysis on how MIG training encouraged and equipped
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance. The data indicated that
MIG training equipped participants with knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of each
member and the superintendent. In clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of the board
88

members and superintendent, the team was prepared to capitalize on the strength that each
individual offered while functioning cohesively. Establishing a collaborative team that
appreciates what each person brings to the governing body was supported with Bolman and
Deal’s (2008) structural frame, which focuses on the structural elements of an organization.
School board members must understand their individual roles and responsibilities as they lead
the school district, provide direction, and develop strategic goals. Participating in formalized
training such as MIG would assist the governing team members to maximize their working
relationships and to develop the necessary skills to effectively govern.
Data suggested that MIG also equipped board members with a deeper understanding of
the importance of setting the direction for the district. Studies have shown that setting the
direction and developing a vision are one of the essential roles of a school board (CSBA, 2007;
Hanover Research, 2014; Land, 2002; Senge, 1990; Supovitz, 2006; Thurlow Brenner, 2002). As
representatives of their community, board members must establish a direction for the school
district that is reflective of the values of the community as well as the governing board (Land,
2002; Weiss et al., 2014). During the interviews, several board members indicated that MIG
training was helpful in providing guidance on how to develop a vision and setting the direction
for the district. However, they also suggested that MIG should provide them with scenarios of
possible distractions that could take them off course so that they could work through them in a
safe environment and then be better prepared for when something happened. This finding was
supported with Bolman and Deal’s (2008) framework for leadership and management where the
frames are integrated throughout the governing team’s roles. Working together to provide
direction while board members represent their constituents as they develop strategic goals is a
89

complex task. Adding scenarios to MIG modules would enrich the learning experience and instill
a greater level of confidence for board members.
Data indicated that the MIG program emphasized the value of cohesiveness among the
governance team and the necessity for the board members to function as a whole. All participants
in this study acknowledged the emphasis that MIG training placed on the unity of the governing
board and how essential it was in order to exercise their authority throughout their training.
Board members shared that acting as a unified team built trust with the people whom they
represented. The data from this research supported studies that showed that it is imperative for
the governing team to be cohesive as they provide leadership for the district (Gemberling et al.,
2000; Roberts & Sampson, 2011; Waters & Marzano, 2006). This finding concurred with the
CSBA’s (n.d.a) Professional Governance Standards, which underscore the importance of
collaboration and operating with transparency to promote trust and integrity among all
stakeholders.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked if MIG training had an impact on student achievement and
growth. The data analyzed indicated that MIG training did impact student achievement as it
equipped board members to become strong, effective governing boards. Most board members
and superintendents reported that school board members who understood their roles and operated
in a cohesive manner toward the same goal were more productive and positively impacted
student achievement. This finding supported the research from the Center for Public Education
(2011), which found that the positive relationships formed after formal training could
overwhelmingly impact the success of the school district.
90

The data collected suggested that MIG prepared board members with a deeper
understanding of allocating resources in a manner that supported student growth. The majority of
the participants indicated that MIG did this through several of the training modules, especially
the School Finances and Foundations of Governance courses. During the interviews, board
members and superintendents shared how the MIG modules equipped board members to know
what questions to ask so that they could can ensure that all resources were allocated
appropriately. Both superintendents and board members indicated that supporting student
achievement was about ensuring that well-qualified staff were hired and that quality professional
development was provided. The findings from this study suggested that the MIG program
effectively prepared board members to focus on student growth through the appropriate use of
resources.
When analyzing the data, a relevant theme emerged regarding the degree to which MIG
positively impacted student achievement. Many participants shared that MIG’s impact on student
achievement might be perceived as minimal as it was contingent upon the mindset of the person
attending the training and his or her willingness to be collaborative. The finding aligned with the
research of Weiss et al. (2014), who suggested that the personalities and interpersonal skills of
each individual are factors in the success of the governance team.
A strong majority of the board members interviewed had been serving on the board for
over 10 years, and they had a wealth of experience in working with individuals who had served
on the board and attended MIG. During the interviews, board members shared that despite
attending MIG, a few individuals drifted back to their own agendas, thereby creating a
dysfunctional team. Superintendents shared, too, that on occasion, certain individuals who had
attended MIG training continued to work outside of their role and created dissension on the
91

governing team. However, superintendents did state that utilizing the resources from MIG and
reminding board members of their agreed-upon norms and expectations assisted in confronting
the issues and bringing collaboration back to the governing board.
Limitations of the Study
Limitations of this research involved restricting the participants to only governing
members who had attended MIG training. Including the perspective of all board members,
regardless of whether or not they had attended MIG, would provide additional insight with
respect to the effectiveness that MIG training had on encouraging and equipping participants to
exhibit behaviors of effective school governance. The fact that the data collection occurred
during the COVID-19 pandemic limited the ability to meet in person and may have also
impacted an individual’s ability or decision to participate. Several board members did elect not
to participate, citing being too stressed with issues centered around the pandemic. Another
limitation to consider was that the responses of the participants were subjective and reflected
their personal perspectives and experiences.
Delimitations of the Study
The delimitations of this research include selecting participants who served on a
governing board in a public school district, that the participants were from 12 California
counties, and that the majority of the board members had participated in MIG training.
Implications for Practice
The findings from this study indicated that MIG training did encourage board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance. MIG equipped the governing teams in this
study with the knowledge and skills required to lead effectively, and it would benefit
superintendents to set expectations for all members of the governing board to attend MIG
92

training even if not mandated. Such an assumption would nurture a culture of expectation among
the school board members that everyone should be properly trained to be most effective in their
leadership role.
The findings from this study also provided insight regarding what factors into a board
member’s decision to attend MIG. In addition to acquiring a deeper understanding of roles and
responsibilities, board members mentioned the proximity of the training and the time
commitment that it would take to complete the program as factoring into their decision to attend
MIG. Most board members had professional careers and families in addition to their commitment
to the school board and community. Taking this issue into consideration, the CSBA should
consider flexibility in the MIG courses and offer training through a hybrid model where there is a
blend of in-person training as well as completing part of the module online. This process would
allow participants greater flexibility to work around their schedule while maintaining the value
of in-person training where board members found networking with others from outside of their
district so beneficial.
The findings from this study aligned with the literature and theoretical frameworks where
it was shown that cohesiveness is essential for the school board to be effective. However, data
from this study also indicated that individual mindsets or personal agendas can impede the
cohesiveness of the governing board. Implications from this finding necessitate the emphasis on
time spent to build relationships, to create norms and expectations for the governing board, and
to have a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities for each governing member.
Consideration should be given to the entire governing board attending MIG together, as it is an
opportunity for board members to learn one another’s strengths and how to work together for a
common purpose that is best for all students.
93

Recommendations for Future Study
The findings of this study contribute to the literature on school board training and
effective school governance and its impact on student achievement. In a time when there is
constant change and higher demands on the public school system, students and the communities
of California need effective school boards to lead the public-school districts. Research has shown
that effective school boards function within the best practices embedded in formalized training
such as the CSBA’s MIG program. Students must be college and career ready when they
graduate from the public school system, and board members must remain current to the issues
influencing education and the future of students. Decisions must be made by well-informed and
skilled board members who model what it means to be a lifelong learner. The findings from this
study lead to the two following suggested areas for future research:
1. Do a comparative analysis between the states that mandate school board training
versus the states that do not require school boards to receive training so as to
determine the impact of formalized training on effective school board governance.
Working with the standards based on the Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008)
and the CSBA’s (n.d.a) Professional Governance Standards would set the criteria
for any future research. The data from this comparison would add a deeper
understanding of the impact that formalized training has on effective school board
governance.
2. Compare the effectiveness of formal training programs such as MIG to informal
or in-house training and their impact on school board governance. This study
found that many participants were concerned about the location proximity of MIG
and the time necessary to complete the program. A comparative analysis of the
94

impact between formal and informal training would provide school districts with
data to make an informed decision on what training programs are most beneficial
for the governing board as they take board members’ accessibility concerns into
consideration.
Conclusion
School boards are facing unprecedented times with rapidly changing information
impacting how and what students are taught in the public school system. The governing school
board must have the necessary skills and knowledge to work cohesively as they navigate the
demands of the community, social media, policies, legislation, and the accountability markers for
student success. Although California does not mandate training for board members, this study
has shown that MIG training equips and encourages board members to lead more effectively.
The findings of this study also suggested that school board members who understand their roles
and act as a unified team are more productive and have a positive impact on student
achievement. To be unified, time must be spent on building positive working relationships and
recognizing the strengths that each person brings to the governing board. Formalized training
such as the MIG program provides a framework for governing as an effective team and having
the expectation that all members attending the training strongly influences individuals to attend
training.
95

References
Alsbury, T. L. (2008). The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation.
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Analytic Quality Glossary. (2019). Effectiveness.
https://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/effectiveness.htm
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
Björk, L., & Lindle, J. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1),
76–91. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904801015001005
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations artistry, choice and leadership (4th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (6th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Brunner, C. C., Grogan, M., & Björk, L. (2002). Shifts in the discourse defining the
superintendency: Historical and current foundations of the position. Yearbook of the
96

National Society for the Study of Education, 101(1), 211–238.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2002.tb00010.x
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). Compliance monitoring.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/
California Department of Education. (2020c). Local Control Accountability Plan.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards. https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/
California School Boards Association. (2018a). About CSBA.
http://www.csba.org/en/AboutCSBA.aspx
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Masters in Governance.
http://www.csba.org/Services/Services/GovernanceServices/MastersInGovernance.aspx
California School Boards Association. (2017). The school board role in creating the conditions
for student achievement: Review of the research.
https://www.csba.org/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/Reports/201705BoardRe
searchReport.ashx?la=en&rev=6aea555a678 e4fb6a40494f013e2546f
California School Boards Association. (2018a). Effective governance: Resources, training and
support. https://www.csba.org/en/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Masters in Governance.
https://www.csba.org/TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance.aspx
97

California School Boards Association. (n.d.a). Professional Governance Standards.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/Professiona
lGovStandards.aspx
California School Boards Association. (n.d.b). Superintendent governance standards.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/Professional
GovStandards/ProfessionalGovernanceStandardsForDistrictSuperintendents.aspx
Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools—a historical analysis (ED010410). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED010410.pdf
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 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.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
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 the local
school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 67–73.
98

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.
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership
in the improvement of student achievement. In T. L. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school
board governance: Relevance and revelation (pp. 191-281). Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
Dervarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2019). Eight characteristics of effective school boards. Center for
Public Education. https://www.nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/cpe-eight-characteristics-of-
effective-school-boards-report-december-2019.pdf?la=en&hash=1E19C481DAAEE2540
6008581AE75EB2ABA785930
Dillon, N. (2010). The 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
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Pub. L. 89-10.
https://www2.ed.gov/documents/essa-act-of-1965.pdf
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.
Fleming, N. (2013, February 25). Districts abandoning at-large school board elections. Education
Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/02/27/22schoolboards_ep.h32.html
99

Fraga, L., Krimm, D., Neiman, M., & Reyes, B. (2010). Examining Latino representation on
California’s school boards: Their impact on perceptions about district problems,
priorities and policies (ED515623). Public Policy Institute of California. ERIC.
https://eric.ed .gov/?id=ED515623
Gemberling, K., Smith, C., & Villiani, J. (2000). The key work of school boards guidebook.
National School Boards Association.
Glass, T. E. (2010). Superintendent of large-city school systems—history of the urban
superintendent, the profession, school boards, characteristics of the large-city
superintendent. Education Encyclopedia.
https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2470/Superintendent-Large-City-School-
Systems.html#ixzz0p6HySmU0
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.
Gomez, M. (2013). Impact of the Masters in Governance training program on effective school
board leadership and governance [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of
Southern California.
Goodman, R. H., Fulbright, L., & Zimmerman, W. G., Jr. (1997). Getting there from here:
School board–superintendent collaboration: Creating a school governance team capable
of raising student achievement. School Development Council and Educational Research
Service.
100

Grissom, J. A. (2007). Who sits on school boards in California? Institute for Research on
Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1532673X124 48212
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
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: From start to finish. Sage Publications.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, n.v., 17–19.
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of
district governance. National School Boards Association.
Hess, F. M., & Meeks, O. (2010). School boards circa 2010: Governance in the accountability
era. National School Boards Association, The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, and the
Iowa School Boards Foundation. https://www.aei.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/10/HessFeb2011.pdf
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
101

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
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency. Jossey-
Bass.
Kansas Association of School Boards. (2011). So you want to be a school board member: 2011
guide for school board candidates (ED560899). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560899.pdf
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.
Klein, A. (2016, May 14). The Every Student Succeeds Act: An ESSA overview. Education
Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/every-student-succeeds-act/index.html
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.
102

Kowalski, T. J., & Björk, L. (2005). Role expectations of the district superintendent: Implications
for deregulating preparation and licensing. Journal of Thought, 40(2), 73–96.
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=eda_fac_pub
Kowalski, T. J., & Brunner, C. C. (2011). The school superintendent: Roles, challenges, and
issues. In F. W. English (Ed.), Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in
theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 142–167). Sage Publications.
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
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
McGuinn, P. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy,
1965–2005. University Press of Kansas. 10.1017/S1537592707071083
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Moody, M. (2011). Superintendent–board relations: Understanding the past to promote the
future. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program
Development, 23, 75–84. https://archive.cnx.org/contents/d0c5b8a5-2aa1-441f-a2b4-
1ec66036f8 c6%403/moody-m-september-2011-superintendent-board-relations-
understanding-the-pas t-to-promote-the-future
103

Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school
board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 704–
741. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X04268843
National Association of School Boards. (2019). About us. https://www.nsba.org/About
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 School Boards Association. (2010). Mandated training for local school board members
survey. https://cdn-files.nsba.org/s3fs-
public/reports/K12_National_Survey.pdf?5XEOPBQlubbzr9x.8_5rFrBRugkHKS7N
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.
Plough, B. (2014). School board governance and student achievement: School board members’
perceptions of their behaviors and beliefs. Educational Leadership and Administration:
Teaching and Program Development, 25, 41–53.
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
behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student achievement
(ED453172). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453172.pdf
104

Richter, L. A. (2013). The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California
school board governance. (Publication No. 3563990) [Doctoral dissertation, University
of Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management,
25(7), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
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.
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
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
https://www.ed.gov/ESSA
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.
105

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
WestEd. (2020). California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CSPEL) updated
tri-fold version. https://www.wested.org/resources/california-professional-standards-for-
educational-leaders-cpsel-2/
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

106

Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails
School Board Member Recruitment Email

Date___________________

Dear School Board Member ______________________,

Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.

My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school
governance teams.

Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board has completed the
MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in completion of the Ed.D.
program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will
be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training
on effective governance. You will be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom™ interview
at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded with your permission
and will include questions about effective governance.

Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time.
Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.

IF you agree to participate in this study, please complete the School Board Member Survey via the
following link: _______________.

I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation, you may contact me or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University
of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance for your time.

Sincerely,

_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
107

Superintendent Recruitment Email

Date___________________

Dear Superintendent ______________________,

Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.

My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school
governance teams.

Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board members have
completed the MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in completion
of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this
study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact
of MIG training on effective governance. You will be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual
Zoom™ interview at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded
with your permission and will include questions about effective governance.

Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time.
Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.

Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the Superintendent Survey via the following
link: _______________.

I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation, you may contact myself or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the
University of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance
for your time.

Sincerely,

_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
108

Appendix B: School Board Member Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your chances of participation?
(check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced my
participation in the MIG training was . . . (check
all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Unable to determine
❏ Other
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
As a result of MIG training, my focus is on
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
109

8
As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek
community input through a variety of methods
(email, town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
As a result of the MIG training, I understand the
importance of aligning the decision-making
process with the district’s vision and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
The MIG training clarified the differences
between my roles and responsibilities as a school
board member and those of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
110

16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data
consistently to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
As a result of the MIG training, my ability to
accept the majority decision constructively, even
if I hold the minority view, has improved.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board
members could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
Attending MIG training has positively impacted
student achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree

111

Appendix C: Superintendent Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your school board members’
chances of participation? (check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced school board
members to participate in MIG training was . . .
(check all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Other
❏ Unable to determine
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
School board members who have earned MIG
certification demonstrate an increased focus on
student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
112

8
School board members who are MIG certified
actively engage the community and utilize a
variety of communication methods (email, town
hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
School board members who are MIG trained
understand the importance of aligning the
decision-making process with the district’s vision
and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
School board members who are MIG trained
exhibit a clearer understanding of the difference
between their roles and responsibilities and those
of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
school board members.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
113

16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the school governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data consistently
to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
The MIG training has improved school board
members’ ability to accept the majority decision,
even when they hold the minority view.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members
could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
MIG training has positively impacted student
achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree

114

Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3
Some people believe that school board training should be mandated in California. How
do you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has the MIG training affected how you govern your school district, if at all?
8
What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if at all?
9 What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a board member, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?

115

Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school governance teams to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3 Some people argue that school board training should be mandated in California. How do
you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to your board members and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has MIG training affected how your school board members govern your school
district, if at all?
8 What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if any?
a What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make MIG training more accessible to all superintendents?
11 How does MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a superintendent, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?

116

Appendix F: Informed Consent
Date: _______________

Dear _______________,

My name is _______________ and I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a research study under the guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F.
Escalante. The purpose of the study is to examine school board members’ and superintendents’
perceptions of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training and its impact on school governance
and student achievement. I will interview and survey superintendents and school board
members.

You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) MIG training program on school
board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of school districts.
This study may serve as a source of the benefits of MIG training for school governance teams.

Your participation is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw at any time. The information
collected will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher and members of the
dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no individual or
district can be identified.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
me at _______________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California.

Thank you, in advance, for your time and assistance.

Sincerely,

_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx

Dr. Michael F. Escalante, Dissertation Chair mescalante@usc.edu (xxx) xxx-xxxx

( ) I have read this form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent to my
participation in the research described above.
Participant’s Signature: _________________________________________________________
Participant’s Printed Name: ______________________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________________________________________

117

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

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the perceptions of school board members and superintendents regarding the Masters in Governance (MIG) training offered by California School Boards Association and its impact on school governance and student achievement. The purpose of this study was to determine whether formalized school board training improved the relationship between school board and superintendents and affected the impact on performance indicators for school districts. The participants in this qualitative study were comprised of 180 board members and 62 superintendents in California public school districts. Data were collected through surveys of and interviews with all participants and then analyzed and coded in relation to the study’s 3 research questions. Findings from this research indicated that motivation to attend formalized training was influenced by a board members’ intrinsic desire for knowledge and being prepared, the accessibility of the training, and the culture of expectation among the governing board members to attend formal training. Findings further indicated that the MIG training did encourage and equip board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance by clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of the governing team, deepening board members’ understanding of the importance of providing direction for the district, and emphasizing the value of cohesiveness for the governing board. Finally, findings also indicated that governing boards did see the impact that MIG training had on student achievement, as it equipped board members with the knowledge and skills to become strong, effective governing teams who understood how to allocate resources to support student growth. However, data from this study also suggested that the impact of MIG training on student achievement might be viewed as minimal, as it depended on the mindset of the MIG participant with respect to how they embraced the training and applied it. This study further adds to the research regarding effective leadership and the impact that formal training has on school board governance.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

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

PDF

School board training and governance in California

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School board governance training and student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards

PDF

School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy

PDF

Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts

PDF

Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance

PDF

School board training: impact on governance and achievement

PDF

School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams

PDF

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

PDF

K−12 school board training in California

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Nickles, Jayne Darlene (author)

Core Title Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/06/2021

Defense Date 01/29/2021

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

Tag formal training,Masters in governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board members,school governance,superintendent, California school districts

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Escalante, Michael (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy M. (committee member), Hinman, Charles (committee member), Thorossian, Katherine (committee member)

Creator Email djnickles@msn.com,jnickles@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-438171

Unique identifier UC11667584

Identifier etd-NicklesJay-9409.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-438171 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NicklesJay-9409.pdf

Dmrecord 438171

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Nickles, Jayne Darlene

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