Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
K−12 school board training in California
(USC Thesis Other)
K−12 school board training in California
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
K–12 School Board Training in California
by
Maricela Ramirez
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 Maricela Ramirez 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Maricela Ramirez certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Rudy Castruita
Alexander Cherniss
Gregory Franklin
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
This study examines the impact that Masters in Governance (MIG) training, provided by the
California School Boards Association (CSBA), had on the relationship between superintendents
and school board members, the impact on effective school governance, and student performance
indicators. The conceptual framework that was utilized to frame the study was the leadership
framework by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal; the four frames that were applied were the
political, human resource, structural, and symbolic. The Lighthouse Inquiry conducted by the
Iowa Association of School Boards was used, being that the latter research study closely
examined effective boards of education and was a seminal research piece on boards of education.
Finally, the CSBA’s professional governance standards and training were used to ground what
effective governance looks like in practice for school boards. The research questions that guided
this study were what factors impacted the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program, how the MIG training program encouraged and equipped school board
members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance and whether MIG training had
an impact on student achievement and growth. For this qualitative study, a team of 20
researchers surveyed 62 superintendents and 180 board members; 62 superintendents and 177
board members were interviewed. All of the participating districts were public school districts in
California. The focus districts were three urban districts, varying in student population. For the
focus districts, three superintendents and nine board members were surveyed and interviewed.
The findings of the study showed that MIG training should emphasize the importance of
developing relationships between the superintendent and board members. To do this,
superintendents and boards of education should attend MIG training together and have more
personalized scenarios to work through. Additionally, board member training in California
should be mandatory, requiring legislative change. Currently, 24 states mandate board training,
and this change in California would result in half of the states requiring mandatory training.
Further research should examine the correlation between cohesive boards of education and
student achievement.
vi
Dedication
To my beautiful children, pillars in my life: Diego, Andres, and Pax are each such a blessing.
Their humor, kindness, and quest for social justice makes me very proud. The thing that I am
most proud of is having had a part in raising them. I love them for having been my study buddies
throughout this process. David has been my support, always believing in me. I am well aware of
everything that he has done for me during this time and love and appreciate him so much. My
parents, Rosa and Jesus, immigrants from Mexico, have continuously been there for me
throughout the stages of my life. They taught me the value of an education, hard work, and how
important it is to love and care for others. I appreciate all of the sacrifices they made for me. I
also thank my in-laws, Rafael and Hilda, for all of the support that they have provided our
family. Gael, Isabella, and Jaguar, you are so special to me. I would also like to thank all of my
family and friends. I am fortunate, that I have too many to name.
vii
Acknowledgements
I am fortunate to have had the support of many people throughout this journey. First, Dr.
Debra Duardo was a supportive and incredible mentor. Dr. Duardo and Dr. Jason Hasty
encouraged me to earn the doctorate and I am so glad that I listened to them. Vibiana Andrade,
Susan Ball, Dr. Art Cunha, Dr. Nick Stephany, Arturo Valdez, and Dr. Diana Velasquez checked
in with me about school frequently and all believed in me. Their words of encouragement and
the supportive work environment at the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) have
meant the world to me. Also, I would like to acknowledge my friends and colleagues at the Los
Angeles Unified School District; thanks to Dr. Frances Gipson for assembling such a powerful
team.
I have learned much from each of my professors in the Rossier School of Education. The
leadership by my dissertation committee—Dr. Michael Escalante (chair), Dr. Alex Cherniss, Dr.
Rudy Castruita, and Dr. Greg Franklin—is noted and appreciated.
Additionally, I would like to thank the superintendents and board members who
participated in the study. Learning from them was a privilege.
My friends, Linda de la Torre, Hedieh Khajavi, and Gloria Olamendi, made USC much
fun. I thank them for their incredible support. I thank Elias Miles and Eric Guerrero for being so
kind. Together, we all made one incredible defense team!
Working with students and families is a privilege. I am eternally grateful for all of my
experiences working with them. I am looking forward to continue my work in education.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 3
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 3
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 4
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 4
Delimitations ....................................................................................................................... 5
Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................................... 6
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Democracy and Boards of Education .................................................................... 10
History of the School Board ............................................................................................. 14
Roles and Responsibilities of School Boards ................................................................... 15
Governance and Accountability ........................................................................................ 20
Leadership Training for School Boards ............................................................................ 26
School Boards and Student Achievement ......................................................................... 28
Masters in Governance ..................................................................................................... 32
ix
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 33
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 36
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ........................................................................................ 37
Research Design................................................................................................................ 38
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 39
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 40
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 41
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 42
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 42
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 44
Chapter Four: Research Results .................................................................................................... 45
Description of the Study ................................................................................................... 45
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 49
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 62
Results for Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 78
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 92
Chapter Five: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations ..................................................... 94
Research Team Description and Process .......................................................................... 94
Research Questions Restated ............................................................................................ 95
Participants, Sample, Instruments ..................................................................................... 95
Findings Related to the Research Questions ..................................................................... 95
Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................... 98
Delimitations ..................................................................................................................... 99
x
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 99
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 100
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 101
References ................................................................................................................................... 102
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails .................................................................... 108
School Board Member Recruitment Email ..................................................................... 108
Superintendent Recruitment Email ................................................................................. 109
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey .............................................................................. 110
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 113
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ........................................................... 116
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ....................................................................... 117
Appendix F: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 118
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix .................................................................................. 119
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participation From 62 Districts 46
Table 2: Demographics for the Focus Districts 47
Table 3: Demographic Data for the Focus School District Cities 49
Table 4: Primary Factors That Influenced School Board Members to
Participate in the Masters in Governance (MIG) Training
50
Table 5: Responses to the Survey Item: Our School Board Culture
Encourages Participation in the Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training
52
Table 6: Responses to the Survey Item: School Board Members Who Are
Masters in Governance (MIG) Trained Exhibit a Clearer
Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and
Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent
53
Table 7: Responses to the Survey Item: Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training Should Be Encouraged for School Governance Teams by
the Local District Policy
56
Table 8: Responses to the Survey Item: Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training Should Be Mandated in California
59
Table 9: Responses to the Survey Item: It Is Important to Attend Masters in
Governance (MIG) Training With Your Superintendent
63
Table 10: Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item: As a Result of the
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training, I Actively Seek
Community Input Through a Variety of Methods
66
Table 11: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item: School Board
Members Who Are Masters in Governance (MIG) Certified
Actively Engage the Community and Utilize a Variety of
Communication Methods
67
Table 12: Responses to the Survey Item: The Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training Impacts My Ability to Govern Effectively
71
Table 13: Superintendents’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance (MIG)
Modules in Order of Importance to Their Role as a Member of the
Governance Team: Focus Districts (N = 3)
72
xii
Table 14: Superintendents’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance (MIG)
Modules in Order of Importance to Their Role as a Member of the
Governance Team: Larger Group (N = 62)
73
Table 15: Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance (MIG)
Modules in Order of Importance to Their Role as a Member of the
Governance Team: Focus Districts (N = 9)
74
Table 16: Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance (MIG)
Modules in Order of Importance to Their Role as a Member of the
Governance Team: Larger Group (N = 180)
74
Table 17: Responses to the Survey Item: As a Result of the Masters in
Governance (MIG) Training, I Encourage Governance Team
Members to Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions
Regarding Student Achievement
79
Table 18: Responses to the Survey Item: Attending Masters in Governance
(MIG) Training Has Positively Impacted Student Achievement in
My District
80
Table 19: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item: School Board
Members Who Have Earned Masters in Governance (MIG)
Certification Demonstrate an Increased Focus on Student
Achievement
84
Table 20: Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item: As a Result of the
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training, My Focus Is on
Achievement
85
Table 21: Responses to the Survey Item: The Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training Encourages School Governance Teams to Contribute to the
Effectiveness of Our School Board Meetings
87
Table 22: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item: The Masters in
Governance (MIG) Training Has Improved School Board Members’
Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even When They Hold the
Minority View
88
Table 23: Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item: As a Result of the
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training, My Ability to
Constructively Accept the Majority Decision, Even If I hold the
Minority View, Has Improved
89
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
K–12 school boards yield strong power in America and have the capability to lead
progress in schools throughout the nation. School board members have many important
responsibilities, including setting the direction for the school district or county office of
education, establishing structure through policy, providing support for implementation efforts to
ensure accountability through oversight and monitoring, and acting as community leaders
(California School Boards Association [CSBA], 2017). These responsibilities are vital in that
they are extremely complex and exert influence in school districts and on students. For example,
within these responsibilities is the power to hire and fire superintendents, a decision that is
important. The board’s ability to hire and fire a superintendent cannot be taken lightly; thus, it is
important that school board members truly understand their own roles and the impact of their
decisions. The requirements to run for school board are minimal; in some ways, this is very
democratic but, in some ways, this can be dangerous to a school district if the individuals who
are elected do not understand their role or how to lead. The requirements to run for school board
do not include any type of training; this can be very limiting if one does not really understand the
essential duties of being a school board member. So much power is vested in school boards but
the training that school board members receive is inconsistent throughout the nation. Although
some states require training once school board members are elected, many states, including
California, do not. This study explored the importance of school board training.
Background
The educational system in the United States is powerful; in many ways, it is considered
the preserver of democracy (Dewey, 1903). Throughout the history of education, an important
piece of power that school districts have is the ability to have local boards of education to govern
2
schools (Dewey, 1903). Early on, the power of school districts shifted to a model in which local
citizens were able to be board members. This was a shift from having politicians run school
districts, as the argument was that local people would better understand what their schools
needed in order to progress. Boards of education have the distinct role of ensuring that school
districts progress, and this can be very difficult work.
Today, school board members are faced with many challenges in the continuous
evolution of education and are now faced with competition from charter schools (Feuerstein,
2002). In some ways, this evolution is forcing school districts and boards of education to
examine their own best practices. As they examine themselves, they are also faced with special
interests in school board races that may change the composition of their boards that can lead to
reconfiguration of what public schools look like (Feuerstein, 2002). It is important that school
board members know and understand their roles so that they can act in the interest of democracy.
Statement of the Problem
The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of
informed decision making that influence the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relations.
3
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 the study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
Three research questions guided this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Significance of the Study
This study can help policy makers to understand the positive attributes of school board
training. As previously mentioned, some states require mandatory training but in California there
is no mandatory training required of board members. The study can inform legislators to see
whether implementing mandatory school board training will have a positive effect on student
achievement. This study can inform superintendents and they can utilize it to ensure that their
board members attend school board training, specifically Masters in Governance (MIG), if it is
found to be helpful. Finally, this study may be significant to board members in encouraging their
4
participation in training. If this study affirms that school board training is positive, they may see
to make this a continuous process if it is not already. Boards may decide to change their board
policies to ensure that all members receive training in order to improve the functioning of the
school districts. The results of the study can influence policy makers, superintendents, and board
members to ensure that school board members receive the necessary training to be as effective as
possible in a school district.
Assumptions
There were multiple assumptions in this study. First, it was assumed that conducting a
qualitative study was the best research method. Although surveys were administered, and often
they are associated with quantitative studies, it was decided that surveys would be used as a
qualitative tool. It was assumed that both the surveys and the interview questions were valid
instrumentation research tools and that the interviews would be administered in a way that
ensured that participants felt safe and comfortable during the interviews so that the best answers
could be generated by them. Also, there was an assumption that board member training is
valuable; in this case, it was assumed that CSBA’s MIG training is valuable, that board members
who are trained benefit from it, and that it affects their decision making in their respective school
districts. Finally, it was assumed that board members had been recently trained in MIG. How
recently board members had been trained was not considered when participating districts were
chosen. It is possible that board members had been trained some time ago and it was assumed
that they remembered the content of the training.
Limitations
There were several limitations in this study. One was the purposeful selection of school
districts. The research team selected districts for interviews. It is possible that researchers may
5
have chosen people whom they know, and there may have been selection bias in this. Another
limitation was the role of the researcher. The team of researchers was composed of educators; in
some cases, the researchers may have had information about a particular district and therefore
their role could be slightly extended beyond the role of a traditional researcher. The researchers
were aware of this and understood their roles in the study. The third limitation was that, since the
study was particular to MIG training in California, generalizability could be an issue. There are
many training options for school board members. Recognizing this as a limitation, the study
results can still be generalized if they are looked at through the frame of the importance of school
board training. Finally, there was only a finite amount of time to conduct the research. This
factor may have constrained the findings; however, there was a strict timeline to this work, and it
had to proceed. Interviews were conducted in May to July 2020 via Zoom due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
Delimitations
The research team decided to examine MIG training, recognizing that there are different
board training programs. The reason this decision was made was that CSBA is an established
organization in California. Another delimitation was that the research team decided to focus on
six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. Later,
the number of counties was expanded to 12. These counties represent only a fraction of
California; however, they represent a large percentage of students in California. The third
delimitation was that the research team decided to interview only three board members per
district and not the full complement of five or seven board members.
6
Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms were defined:
Accountability: The concept that schools and school districts will be held responsible for
performance or producing documents and records, creating and following plans, and reporting
student performance on assessments.
Assessment: The annual summative evaluation of student learning through state-
sanctioned multiple-choice tests.
California Department of Education (CDE): The state of California’s governmental
organization that supports and supervises education.
California School Boards Association (CSBA): The nonprofit education association
representing the elected officials who govern public school districts and county offices of
education. An organization entrusted with the responsibility to provide guidance, resources, and
training for school board members throughout California (CSBA, 2007).
With a membership of nearly 1,000 educational agencies state-wide, CSBA brings
together school governing boards and administrators from districts and county offices of
education to advocate for effective policies that advance the education and well-being of
the state’s more than 6 million school-age children. A membership-driven association,
the CSBA provides policy resources and training to members and represents the state-
wide interests of public education through legal, political, legislative, community, and
media advocacy. (CSBA, 2018a, para. 1)
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2007;
7
Gemberling et al., 2000). The overarching actions of the school board in creating policies for a
school district.
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP):
A 3-year plan that describes the goals, actions, services, and expenditures to support
positive student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The LCAP provides an
opportunity for LEAs to share their stories of how, what, and why programs and services
are selected to meet their local needs. (CDE, 2020a, LCAP Overview section, para. 1)
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): “The law enacted in 2013–2014 to simplify
how funding is provided to LEAs. Previously, funding included more than 50 categorical
funding lines designed to give targeted services based on student demographics (CDE, 2020).
Local education agency (LEA):
A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a state for
either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public
elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or
other political subdivision of a state, or for a combination of school districts or counties
as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools
or secondary schools. (Legal Information Institute, Electronic Code of Federal
Regulations, n.d., para. 1)
Masters in Governance (MIG): A training program sponsored by the CSBA consisting of
five modules designed to define roles and responsibilities, improve governance and leadership
through increased knowledge and skills to support an effective governance structure and
maintain a focus on student learning.
8
National School Board Association (NSBA): “A federation of 49 state associations and
an association in the U.S. territory of the Virgin Islands, representing more than 90,000 school
board officials” (NSBA, 2020, para. 1).
Public school: a free tax-supported school controlled by a local governmental authority.
School board: A group of nonpartisan citizens, either elected or appointed, within a
school district to act as a single unit regarding various aspects of governance (CSBA, 2007).
School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding at public
meetings of school boards.
School district: Synonym for a local education agency (LEA); a public organization
charged with operating public schools and serving students in a designated geographic area.
Student achievement: The performance by students on the annual summative assessment
given by the state of California.
Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district with
oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter One includes the overview, background, statement of the problem, purpose of
the study, research questions, significance, assumptions, limitations, delimitations, definitions of
terms, and a description of the organization of the dissertation. Chapter Two is the review of the
literature and includes a close look at democracy and boards of education, the history of school
boards, roles and responsibilities of school boards, governance and accountability, leadership
training for school boards, school boards and student achievement, MIG, a conceptual
framework, and conclusion. Chapter Two frames the major concepts of boards of education.
Chapter Three describes research methodology and includes research design, instrumentation,
9
data collection, data analysis, and ethical considerations. In the complete dissertation, Chapter
Four reports the findings of the study and Chapter Five presents results of analysis of the
findings, implications, recommendations, and a conclusion.
10
Chapter Two: Democracy and Boards of Education
In 1903, John Dewey argued that it was critical to maintain democracy in education
(Dewey, 1903). By this point in history, boards of education had been created and dictated many
critical issues inside of schools, including adoption of textbooks and the course of study (Dewey,
1903). It is important to note that school board members were not members of the school system.
Dewey argued that to have a group of men who were outside of the school system make such
decisions was indeed undemocratic, as power had been placed with individuals who had no
expertise or connection to schools. Furthermore, the answer was not to cede this power to
superintendents because that would create a danger of converting schools into autocratic
organizations. Instead, Dewey argued that teachers should hold decision making power at
schools (Dewey, 1903). At the time, there was little trust that individual schools could make
sound decisions; therefore, power was given to people outside of the school system. Dewey
argued on behalf of teachers, “If this body [teachers] is so unfit, how can it be trusted to carry out
the recommendations or the dictations of the wisest of experts?” (Dewey, 1903, p. 197). Dewey
contended that schools had everything that they needed to be the deciders of important decisions;
thus, he argued for local control (Dewey, 1903). Indeed, he claimed that a greater exercise in
democracy, an alternative to boards of education, was to hand over power to each school and to
diminish the power of men outside the system.
John Dewey’s interpretation of the importance of maintaining a democratic school
system was astute in its predictions of some of the negative impacts that have evolved with
boards of education. “One of the foundational beliefs regarding democracy is that, through
widespread participation and representation, decisions will be made that best represent the
interests of diverse groups” (Cunningham, 2003, p. 776). This statement makes many
11
assumptions, including that there is wide representation in the democratic school system, which
may not necessarily be the case. Yet, Cunningham argued that there should be changes to the
governance systems in schools because private groups and special interests have infiltrated
education. Today, school board elections may cost more than $10,000, and thus donations that
are given to these races build political alliances that perpetuate the threats to democracy
(Cunningham, 2003). The interest groups that have seeded themselves in education are vast and
include legislators and chambers of commerce (Cunningham, 2003). Because they are special
interest groups, their focus and expertise may not necessarily align with the needs of school
districts and therefore can compromise necessary progress. Indeed, the vast interest in education
by special interest groups affects the democratic process by having specific interests represented
through board members and not necessarily the benefits of all (Cunningham, 2003). Cunningham
(2003) also warned against vouchers because, if each school becomes its own organization, there
will be even less democratic representation on school boards, as such boards may be eliminated
altogether under such a system: “Research tells us that schools have the best chance of success
when they are led by a representative, responsive governance group-administrators, teachers,
students (when mature), parents, and community members” (p. 778). This is similar to Dewey’s
assertion that decision making belongs in the school house. That being said, the current model of
governance is the school board.
The concept that boards of education be locally controlled is integrated into the American
fabric. Before the inception of school boards, municipal governments had the responsibility for
governing schools (Feuerstein, 2002). The move from municipal government governance to local
school boards was more aligned with local control. The evolution of the school board was
welcomed, as the representatives were from local communities and therefore responsive to the
12
needs of the people whom they served. Today, school boards are still centered on local control,
but there are many challenges that threaten democracy. As school boards have evolved, market-
driven reforms such as charter schools and vouchers can threaten the democratic nature of
representation because the power of school boards would diminish (Feuerstein, 2002). Should
the number of public schools decrease due to charter schools and vouchers, “electing school
board members would become less important because they would control less resources”
(Feuerstein, 2002, p. 23). If this were the case, democratic representation would be threatened.
The idea of democratic representation is in conflict with capitalism, which at its
foundation argues that having choice is critical (Feuerstein, 2002). According to capitalism, in
essence, parents should have choices to send their children to whatever school they would like,
even if it disrupts the democratic representation that exists with the current governance model of
school boards. As a possible solution to the challenges that school boards face in order to
improve democracy, Feuerstein advocated for deliberative democracy, noting that “citizens must
continuously discuss issues of public policy if they hope to cope with various disagreements
(moral and otherwise) that are certain to arise” (Feuerstein, 2002, p. 29). This would increase the
accountability of school board members. In addition, Feuerstein made six suggestions for reform
that would support deliberative democracy: (a) decrease the number of at-large positions to
increase opportunities for minorities, (b) make elections partisan to increase voter turnout, (c)
hold elections concurrently with other elections, (d) break up large districts, (e) elect school
boards as a slate, and (f) proportion representation so that the minority voice can be equalized
(Feuerstein, 2002). These suggestions are changes to the current structure of school boards.
Democracy is a constant challenge that must be continuously fine-tuned and deliberate attention
should be paid to it.
13
There needs to be a closer analysis to determine whether school board elections indeed
are an exercise in democracy. Although school board elections are democratic, since less than
5% of voters choose to participate in school board elections, the question remains whether school
board elections are indeed democratic (Allen & Plank, 2005). It may be necessary to differentiate
the intent and the outcomes of board of education elections to improve the outcomes. An analysis
of school board elections in Michigan showed that consolidating board of education elections
with other elections can lead to an increased number of votes and a change in who votes. That
study was conducted in four cities in Michigan; at the time, most cities conducted separate
elections for boards of education. The authors looked at two cities that conducted separate
elections and two that conducted combined elections for boards of education and other municipal
elections. One of the findings, although not surprising, has great implications for school board
elections: Voting in school board elections is higher where there are highly educated people
(Allen & Plank, 2005). If this is the case, then are school board elections representative at all?
Overall, the researchers concluded that consolidating school board elections “could increase
voters’ awareness of school issues as a result . . . can be determined better to serve the
democratic purposes of public governance” (Allen & Plank, 2005, p. 524).
Webber (2010) noted that, although school board elections are democratic in theory, very
few people are involved in them. Again, can the process truly be considered democratic if very
few people participate? Webber’s study in Missouri examined a sample of 206 schools to
analyze the effects of social capital on school performance. Webber examined voter turnout in
school district elections and candidate completion related to school performance and found that
“increased voting turnout is associated with better school performance” (Webber, 2010, p. 82).
While increased voting leads to better school performance on state tests, it does not necessarily
14
increase graduation rates (Webber, 2010). The author noted the importance of people voting in
local school board elections. If the public had a better understanding of what school boards are
charged to do, it is possible that more voters would become involved.
Although democracy was a pillar at the inception of school boards, the evolution of
school boards is critical to study to determine whether they are still democratic. As noted, with
low voter turnout and who actually votes in school board elections, these questions cannot be
ignored.
History of the School Board
As the reform movement in the 20th century occurred in school boards, “a more
professional class of board member emerged as well” (French, Peevely, & Stanley, 2008,
p. 213). Board members became more elite. Again, the question of whether they are
representative of the people surfaces (French et al., 2008).
The history of the school board embraces the concept that, in many ways, school boards
were created to ensure that local democracy was prioritized. In the 19th century, schools were
governed by wards and were extremely corrupt (Danzberger, 1994). In order to mitigate this
corruption, a reform movement took place to move the governance of schools from government
and to a more localized group (Danzberger, 1994). Governing schools was seen as a burden, and
thus a shift was necessary (Danzberger, 1994). “As greater demands were being placed on local
school governance as a result of population growth, selectmen were appointed to a committee to
oversee this operation” (French et al., 2008, p. 212). The reform movement occurred both as a
reaction to the corruption that was taking place and because of the amount of investment
necessary to govern schools.
15
“It was not until 1837 that the first state board of education and the office of state
superintendent were established . . . local control remained preeminent although the innate public
suspicion of state control manifested itself frequently in complex layers of legislations”
(Danzberger, 1994, p. 368). This coincided with what are now known as public schools, or
common schools (Wirt & Kirst, 2001). “Determined to protect and improve what the founding
generation had created, common-school supporters had broad social purposes, from molding
morals and fostering cultural unity to teaching citizenship responsibilities, spreading prosperity,
and ending poverty” (Wirt & Kirst, 2005, p. 6). The birth of the school board did not necessarily
dictate complete independence between government and the school board; indeed, government
continued to influence education through legislation. After the establishment of the
superintendent and school board, another major reform occurred between 1900 and 1920
(Danzberger & Usdan, 1994). This reform movement changed the nature of the board and the
superintendent from operating boards to policy boards (Danzberger & Usdan, 1994).
Furthermore, in the 1960s, there was another shift as boards became more involved in the
operation of school districts (Danzberger & Usdan, 1994). As these shifts transformed education,
it is important to maintain clarity regarding the roles of the school board and the superintendent.
Roles and Responsibilities of School Boards
In 2008, there were approximately 95,000 school board members on 15,00 public school
boards (French et al., 2008). Most school boards consist of five to seven members; urban school
districts tend to have more members. “Almost one sixth of public-school students reside in the
fifty largest school districts, which together comprise less than 1% of all districts” (French et al.,
2008, p. 213). This is important to note, as the variance in student population is wide; thus, it is
possible that the needs of school districts vary and do not fit into a one-size-fits-all mold.
16
According to surveys conducted by the ASBJ and Virginia Polytechnic and State
University (1997 and 1998), school board members continue to differ demographically
from many of the people they serve. In the 1997 survey, 57% of school board members
reported an income at or above $60,000, with 23% claiming an income of greater than
$100,000. Many members occupied managerial or professional positions, (44%), and
13% owned their own business at one time. Nearly half the members possessed graduate
degrees, (46%), and another 29% held a 4-year college degree. Eighty seven percent of
members reported that they were white; while only 5% stated they were black and 1%
stated they were Hispanic. Less than half the members were female. (French et al., 2008,
p. 214)
It is vital to understand who school members are in order to support how they can fulfill
their roles and responsibilities. The demographic information shows that, indeed, there is great
variation both in the size of boards of education and who sits on the boards. Thus, is it possible
or even ideal to have the same roles and responsibilities for school boards throughout the
country?
The criteria for service on boards of education in California are that the board members
are over age 18, are from the state, are resident in the district or county office of education, have
registered to vote, and are eligible to serve in a civil office. Most school board members are
elected in California, with the exception of one county office of education where board members
are appointed by the county board of supervisors (CSBA, 2018c).
One of the key elements in being a board member is understanding the importance of
how people relate to one another. “Relationships are critical to accomplishing school district and
county offices of education for serving students” (CSBA, 2017, p. 34). Strong relationships are
17
necessary to guide the work of members of the board of education, between the board and the
superintendent, between the board and staff, and between the board and the community. The
relationship between the board and the superintendent is indeed very important in effective
school districts (Grissom, 2009). If strong relationships do not exist, responsibilities of the board
become more difficult as members strive to support students.
CSBA outlines five board responsibilities that support this central role. These board
member responsibilities are to: 1) set direction for the school district or county office of
education; 2) establish structure through policy; 3) provide support for implementation
efforts; 4) ensure accountability through oversight and monitoring; and 5) act as
community leaders. (CSBA, 2017, p. 34)
Establishing a vision and goals is the first identified responsibility of boards of education.
Having alignment with the superintendent is part of establishing vision and goals. It is important
that boards of education support and prioritize the goals that the superintendent has set as
necessary in order to move the district (CSBA, 2017). Not only is it important for boards of
education to establish the vision and goals of the districts; it is also necessary for boards to
maintain a focus on what have been established as the goals for the districts. It is important that
the vision be clear and be used to guide the many aspects of districts or county offices of
education (CSBA, 2018c). It is vital to maintain a focus on the vision as districts are complex
organizations; many times, distractions come to districts, such as controversial public policies or
other agendas from multiple interest groups. Thus, school boards need to maintain their focus
and not waver from the collaboratively established vision for student achievement.
Goals such as creating a shared vision should happen collaboratively among all
stakeholders. It is not enough for board members to collaborate with the superintendent, as much
18
more is necessary. Collaboration should be broader as boards of education should also work with
district staff (CSBA, 2017). Moving a school district takes dedication, collaboration, and
relationships among stakeholders.
Setting policy is the second identified responsibility of effective boards of education
(CSBA, 2017). Nine in-depth studies “conclude that effective boards avoid micromanagement of
the superintendent and focus their efforts on broad policy decisions rather than on day-today
administration” (Grissom, 2009, p. 603). This is a critical finding as it provides clarity between
the roles of the superintendent and the board. Boards of education should focus on the overall
policy and goal setting and truly leave the running of the district to the superintendent. If the
policies are aligned to support the vision and the goals of the district, this can help the district to
move forward.
CSBA states that the third goal of boards of education is to provide support for
implementation of programs and policies. To do this, it is important that boards of education
work collaboratively with school staff and other board members. A study from the NSBA
showed that, when boards of education work as a team with superintendents, they are effective
for district progress (CSBA, 2017). Other research has shown that, in low-performing districts,
board members work to advance their own agendas (CSBA, 2017). This is unfortunate, as low-
performing districts should ensure that they have good relationships with superintendents so that
they can move districts forward. If they have their own agenda, they will continue to be low
performing. Thus, it is critical that school board members receive appropriate training.
To ensure accountability, boards of education and superintendents should collaboratively
set clear goals (CSBA, 2017). If they have agreed on goals, they can work to hold each other
accountable for the districts’ progress. Studies have shown that high-achieving or high-growth
19
districts spend more time discussing student achievement than do low-achieving districts (CSBA,
2017). The work of the board of education is first to ensure that goals are clear and then that the
board spends time discussing student achievement. Accountability is a collaborative process and
critical to improve school districts.
Board members are representatives of the community and should engage with the
community (CSBA, 2017). At times, boards are the only people who are locally elected, with the
responsibility of advocating for students (CSBA, 2018c). Boards of education and
superintendents should continuously communicate with the community to ensure that everyone
understands the vision of the district (CSBA, 2017). Although communicating is important,
school boards may need to go beyond this and engage the community, such as with the LCAP
(CSBA, 2018c). Communicating and engaging the community improves relationships with
voters. As board members work with the community, they also should work with government
agencies (CSBA, 2017). This is critical to do so that, when school boards and districts want to
pass bonds or such, they have the support of the community.
Boards should be communicating with the community on all aspects of a district, but also
on the accountabilities that boards have. Specific accountabilities of boards of education include
the hiring and evaluation of the superintendent; setting, revising, and implementing policies;
being the body that oversees judicial appeals; monitoring the instructional program and student
achievement; monitoring, overseeing, and setting district finances; approving the collective
bargaining process; and conducting a self-evaluation (CSBA, 2018).
These accountabilities are heavy responsibilities. Not only should boards engage in this
work; they should ensure that they are communicating this work and the results to their
constituencies and community. Overall, boards should provide support to districts by modeling
20
the districts’ vision, ensuring that decisions support established goals, upholding district policies,
seeing to it that the district has a positive climate, and knowing the district well enough to serve
as ambassadors to the community (CSBA, 2018).
Governance and Accountability
The hiring and evaluation of the superintendent and other key personnel is a critical
function of the board (Campbell & Greene, 1994). The superintendent and the board are linked;
together, they set the vision and goals and perform the other accountabilities (Campbell &
Greene, 1994). Historically, the position of superintendent has been filled by White males. The
position is so complex that, at times, it is hard to fill (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). In addition to long
workdays, stakeholder pressures, and increasing violence at schools, the pressures of being a
superintendent make the average longevity of a superintendent 5 years (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). In
order to mitigate the difficulties of being a superintendent, new roles have been explored in
various parts of the country. For example, the role of the superintendent can be that of a decision
maker. In this role, the superintendent and staff make decisions that lead the work in the school
district, including trying to influence the policies that are set by the board. The superintendent
must navigate this carefully because the decisions must be within the zone of tolerance of the
board; if the decision veers from this, the superintendent may confront problems (Wirt & Kirst,
2005). In order to understand the zone of tolerance for the board, the superintendent must have
strong relationships with them in order to understand where their boundaries are.
In New York City, the Chancellor of Schools reports to seven board members, five of
whom are appointed by five elected borough presidents and two of whom are appointed by the
mayor (Litow et al., 1999). In order to lead, the chancellor takes on different roles. First, the
chancellor is an educational leader who is accountable for improving the educational outcomes
21
of the students in New York. Doing this requires working with all stakeholders, including
providing professional development to administrators and teachers to facilitate progress. The
chancellor must also work with the external business and government communities to leverage
resources for implementing the plan of the school system. The second role of the chancellor is
that of manager. The chancellor should ensure that there are qualified managers with experience
in key leadership roles at the district and school levels. The stakeholders in the school system,
including teachers, students, and parents, should be seen as customers by school administrators
and officials. To do this, there should be developed measures to see whether the plan that the
district has to improve student outcomes and the work of both the district and the school sites are
effective. The third role that the chancellor has is that of strategist (Litow et al., 1999):
In urban districts, many of the tasks involved in running a school district require
balancing and integrating a complicated set of financial, intergovernmental, legal,
complex systems such as New York City, changes in personnel systems often involve
changes in law, regulation, and certification that must be coordinated and plotted much as
one might plan a complicated corporate takeover. (p. 194)
This shows how difficult the role of a superintendent is, there is more to the job than simply
moving student achievement forward.
The pressures that superintendents face are substantial. A survey found that many factors,
such as politics, working with school board members so that they stay within their
responsibilities, not being able to remove challenging teachers, and the costs of special education
challenged superintendents. Again, these pressures are significant for superintendents, who must
be dynamic and nimble and create change by ensuring that they manage conflict (Wirt & Kirst,
2005).
22
To support the pressures of being a superintendent, CSBA and a team of superintendents
from the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) developed standards for
superintendents that include the standard of how superintendents work with boards, including
understanding that the overall authority is with the board, is able to provide advice to the board,
and works on educating the board (CSBA, 2018d). This statement is very complex, suggesting
that leadership belongs to both the board and the superintendent and that, although the board has
the authority, the superintendent can influence the authority.
The evaluation of the superintendent’s performance and standards is a very important role
that the board plays. CSBA (2014a) suggested that, in order to evaluate effectively, the board and
the superintendent should set clear goals, monitor progress periodically, and focus on how to
improve.
Additional accountabilities that boards have are to ensure that policies are revised and
implemented and to serve as a judicial appeals body when a student is facing expulsion (CSBA,
2018c). Expanding on policies, school boards should focus on creating policies that are able to
move the instructional program and student outcomes and not as much time on operations.
Policies are generally set to comply with state law, but school boards have the opportunity to
enact local policies to help with the instructional program. Such an example is the creation of
professional learning communities (CSBA, 2014a). When a board of education creates a policy
that mandates professional learning communities, this supports the superintendent in being able
to establish programs that move the district forward.
Boards also have the accountability of ensuring that the programs that are used in districts
are effective in supporting student achievement (CSBA, 2018). To do so, CSBA recommends
that boards use various forms of data, including qualitative and quantitative data, to set goals to
23
monitor progress and to hold people accountable (CSBA, 2018). The accountability process for
monitoring students and evaluating the superintendent are similar in that they both begin by
ensuring that there are clear performance expectations.
Monitoring and adjusting finances in a district are additional responsibilities that boards
have (CSBA, 2018). This is a very important and difficult responsibility because there are
financial constraints that must be distributed and mitigated, such as rising pension costs. In
California, for example, the costs of health care and pensions are not supported by the revenue
that districts receive. In light of this, it is difficult for school boards to align their resources to
their vision. Because pension costs are extraordinary for districts, some contend that the state
should cover the costs before allocating LCFF funds. To alleviate this problem, LEAs and school
board members often look for resources outside of the funding that is provided, such as parent
associations, foundations, and partnerships (CSBA, 2018).
Another role that school board members have is to approve collective bargaining
agreements with labor partners. In California, the Rodda Act established that employment and
working conditions could be bargained by educators. The law evolved, as these were the original
provisions of the law, but subsequent laws expanded the scope of bargaining (Timar, 2003).
Thirty-seven states had legislation by 2004 supporting collective bargaining (Wirt & Kirst,
2005). Professional organizations, such as the National Education Association, are the umbrella
organizations for teachers’ unions (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). This is important because labor unions
at times endorse board members and contribute to their elections, compounding the complexities
of the relationship between labor and the board of education.
Strunk and McEachin (2011) studied 465 California school districts, representing more
than 82% of the districts in California. From the study, they found that districts that had more
24
restrictive collective bargaining agreements were “is associated with the increased likelihood that
districts will be in Program Improvement (PI) and at higher levels of PI, and with lower school
and district level proficiency and graduation rates” (Strunk & McEachin, 2011, p. 871). Boards
of education should be aware of such findings, as their approval of collective bargaining is one
of their responsibilities.
Strunk (2011) found that “contract restrictiveness is associated with lower average
student performance” (p. 354). Unions in California have stronger labor laws than other states;
specifically, “California is one of only fourteen states that permit teachers to strike and has a
two-year probation window for teachers” (p. 358). Again, the favorable labor laws with
collective bargaining are important for boards of education to understand and be trained in
because it is critical to have positive relationships with labor partners. Collective bargaining is
not only about finances and can have an impact on so much more.
Moe (2006) studied 526 school board candidates from 253 districts from 2000 to 2003.
The study, conducted in California, found that teachers unions use their resources to endorse
school board candidates whom they have chosen through political action. This can complicate
the role of the board even further, as in some cases board members are endorsed with money and
resources by teachers’ unions. “In school-board elections the incentives of the teacher unions are
strong and clear. If they can wield clout at the polls, they can determine who sits on local school
boards . . . literally choosing the very ‘management’ they will be bargaining with” (Moe, 2006,
p. 60).
A further responsibility that boards of education have is conducting the effectiveness of
the board through self-evaluation (CSBA, 2018). Being that one of the responsibilities of the
25
board is to evaluate the superintendent, evaluating themselves as it relates to the visions and
goals established only makes sense.
In essence, the governance role of boards of education is important in that they play a
representative role, that is, representing the community, as well as an enforcement role, as set by
law, and a fiduciary role (CSBA, 2013). Boards of education are affected by state law. Indeed, in
California, there are multiple codes that affect what boards may do. Again, this is why it is
important for both boards and state policy makers to be trained in the matters of education.
For governance matters, it is important for boards and superintendents to understand their
norms of communication. Setting such protocols facilitates communication between meetings,
meeting preparation, how meetings are conducted, and the protocols on how the superintendent
and board communicate with the public. Having protocols in place facilitates the governance of
school districts by creating trust among the members (CSBA, 2014a).
As boards of education work on developing the evaluation process for superintendents,
they should utilize data to make informed decisions. CSBA recommends that boards look at
system-level data, data on decision making, and accountability in preparation for the evaluation
of the superintendent (CSBA, 2014a).
In order to hold everyone accountable, boards of education should have an accountability
framework to evaluate board performance, district, and superintendent (CSBA, 2014a). CSBA
recommends that accountability is a cycle with shared responsibility.
CSBA (2014b) recommended that there be deliberate engagement of stakeholders that is
strategic, systematic, structured, and cyclical. Creating a sense of urgency, creating a vision
alongside the community, and building support and civic capacity are essential for effective
districts.
26
School governance is more complex than simply defining what board members are
responsible for; indeed, it requires detailed work to be able to support districts effectively.
Leadership Training for School Boards
The West Virginia School Boards Association approached board reform by partnering
with state policy makers. In doing so, they secured $100,000 from the state that allowed the 55
boards of education to receive training in the Institute for Educational Leadership (Campbell &
Greene, 1994). The training was focused on governance and sparked passage of House
Concurrent Resolution 30, which addressed,
1) how local boards spent time, 2) in which of their roles and responsibilities boards
themselves identified strengths and weaknesses, 3) citizen and state policy makers’ views
on the roles and effectiveness of boards and 4) what would have to change in order to
restructure boards to overcome any deficiencies identified in the first three studies. (p.
394)
Additional legislation was implemented in 1994 to improve boards with some specific
requirements, including developing connections with school staff and external partners. By
partnering with the state, the West Virginia School Board Association was able to reform the
boards of education by increasing training and legislation (Campbell & Greene, 1994).
Roberts and Sampson (2011) conducted a study of board members and surveyed 26 state
directors and found that most states did not require training for board members. The second step
of the study was to compare these findings to Education Week’s education system ratings. The
findings showed that the states that required board of education training scored ratings of B or C
and the states that did not require board of education training earned C and D ratings (Roberts &
27
Sampson, 2011). The better ratings in districts that required training suggests that mandatory
board training is positive not only for the board members but for the entire school system.
Texas mandates professional development, and “requires 18 hours of in-service training
within the first year of service . . . after the first year each board member must receive eight
hours of professional development” (Roberts & Sampson, 2011, p. 702). The boards are trained
on the Texas code and pertinent acts regarding effective meetings (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Texas is in the minority of states in requiring training for board members. Twenty-six states do
not mandate board member training, while 24 do (Alsbury, 2008).
Roberts and Sampson (2011) concluded that mandatory school board training is positive
because boards have such important responsibilities, such as hiring and firing the superintendent.
Indeed, “If we are truly in education for student learning, then our school boards need to know
what they are doing so they can make the best-informed decisions possible for student
education” (p. 710). The critical decisions that are in the hands of the board are too important not
to have mandatory training.
In addition to school board members being trained on governance matters, Resnick
(1999) recommended that state policy makers be trained of the roles and responsibilities of
school boards so that they work with them appropriately. An added suggestion was to have the
state provide technical assistance to boards of education so not only should they receive training
but also get support during their tenure.
The crucial roles of boards of education should be supported by training. Ultimately, the
decisions made by boards of education affect the lives of students.
28
School Boards and Student Achievement
Johnson (2012) identified 12 board governance practices that are associated with higher
student achievement. The identified practices are similar to the aforementioned ones by CSBA.
The identified practices are creating a vision, using data, monitoring progress and taking
corrective action, creating awareness and urgency, engaging the community, connecting with
district leadership, creating climate, providing staff development, developing policy with a focus
on student learning, demonstrating commitment, and practicing unified governance. Although
that study identified these practices, the study also recognized a gap in the literature that
identifies the relationships between boards of education and student achievement. “Surprisingly,
although the educational literature is saturated with many opinion-based articles regarding
effective school board governance, there has been little qualitative or qualitative research
conducted regarding board of education’s influence on student achievement” (p. 89).
The Lighthouse Inquiry “indicate[d] that school boards in high-achieving districts are
significantly different in their knowledge and beliefs than school boards in low-achieving
districts” (Rice et al., 2000, p. 4). Six school districts in Georgia were studied and were selected
because they had similar demographics to districts in Iowa and, in the years 1995-1996, 1996-
1997, and 1997-1998, scored either very high or very low on standardized tests of students in the
third, fifth, and eighth grades. One hundred fifty-nine interviews were conducted, and
approximately 25 questions were asked. Three of the districts that were chosen were high
performing and three were low performing (Rice et al., 2000).
The similarities between the districts were that they cared about children; had peaceable
relationships; were fairly satisfied with the superintendent; felt tension about site-based
management as it relates to equity throughout the entire district; had gaps between students in
29
categorical programs such as Title I, English learners, and special education; and had board
members who were from the local community (Rice et al., 2000). It is interesting that high- and
low-achieving districts struggled with some of the same issues yet had different results.
The differences between the high- and low-achieving districts were distinct (Rice et al.,
2000). The first difference was that, in high-achieving districts, the superintendent and staff
viewed students as having maximum potential to achieve their dreams. The school system
existed to ensure that students excelled. Low-achieving districts did not characterize students in
this matter; instead, students were described by their limitations and the expectations of them
were indeed low. This characterization was both about students and staff. The second difference
was that, in the high-achieving districts, board members were aware of the goals, instructional
initiatives, and professional development for staff. They also understood the distinct roles of the
members of the board, superintendent, and staff. In contrast, in low-achieving districts, board
members were not as clear about the initiatives or any of the professional development that was
occurring in the district. Only small initiatives were being implemented. Furthermore, in high-
achieving districts, school personnel saw themselves as part of the team, whereas in low-
achieving districts, teachers blamed the board of education and the superintendent. Also, in low-
achieving districts, there were multiple negative comments about teachers and students by
teachers. The third difference was that, in high-achieving districts, staff could articulate the goals
and conditions for change, whereas, in low-performing districts, there was not a clear articulation
of the plan for school renewal. In low-achieving districts, “teachers and principals actually had
little concept about staff development and what it could mean for school renewal. Their teachers
attended staff development as individuals rather than as members of a faculty” (Rice et al., 2000,
para. 14).
30
The Lighthouse Inquiry also studied the perspectives of personnel. The conditions for
school renewal that were examined with school staff were a sense of being part of a system, a
sense of belonging or sharing in initiatives, a sense of being in a supportive context, a sense of
purpose and process of staff development, being part of site-generated school improvement, a
sense of connectedness to the larger community, and a sense of integrative leadership. Overall,
the low-achieving district staff felt disconnected and not part of a coherent system (Rice et al.,
2000).
The findings of the Lighthouse Inquiry have been very profound to the research on school
boards in that they found that having positive conditions for change and elevating people were
associated with high-performing districts. The conditions for learning that the study identified
were emphasis on building a human organizational system, ability to create and sustain
initiatives, supporting workplace for staff, staff development, support for school sites thorough
data and information, community involvement, and shared leadership (Rice et al., 2000).
In addition to these conditions for change, the study reported, “The general theory of
board/superintendent process has emphasized teamwork, amity, and involvement of community
under a positive vision of education” (Rice et al., 2000, p. 57). Site-based management, in
theory, states that more localized decisions will bring about positive change, yet “throughout the
nation, site-based management has neither resulted in greater innovation nor, as a general
practice, improved student learning” (Rice et al., 2000, p. 58).
The Lighthouse Inquiry elevates some very interesting questions that contrast with some
of what is considered to be acceptable knowledge about boards of education:
Could it be that unless the policymakers create the conditions necessary for a professional
learning community to thrive, the principals and faculties will not be able to generate
31
productive change? Also, as school districts moved toward the site-based philosophy,
they may have reduced the very central office curriculum and instructional specialists
who were to offer service to school personnel. Did those districts unwittingly reduce their
ability to support the school faculties and thus reduce the likelihood that the site-based
philosophy would succeed? Could it be that commonly held assumptions about the role
of the school board-that school boards should avoid matters that deal with teaching and
learning-may have drawn school boards away from the very behaviors that are most
likely to have the greatest impact on student achievement? Do we need a reconciliation
regarding the perceptions of the role of the board? (Rice et al., 2000, p. 58)
These findings suggest that school board members should have knowledge about how to
support the conditions for learning. Training and expertise can support board members in their
roles. The Lighthouse Inquiry posed some critical questions for future research and for
advocating that school board members have “sufficient understanding, knowledge, and beliefs in
order to create the conditions within the system which will ensure that the professional educators
can grow in their educational expertise and generate productive change” (Rice et al., 2000, p.
58).
A study by the New England School Development Council looked at 10 school districts
in five states. The study found that, where there was a positive relationship between the board
and the superintendent, more students attended college, students had higher test scores, and there
were lower rates of dropout (Education Writers Association, 2003). A study by the Council of
the Great City Schools examined several case studies and found that, when superintendents and
boards had a shared vision, urban districts were more successful (Education Writers Association,
2003). Furthermore, a study in 1997 “found that districts with quality governance tended to have
32
greater student achievement as measured by dropout rates, the percentage of students entering
college, and aptitude test scores” (French et al., 2008, p. 215).
According to Land,
Although these studies offer insights, additional comparative case studies and
quantitative research, both cross sectional and longitudinal, linking, specific school board
policies and actions to students’ academic outcomes are needed in order to demonstrate
more concretely the importance of school boards in raising and sustaining students’
academic achievement. (2002, p. 19)
More studies are necessary in this area.
Masters in Governance
The MIG training by CSBA (2010) is conducted in five sessions. The first session is the
Foundation of Effective Governance and supports boards of education to set the vision for the
district and support student achievement. The second session is focused on policy, judicial
review, and student learning. This course supports board members in understanding the policy
process and aligning decisions and policies of the district to support student achievement. The
third session is on school finance; it helps board members to understand the budget process in
school districts. Maintaining effective budgets is one of the responsibilities for boards of
education. The fourth session is about human resources and collective bargaining and supports
board members in understanding the scope of their work with staff and with maintaining a
healthy relationship with labor, in light of finite resources. The final session is on community
relations and advocacy. Community relations focuses on working with the media and crisis
management. Boards are also trained on how to advocate for the needs of the people whom they
represent (CSBA, 2012).
33
Conceptual Framework
Bolman and Deal (2003) discussed four leadership concepts that framed this study on
boards of education: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. Different elements of
each of the frameworks are applicable to the work of boards of education and district staff.
The structural framework includes six assumptions about organizations: “Organizations
exist to achieve established goals and objectives. . . . Organizations increase efficiency and
enhance performance through specialization and clear division of labor (Bolman & Deal, 2003,
p. 45). This structural framework is aligned with the CSBA recommendation that boards of
education have clear goals and objectives. It is also aligned with the recommendation that boards
of education be clear about what their roles are and what the roles of the superintendent and staff
are (CSBA, 2018b).
The structural framework does not simply look at individuals; instead, it is an
examination of the structures that are in place (Bolman & Deal, 2003). At times, the limitations
of this framework are that it is very bureaucratic and the personal nature of leadership may be
overlooked for the rigid structures that an organization has in place (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Although there is alignment between the structural framework and boards, this framework does
not take into account the importance of relationship building that is critical among boards,
superintendents, and staff (CSBA, 2018b).
The human resource framework is one in which people are prioritized (Bolman & Deal,
2003). The assumptions in the human resource framework are as follows: “Organizations exist to
serve human needs rather than the reverse. . . . People and organizations need each other.
Organizations need ideas, energy, and talent; people need careers, salaries, and opportunities”
(Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 115). The specific needs that humans have are physiological, safety,
34
belonging and love, esteem, and self-actualization. The theory is that, if humans are provided
these things, they will produce for the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Many organizations
want to ensure that their staff members know that they are valuable. This in turn can help with
developing positive relationships.
One of the limitations in the human resource frame is that there is a possibility that the
needs of the people in the organization may not align with those of the organization. For
organizations, there is a tension between investing in people through training and such because
of the rapid changes in organizations. Yet, this is a strategy that organizations use, because
having a trained workforce is advantageous (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Providing training to boards
of education is advantageous because it is a way to meet their human needs. Learning more
about their roles can create a sense of belonging.
The political framework acknowledges that organizations are complex and face
competing interests from diverse stakeholders. The first assumption is that organizations are
coalitions and include diverse stakeholders (Bolman & Deal, 2003). In the case of boards of
education, they must work with the superintendent, staff, parents, students, community, and
externals groups such as politicians and partners. The second assumption is that there are
“enduring differences” between groups (Bolman & Deal, 2003). It is not unusual for there to be
competing interests in school districts, such as those of teachers and administrators, during
collective bargaining. The third assumption is that “most important decisions involve allocating
scarce resources—who gets what” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 186). Boards of education are
charged with allocating the budget and creating policies, both of which center on the allocation
of resources. The fourth assumption is that “scarce resources and enduring differences make
conflict central and power the most important asset” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 186). Again,
35
power is critical when determining decisions that have conflicting positions. The fifth
assumption is that “goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for
position among competing stakeholders” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 186). In organizations, it is
not uncommon for stakeholders to ally and join forces, such as at times when different labor
unions do.
The limitation of the political framework is that the stakeholder who maintains power
may not be the right people to set the agenda (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Student outcomes can be
the political agenda for all groups, but how groups interpret this can vary widely.
The fourth leadership framework is the symbolic. Like the other frameworks, the
symbolic has assumptions. There are five assumptions. The first assumption is, “What is most
important is not what happens but what it means” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 242). In the case of
a board of education, the board may vote unanimously on a policy. It may not be the policy that
is important, but instead that the board is unanimous; this is symbolic. Second, “Activity and
meaning are loosely coupled; events might have multiple meanings because people interpret
experience differently” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 242). This happens at school districts as
people derive different things from the same events. The third assumption is, “In face of
widespread uncertainty and ambiguity, people create symbols to resolve confusion, increase
predictability, find direction, and anchor hope and faith” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 242). In the
case of school districts, people may create symbols of students and share that that is what really
matters, even though the particulars of what matters are nebulous. The fourth assumption is,
Many events and processes are more important for what is expressed than what is
produced. They form a cultural tapestry of secular myths, heroes and heroines, rituals,
36
ceremonies, and stories that help people find purpose and passion in their persona and
work lives. (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 243)
For example, when people are hired, it is always important to have a clear process as this is very
important to stakeholders.
The fifth assumption is, “Culture is the glue that holds an organization together and
unites people around shared values and beliefs” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 243). One of the
school board’s responsibilities is to help with culture and to ensure that the climate is positive
(CSBA, 2018b).
Symbolism is entrenched in every school on a daily basis as the people who work in
schools recognize how important symbols are in uniting them to one another.
Conclusion
The evolution of school boards has led to extremely complex roles for people who may
have limited knowledge of education, other than having attended schools themselves. It is critical
to understand the perception of the impact of training that school board members attend.
37
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
In qualitative studies, the researcher describes a research problem and designs the study
to understand the problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The research team conducting this study
attempted to do just that and utilized appropriate tools to conduct the best study.
This study examined the critical role of relationships and training with school boards.
Relationships between boards of education and superintendents are of great importance and must
be fostered. CSBA (2017) recommended that, in order to move either districts or county offices
forward, it is very important that strong relationships exist between key stakeholders, including
boards of education. Some of the most important relationships in a district are the ones between
the board of education and the superintendent (Grissom, 2009). If relationships are strained
between boards of education and the superintendent, the work is increasingly difficult. There are
various types of training that boards of education can participate in to further their knowledge
and skills. Such training is vital because boards of education have significant power that includes
the hiring and firing of superintendents (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). How can such impactful
decisions be made thoughtfully without training?
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and positively affects 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 school board members’ and superintendents’
perceptions of the MIG training and the impact on school governance and student achievement.
38
This chapter examines the questions, research design, sample and population,
instrumentation, validity and reliability, data collection procedure, data analysis, and ethical
considerations.
The research team consisted of 20 people under the guidance of Dr. Michael Escalante at
the University of Southern California. The team planned, researched, designed, and conducted
research collaboratively. The team met regularly on a weekly basis to work on the study.
Three research questions were collaboratively designed to understand the impact of board
member training.
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
Qualitative research, as Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described it, is utilized to understand
the natural setting and to understand the meaning that people have constructed for themselves.
The team utilized surveys and interviews to collect data to address the research questions. The
surveys were distributed to participants via email and were completed by them in their natural
environments. Participants interviewed via online Zoom™ sessions. The first question lends
itself to both survey and interview because speaking to people about their perceptions about the
MIG training could generate data and the interview could generate the most authentic responses.
“Interviewing is necessary when we cannot observe behavior, feelings, or how people interpret
the world around them” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 108). Perceptions cannot be observed;
39
therefore, interviewing is fitting. In this case, 12 semi structured virtual Zoom interviews were
conducted; this option was necessary due to the COVID-19 pandemic that has restricted people
from leaving their homes. Three superintendents and nine board members were interviewed by
this researcher. The semi structured interview format allows flexibility, although the interview is
still guided by a set of prescriptive questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Such a structure helped
with the validity of the study.
Sample and Population
All K–12 districts in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego,
Ventura, Alameda, Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Santa Barbara, and Santa Clara counties were
considered for the sample. The research team selected districts to target and, through
confirmation with the superintendents, verified that the board members in the specific districts
had been through MIG training. The criteria were that the majority of the board members had
been trained; that is, if a board were comprised of five members, at least three had been trained
in MIG. If the superintendent shared with the team that the majority of the board members had
not been trained in MIG, the district was not considered for the study.
Once the group of districts in which the majority of the board of education had gone
through MIG training were identified, the superintendents were surveyed and interviewed. Three
superintendents and nine board members were surveyed and interviewed by this researcher.
Maxwell (2013) described goals that researchers have when engaging in purposeful
selection:
to select groups or participants with whom you can establish the most productive
relationships, ones that will best enable you to answer your research questions. This is
often seen as convenience sampling, but it is, in fact, a form of purposeful selection, one
40
that is widely used but rarely discussed explicitly. It is purposeful because it is intended
to provide the best data for your study, although the potential unrepresentativeness of the
participants needs to be addressed. (p. 99)
Purposeful selection was utilized to choose the board members and superintendents to be
interviewed. The sample of superintendents and board members was very distinguished, and this
is one of the reasons why purposeful selection works best. Only a select group of board members
have been trained in MIG, so the sample size was small and specific; thus, purposeful sampling
was most appropriate. To interview the board members or superintendents provided the best
data. The timeline for the study was tight, as working in a cohort requires coordination as the
team members are accountable to each other and must meet deadlines in a timely manner.
Purposeful selection was the most efficient strategy in identifying participants.
Instrumentation
The team of researchers distributed a recruitment and information letter (Appendix A) to
districts in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, Alameda,
Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Santa Barbara, and Santa Clara counties. Information was gathered to
see which school districts met the criteria of having board members who had been trained in
MIG.
The team of researchers was divided into pairs, each responsible for focusing on three
school districts. Although each person in the pair was responsible for three, the assigned partner
was a second person who was able to support the work of the first person.
The identified districts participated in a survey for their board members (Appendix B).
The board members completed the surveys via email using Qualtrics™. Superintendents
completed a different survey via email using Qualtrics, as well (Appendix C). The
41
superintendents completed the surveys before participating in the interviews. A total of nine
board member surveys and three superintendent surveys were completed. Once collected, the
surveys were analyzed. “Survey research describes ‘what is’; that is how variables are distributed
across a population or phenomenon” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 5). The information that was
collected by the surveys led to understanding the ‘what is’ of MIG training for board members
and superintendents.
From the participating districts, nine school board members were interviewed using the
school board member interview guide (Appendix D). Also, three superintendents were
interviewed using the superintendent interview guide (Appendix E). Consent documents were
signed by all participants (Appendix F). All instruments were aligned to the research questions,
as referenced in Appendix G.
To address the research questions, surveys alone would not allow for understanding how
people perceive the MIG training, as it is difficult to measure perception. A survey alone could
be administered but there are unknowns about the interviewees, such as the level of
understanding of how the training had affected them personally or their leadership as it relates to
their respective districts. Due to this, the interview strategy was the best fit, complementing the
survey.
Validity and Reliability
The survey design was modified by the team of researchers for this study from a previous
USC dissertation study conducted in 2013. The validity of the survey was established
considering content validity, “Do the items measure the content they were intended to measure”
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 153). The survey questions for both board members and
superintendents were designed to answer the research questions for the study.
42
In terms of interviews, a researcher should be aware of the biases that one can have. It is
possible that the researchers were interested in finding a causal relationship between their
questions and the MIG training impact and must be careful not to be biased in the study. If these
biases were not acknowledged, they could affect the validity of the study. Using open-ended
questions during the interviews minimizes bias in that participants can share whatever they
believe to be relevant. This is one example of how subjectivity was disciplined in this study. This
study is reliable in that it sampled different types of school districts throughout a large and
populous area.
Data Collection
Survey, interview, and training data were collected for this study. The surveys were
handed to participants before the interviews, and the interviews were conducted by a team of two
researchers. Once the participants were interviewed, data were analyzed by the research team.
This was a very meticulous process as it involved multiple researchers. The team looked for
patterns in the data. The survey and interview data were examined separately at first to see what
could be learned; then they were examined together, to see what else could be learned from the
data. Utilizing both sets of data, conclusions were drawn.
Data Analysis
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that one can start doing data analysis as one is
conducting research. They suggested that, during data analysis, the researcher must ensure that
the study stays focused, be clear about the type of study that is conducted, use analytic questions,
review data, and be ready to pursue leads, keeping while conducting the research, asking
participants whether the patterns seem accurate to them, reviewing the literature while
43
conducting research, reflecting on concepts, and trying to visualize the message in the data. In
this study, data analysis varied depending on the research question examined.
The interview questions for superintendents and board members were designed to address
Research Questions 1-3. Also, the survey questions for both superintendents and board members
were designed to address Research Questions 1-3.
Before the interviews were conducted, a priori codes were created using Atlas TI.
“Coding is nothing more than assigning some sort of short-hand designation to various aspects of
your data so that you can easily retrieve specific pieces of the data” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p.
199). Coding is an important tool in organizing data and then using it effectively for data
analysis. Once the interview data had been collected, data were reviewed, and emergent codes
were created. Emergent codes supported organization of the data. Utilizing both the a priori and
emergent codes, a code book was created; from there, assertions were identified. Once the
assertions were created, data sandwiches were created and used for the analysis of this study.
This process was very involved because the research team was comprised of 20 individuals.
With the surveys, a coding process was created to help with analysis of the data. Codes
were created utilizing the themes of the questions, that is, similar questions grouped together.
The coding led to creation of a code book, and then assertions were created through
understanding the data. Once the surveys were tabulated, the data were analyzed to show patterns
based on the results.
During the data analysis phase, triangulation was used. “This strategy reduces the risk of
chance associations and systematic biases due to a specific method and allows a better
assessment of the generality of the explanations that one develops” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 128).
Collecting various forms of data disciplines subjectivity. In this study, survey and interview data
44
were utilized. The third piece of data was the board members’ completion of the MIG. The third
piece of data is an interesting consideration because it was conducted completely outside of the
work of the research team, which helped to ensure that the study was valid. Collecting multiple
data sets helped to interpret the data.
Ethical Considerations
One possible ethical consideration is that I currently work for the Los Angeles County
Office of Education and often interact with both superintendents and board members. This is a
consideration because it is possible that, if they know me, they may be guarded with their
answers. Superintendents may think that I might share sensitive information with their board of
education, which could be detrimental to superintendents. In turn, board members may think that
I might provide sensitive information to their superintendents or to the county offices. In order to
account for this, I stressed the confidentiality of the study before I interviewed any
superintendent or board member and assured them that this information would be used only for
this study. I also tell the individuals that, if they did not feel comfortable, I would have my
partner conduct the interviews. The surveys were anonymous to ensure that information was
accurate. This was very important because, if participants feel like they need to hold back on the
interviews, they may not feel that way on the confidential surveys, and this can support the
validity of the study. The research methodology was methodical in trying to address the research
questions.
45
Chapter Four: Research Results
This chapter presents the results of the analysis of the surveys and interviews, supported
by the themes in the literature. The study examined whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and whether MIG training affects
student achievement. In order to examine these questions, the following three research questions
were developed.
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
A description of the participants follows, as well as a description of the three school
districts that were the focus of this researcher’s portion of the overall study. The findings related
to each research question are reported, with comparisons of the results for the focus districts and
the results for the larger study.
Description of the Study
The research team consisted of 20 members; each member secured participation by three
superintendents and nine board members, for a total of 62 superintendents and 180 board
members. Two more superintendents and six more board members, secured by one team
member, responded to the survey. Therefore, 62 superintendents and 177 board members were
interviewed (in some school districts, only two board members rather than three participated).
46
Each researcher assumed responsibility to conduct research in three focus districts. Table
1 shows the number of participants in the larger study. The numbers include the three
superintendents and the nine board members from the focus district.
Table 1
Summary of Participation From 62 Districts
Participants
n
%
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses
62
100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses
180
100
Interviews 177 98
47
Initially, the school districts chosen for participation were located in Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura counties. Since the team was unable
to secure the number of districts necessary from those counties, the list was expanded to include
Alameda, Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara counties. This researcher’s three
focus districts were in Los Angeles County; they were urban unified districts with high levels of
socioeconomically disadvantaged students. They varied in size. Table 2 shows demographic
information for each of the focus districts for the 2019-2020 school year.
Table 2
Demographics for the Focus Districts
Measure Chile Mariposa Three Rivers
Enrollment 3,500 8,000 22,000
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 93.0% 89% 70.%
English Learners 28% 30% 15%
Note. All district names are pseudonyms.
48
The LCAP description of Chile Unified School District states that it serves a majority of
Hispanic/Latino students, yet many other ethnic backgrounds are represented. The foster youth
population is 0.7%. Chile Unified serves transitional kindergarten through Grade 12 at seven
schools (website of Chile Unified School District, 2020).
The LCAP description of Mariposa Unified in South Central Los Angeles states that it
has 18 schools and a child development center. While a majority of the students are Hispanic/
Latino (63%), more than one third are African American (34%); 1.2% of the students are
identified as foster youth (website of Mariposa Unified School District, 2020).
The LCAP description of the Three Rivers Unified School District states that the district
has a foster youth population of 0.6% in 13 elementary schools, four middle schools, three high
schools (two comprehensive and one continuation), and an adult school (website of Three Rivers
Unified School District, 2020).
Census data provide additional information about the cities in which these three districts
are located. Table 3 shows the census data. The district and city demographics provide important
information for the study.
49
Table 3
Demographic Data for the Focus School District Cities
Measure Chile Mariposa Three Rivers
Population 40,000 110,000 111,000
High School graduates 25+ yrs. 60% 76% 78%
Bachelor’s degrees 11% 21% 23%
Median household income $62.000 $50,000 $72,000
Median household value $391,000 $430,000 $526,000
Population per square mile 11,000 12,000 9,000
Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What factors impact the decision of school board members to
participate in the MIG training program? The results show that the factors that influence school
board members to participate in the MIG training are that the training helps to build the
foundation for board members in understanding their roles, helps them to understand the
expectations, and builds their capacity. Board members and superintendents were asked to list
why they attended MIG training. Results for the focus districts and the overall group are shown
in Table 4.
50
Table 4
Primary Factors That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the Masters in
Governance (MIG) Training
Superintendents Board Members Superintendents Board Members
Factor (n = 3) (n = 9) (n = 62) (n = 180)
School board
expectations
2 4 33 84
Self-motivation 2 7 37 133
Encouraged by
board members
2 1 35 71
Increase student
achievement
1 6 9 53
Increase effective
governance
0 1 3 10
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer. MIG = Masters in Governance.
The focus district board members reported that school board expectations, self-
motivation, and increasing effective governance were the most important factors that encouraged
them to participate in MIG training. In the larger study, the results of this question for board
members showed that the highest motivation for attending MIG training was self-motivation,
followed by increasing effective governance and school board expectations. The least mentioned
reason to attend MIG training was to increase student achievement. The focus districts had the
same findings as the larger group.
Board members and superintendents agreed that school board members attended the MIG
training because they had self-motivation. Another similarity was that both chose increasing
student achievement as the least important reason to attended MIG training. The factors that
51
influenced school board members to participate in the MIG training were to build the foundation
for board members to understand their roles, to help them to understand the expectations of
them, and self-motivation to build their capacity.
Governance Foundation and Understanding Roles
Understanding the foundation of what it is to be a board member is an important factor
that motivates board members to take the MIG training. Central to this is understanding the role
of board members as they carry out their delineated responsibilities. According to CSBA, having
protocols in place that clearly define the roles of board members can help to create trust among
board members (CSBA, 2014a). The five responsibilities that are defined by CSBA for board
members are setting direction, establishing structure through policy, supporting implementation,
accountability through oversight and monitoring, and being a leader to the community (CSBA,
2017, para. 34). The foundation of what it is to be a board member is encapsulated in these
courses.
The structural framework from Bolman and Deal (2003) articulates that, when there is a
clear division and understanding of labor, efficiency increases in organizations. Therefore, it is
important that board members understand their roles. Furthermore, this framework states that
organizations need clear goals and objectives (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Part of MIG training
focuses on the importance of setting goals. Understanding goals and objectives and
understanding their roles and responsibilities are assets to board members as they lead school
districts.
Table 5 shows how board members and superintendents felt about whether or not school
board culture encourages individuals to participate in MIG training. The assumption is that MIG
training will help to build board members’ foundational knowledge of their roles and
52
responsibilities. All of the superintendents and the majority of board members from the focus
districts agreed that the culture strongly encourages participation. Like the focus districts,
superintendents in the larger group answered this question more favorably than board members,
but a large percentage of respondents strongly agreed or agreed.
Table 5
Responses to the Survey Item: Our School Board Culture Encourages Participation in the
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training
Focus Districts All Districts
Superintendents Board Members Superintendents Board Members
(n = 3) (n = 9) (n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f % f % f %
Strongly Agree 3 100 6 66 34 55 107 59
Agree 0 0 2 22 28 45 60 33
Disagree 0 0 1 11 0 0 12 7
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
53
Table 6 reports the responses to the survey item regarding the role of MIG training in
helping school board members to understand the difference between their roles and
responsibilities and those of the superintendent.
Table 6
Responses to the Survey Item: School Board Members Who Are Masters in Governance (MIG)
Trained Exhibit a Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and
Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent
Focus Districts All Districts
Superintendents Board Members Superintendents Board Members
(n = 3) (n = 9) (n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f % f % f %
Strongly Agree 2 66 6 66 25 40 117 65
Agree 0 0 3 33 35 56 54 30
Disagree 0 0 0 0 1 2 8 4
Strongly Disagree 1 33 0 0 1 2 1 1
54
Most board members agreed that the culture on their board encouraged them to
participate in MIG training. In fact, only 9 of 180 disagreed or strongly disagreed. The majority
agreed that MIG training was encouraged, and so this was not an impediment to participation by
board members. Interestingly, all superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that the school
board members were encouraged to participate in MIG training. Overall, more superintendents
than board members agreed that that MIG training was encouraged.
The interviews with superintendents supported that it is important for board members to
know their roles:
I think one of the things that MIG does really, really, well is help understand the roles
and kind of why each of those roles is important, but then also how to form effectively a
governance team with everybody kind of representing their particular role. (Three Rivers
Superintendent)
Understanding their roles helps board members to become better members of their
governance teams. The superintendent from Chile Unified said, “I think, it definitely breaks
down our role of not to micromanage a district, of understanding what our influence can be and
should be.” Again, having clear definitions of the roles and responsibility can help with board
leadership. When board members understand their roles, there is less chance of attempts to
micromanage in a district. The superintendent of Mariposa said,
I think it’s helpful with again, going back to the role, that’s the foundation is really being
clear on the role of how board members will help the superintendent and staff, to really
think about the instructional program to really think about being very data driven.
Again, understanding their roles is helpful to support the instructional program and beyond.
55
Board member interviews also supported that understanding roles and responsibilities is
critical:
I would say that it helps board members understand what their role is as board members
because when you come in, like, I can only speak for myself coming in as a board
member that I kind of felt that I was expected to conduct myself in a certain way in all
areas of governance and so it was helpful to understand what my role is and where I
should, you know, have less of a role and where I should have more of a role as it relates
to the school district. (Mariposa Board Member)
Board members’ understanding of their roles helps with their overall governance. Beyond
the focus districts, superintendents and board member interviews also supported that knowing
and understanding the roles of board members is important. A board member from Rally District
said, “Again, when you’re an elected official, you really don’t have a fair understanding or
comprehension of what your role is with the limitations, your responsibilities.” Central to
understanding the foundation of governance in a school district is understanding one’s individual
role.
Understanding Expectations
An additional factor that motivates board members to attend MIG training is
understanding the expectations of what it is to be a board member. In California, the
requirements to be a board member are minimal, as one must be at least 18 years old, registered
to vote, residing in the locality, and able to serve in a civil office (CSBA, 2018c). The
requirements to be a board member do not include knowledge of school districts. Roberts and
Sampson (2011) found that the training of school board members is a positive thing, as board
56
members are tasked with great responsibilities. Training can support board members’
understanding of what is expected of them.
To attend MIG training is symbolic, as it shows that board members care about
understanding their expectations. Bolman and Deal (2003) stated that, at times, the symbolic
framework helps to resolve ambiguity and confusion. Since board members may not have a
background in education, it may be important for them to attend the training in order to learn the
expectations but also so that others know that they have been trained, which may help board
members to gain credibility in their positions. Although attending MIG training is symbolic, it
also helps to build board members’ capacity.
Table 7 shows the extent to which board members and superintendents agreed about
whether policy should encourage participation in MIG training. The training would support
board members in understanding what is expected of them.
Table 7
Responses to the Survey Item: Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Should Be Encouraged
for School Governance Teams by the Local District Policy
Focus Districts All Districts
Superintendents Board Members Superintendents Board Members
(n = 3) (n = 9) (n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f % f % f %
Strongly Agree 3 100 6 66 46 71 116 64.5
Agree 0 0 2 22 16 26 53 29.5
Disagree 0 0 1 11 0 0 11 6.0
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
57
Overall, there was strong support for board members to attend MIG training. This is
important, as it supports board members’ quest to understand the expectations of them in order to
be strong members of a governance team.
From the larger group interviews, the superintendent from Bally district articulated the
importance for board members to know what is expected of them:
I think the first step is just being very clear about what the role of a board member is and
what it is not. Board members come on for a million different reasons, what motivates
them, inspires them to run. Usually, I found 90% of the time, the reason someone ran,
they find out right away that that’s not part of the job, why they thought they wanted to
run or what they thought they wanted to do. Because most of them want to be staff
members and want to make decisions and do the work of staff instead of setting policy
and setting vision as a collective body, not an individual. (Bally Superintendent)
The superintendent articulated that at times, board members find that the job that they thought
they ran for is not the job that is; therefore, training is vital.
For board members to understand the expectations of them was important to both board
members and superintendents. Understanding the parameters of being a board member is part of
this, as expressed by a Mariposa board member,
personally, I thought it would be important, in terms of my effectiveness, as a part of a
team because school board members are not independent. No school board member can
speak for the district, the board itself speaks so training for me was an opportunity to
understand the parameters of what should be expected of a member of a local school
board.
58
The board member from Mariposa understood that training is important in order to learn the
expectations of a board member.
A board member from Three Rivers said, “I wanted just to be able to be well educated to
do the best modality and have a full understanding of the full spectrum of everything of my
responsibilities and everything that entails a message of governance.” In order to understand
their expectations, board members chose to participate in MIG training. Both board members
expressed that they had attended the training to fulfill their responsibilities and expectations.
In order for board members to be strong members of a governance team, it is important
that they have a clear understanding not only of their roles and responsibilities but also of the
expectations that they need to fulfill.
Building Capacity
In order to build their capacity, the participating board members attended MIG training.
Positive change can be generated when school board members have a good understanding and
knowledge of school districts (Rice et al., 2000). This is important, in that by building their
capacity, board members can support their school districts and help them to move toward
positive change. Although 26 states have not adopted mandated training (Alsbury, 2008), 24
states recognize that it is important to build the capacity of board members.
The Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000) found that, for school districts to build the
human organization, incorporate staff development and practices, shared leadership are positive
conditions for change (Rice et al., 2000). This supports board members wanting to build their
capacity through professional development. Although some organizations encourage board
member training, it was interesting to explore how board members and superintendents
59
considered mandatory training. To have mandatory training would ensure that everyone has the
training to build their capacity.
Table 8 shows how board members and superintendents considered mandating MIG
training.
Table 8
Responses to the Survey Item: Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Should Be Mandated in
California
Focus Districts All Districts
Superintendents Board Members Superintendents Board Members
(n = 3) (n = 9) (n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f % f % f %
Strongly Agree 3 100 1 11 40 65 73 41
Agree 0 0 5 55 17 27 65 36
Disagree 0 0 2 22 5 8 37 21
Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 11 0 0 5 2
60
This question resulted in diverse responses between superintendents and board members,
as 24% of school board members and 8% of superintendents disagreed that training should be
mandated. The pattern was similar to the pattern in the focus districts. Overall, the results
showed that most board members and superintendents agreed that mandating training is a good
idea.
Building capacity was an important factor in attending MIG training, as supported by the
interviews with superintendents and board members:
While I don’t like the word mandated, I do honestly think that it should be required for
new school board members, because again, going back, I think that it’s really important,
particularly as a new school board member, like any job that any of us have had, you
don’t really know what that job is entirely all about until you have a particular position.
(Three Rivers Superintendent)
The superintendent articulated that, when one is a new board member, it is like having any new
job, and therefore training and building capacity are important. Although the superintendent did
not like the word mandated, he contended that the training should be required.
From the larger group, the superintendent of Lake Ellis said, “Most board members,
without the MIG training, don’t have . . . I wouldn’t say they don’t have the philosophy that I am
only 20% of a decision.” It is positive that board members build their capacity in order to
understand the foundations of governance and the expectations of being a board member.
Board members also expressed the importance of building capacity and noted that it was
important for them to learn from experts. A board member from Three Rivers said, “All right, I
actually have taken the Masters in Governance twice, I wanted to really have the information in a
classroom setting right from people who are experts.”
61
Although some board members already had experience in serving on boards, school
districts are particular. The board member from Mariposa attended the MIG training because of
this,
a couple of things. First of all, for me, I served as a UC Regents so I had a lot of existing
sort of board experience at the state level and I wanted to gain, I wanted to understand
what the differences are between school finance at the local level and what I had been
involved in the school district had been working as an advisor to the previous school
board before it was in state receivership.
Beyond the focus districts, an Old Pillar board member supported that building capacity
is important for board members. “I think that somebody who is elected to office would want to
learn and want to know and educate themselves because it’s their duty and obligation to be part
of an effective governance team.”
Building capacity was an important factor in attending MIG training.
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
Board members and superintendents agreed that it is important for board members to
understand their roles and responsibilities. This is critical to understanding the foundation of
school governance. When board members understand their responsibilities, they can be more
effective members of the board.
Understanding expectations was also an important factor in why board members chose to
attend MIG training. Not only was this symbolic in nature, in that board members were
demonstrating that they wanted to learn more; it was also about understanding expectations of
them so that they could do well in their roles. The culture in the districts from both board
members and superintendents heavily favored having board member training as part of their
62
district policy, showing strong support for training and for board members understanding the
expectations of their role.
Building capacity was an important factor in board members attending MIG training.
Both board members and superintendents agreed that it is favorable for board members to attend
training because, with training, they could be more effective members of the board.
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, How does the MIG training program encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance? The MIG
training program encourages and equips members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance by creating an opportunity for board members and superintendents to improve their
relationship with one another, supporting board members in their role as democratically elected
representatives, and understanding the content of the training.
Relationships Between Board Members and Superintendents
Relationships between board members and superintendents are imperative to the progress
of a school district. CSBA noted that relationships are critical to serve students (CSBA, 2017).
Indeed, relationships between board members and between the superintendent and board
members are important (Grissom, 2009). From a theoretical perspective, Bolman and Deal’s
(2003) human resource framework articulates that, when people are provided safety and value,
they will produce for the organization. Having strong relationships among the adults helps school
districts to move forward.
Table 9 shows the results of survey responses regarding the importance of board
members attending the training with their superintendents. Overall, both superintendents and
board members supported the idea of attending together.
63
Table 9
Responses to the Survey Item: It Is Important to Attend Masters in Governance (MIG) Training
With Your Superintendent
Focus Districts All Districts
Superintendents Board Members Superintendents Board Members
(n = 3) (n = 9) (n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f % f % f %
Strongly Agree 2 66 3 33 38 61 53 29.5
Agree 1 33 1 11 19 31 67 37.0
Disagree 0 0 5 55 5 8 53 29.5
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.0
In an interview, the superintendent of Mariposa stated, “And so this idea of the
foundation of effective governance in my opinion and setting direction is all tied to strong
relationships.” She noted that relationships play a central role in the inner workings of the
organization. Furthermore, she highlighted the “importance of superintendent and board relations
and how to strengthen those because that’s what ultimately helps our superintendents to be
successful is the relationships that they have with their board members and superintendents.”
Cultivating relationships could be enhanced if superintendents and board members
attended MIG training together. The superintendent from Chile said, “I think there should be a
component where the superintendent is involved with each board member going through that
training.” Good relationships between board members and superintendents are necessary.
From the larger group, district superintendents agreed that relationships were important in
districts. The superintendent from Rigside said that, in attending training, “I’m hoping that what
64
we’ve started with governance and that relationship will preserve us and unify us.” The
superintendent from Adding District also saw the importance of relationships,
it’s not that we need more things on our plate, but I mean, that relationship with new
board members, especially in your board, I mean, from a superintendent’s perspective, if
you that’s not going well, nothing is. So, I can’t think of anything you should be doing
more than working on those relationships.
The superintendent from Tea District agreed that the training helps strengthen
relationships,
it’s not as powerful if you bring one board member. I’ve tried that before, it’s not as
powerful even if I go with them because they interact differently. But if they bring a
board member who hasn’t gone in a while and they get a refresher through this course
with the new board member, it actually strengthens their relationship as board members
and it makes them a stronger board. That would be one suggestion that I would put
forward to any other superintendent.
Superintendents from the focus districts and from the larger study agreed that it is vital
nurture relationships. Board members also expressed that MIG helped to strengthen the
teamwork in a district. “I actually attended with one of my fellow board members. . . . It’s a good
refresher to incorporate and brainstorm different things to work together better as a unit” (Board
Member, Three Rivers District.)
The board member from Chile agreed that MIG helps to bring the team together:
It reinforces the need for school board members to be part of a team. It trains people to be
part of the team because, particularly as people are in their first term, or just coming
aboard, they tend to not realize that you’re part of a team.
65
A board member from Mariposa said that the training helped to set boundaries between
the board and the county administrator. “It strengthened our relationship because I knew what
my boundaries were and I understood what her boundaries were so I was always able to respect
the boundaries and work within those boundaries.”
Board members from the districts in the larger study also found the training to strengthen
relationships:
I do think that MIG plays a great role in creating and developing this sense of unity on
a team, and a school board really is a team. So, when everyone has taken MIG, then
the expectations are the same for everybody, because time is spent during the MIG
modules understanding that you are only as strong as the five or seven of you. (Canyon
Valley Superintendent)
In strengthening the relationships between board members and superintendents, the
parties are able to work together to conduct the district’s business. When strong relationships are
established, it is easier to have effective governance.
Board Members Serving as Elected Officials
John Dewey argued that local control in school districts was critical, as he contended that
it was democratic to have decision making closest to the people who are involved in matters
(Dewey, 1903). Indeed, the evolution of the local school board from municipal governments
brought decision making to local communities. As school boards evolved, control was moved
away from the state (Danzberger, 1994). As part of a board members’ responsibility, CSBA
(2017) stated that being a community leader is one of their responsibilities. At times, board
members are the only individuals who are locally elected; thus their responsibility to represent
students and the community is critical (CSBA, 2017).
66
Table 10 shows the board members’ responses to the survey item positing that MIG
training helped to increase their community involvement.
Table 10
Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item: As a Result of the Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training, I Actively Seek Community Input Through a Variety of Methods
Focus Districts (N = 9) All Districts (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 1 11 40 22.0
Agree 3 33 87 48.5
Disagree 5 55 51 28.5
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1.0
67
Table 11 shows the superintendents’ responses to the survey item positing that MIG
training helped to increase board member and superintendent community involvement.
Table 11
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item: School Board Members Who Are Masters in
Governance (MIG) Certified Actively Engage the Community and Utilize a Variety of
Communication Methods
Focus Districts (N = 3) All Districts (N = 62)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 1 33 15 24
Agree 1 33 34 55
Disagree 1 33 13 21
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
68
In the interview, the superintendent from Mariposa stated that the course in community
relations and advocacy was tied for first place as the most important course that MIG offers.
“I’m almost stuck between two, foundations of effective governance and setting direction and
then also the fifth one community relations and advocacy.” The superintendent from Chile
articulated that this is the least important course, as board members sometimes are involved in
problematic situations in their advocacy,.
I think the least important is probably the advocacy for a board member, and not that it’s
not an important factor but I think that it tends to be the area that gets board members into
the most trouble. You know, once they start playing a political game and getting into an
arena that they’re not, some of them are not familiar with, I think it causes problems for
the districts.
Although being a representative for the community is important, it is also important that board
members are trained so that they know how to do this best.
From the larger group districts, superintendents agreed that it is important that board
members be representatives of the community. The superintendent from Perry Lake said that
Course 5 in MIG was paramount,
I would say that Course 5 would be a very close second because it allows for a board
member’s voice within their community, how they can voice within their community, but
yet how they can also be a positive influence on the governance structure of the team.
The superintendent from Changing Lakes articulated the importance of representing the
community,
they are an elected official within the community. If I’m understanding what the
context of that course is, I think it’s really important that they realize that they represent
69
the people in their area, if they’re in a trustee area or just the community in general, and
that everyone’s got their personal opinion about things. But if my personal opinion
doesn’t match what the values are of the community, then there’s obviously a disconnect.
The MIG course on community relations can support board members in being effective
governance members. Superintendents know how important it is for board members to work with
the community. “As a superintendent, I always understand and respect the fact that my board
members have their ear to the ground in the community and people will approach them” (Wilson
Superintendent).
Board members from the focus districts understood the importance of representing the
community. “I hear what goes on in all the schools. I’ve been here. So, I know a lot of the
neighbors” (Chile board member). Some board members have deep roots in the community and
work hard to create relationships with community members:
Community relations, I take, I welcome all phone calls day or night from students,
parents, teachers, community members and they know that if I’m home, if I’m awake. I
will take the call. I will listen, I will if it’s appropriate then act, so that means a lot to me,
to have developed that trust. (Three Rivers board member)
Being elected by the community is very important to board members and they take this
responsibility very seriously:
Elected by the members of the community to serve in that position starting right then and
so a lot of trust was put in me and having the class so solidified the way that things are
done and the way that you can be most effective. (Three Rivers board member)
The MIG training on community relations and advocacy is important so board members
will know how to represent the people in their community. As mentioned by the Chile
70
superintendent, board members can get themselves into problems with this, so it is important that
they be trained.
Board members from the larger group agreed that it is important that they represent their
community well. “I wanted to both give back to the community and also just be involved with
the district, the schools” (Lake Elise board member). Malloy Valley board member said, “The
contact with the community, I think that once you become an elected official you belong to the
community 24 hours a day, wherever you are.” The seriousness of the commitment that board
members have to their community was articulated by Prairie board member: “Because 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.” A board member from Kelly District said, “An effective board works in
collaboration with the larger community, who themselves hold a vital interest in public
education.” The responsibilities of being an effective elected official, coupled with the MIG
training, support board members to be stronger members of their governance teams.
Importance of the Content of MIG Training
Understanding the importance of the content of MIG courses provided board members
with knowledge that supported them in their governance roles. One of the key roles that board
members have in their districts is to monitor finances (CSBA, 2018c). School finances are
complex and intricate, and board members need to understand the content, as this responsibility
is great (CSBA, 2018c). Board members’ knowledge and training can support the conditions for
learning for students (Rice, et al., 2000). In MIG training, Course 2 is about policy, judicial
review, and student learning (CSBA, 2010). Course 3 is about school finance (CSBA, 2010). The
content that is learned at MIG training can support board members in their roles.
71
Table 12 shows the results of survey responses regarding the impact of MIG training on
governance.
Table 12
Responses to the Survey Item: The Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Impacts My Ability to
Govern Effectively
Focus Districts All Districts
Superintendents Board Members Superintendents Board Members
(n = 3) (n = 9) (n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f % f % f %
Strongly Agree 1 33 5 55 20 32 72 40
Agree 1 33 2 22 36 58 82 46
Disagree 1 33 2 22 6 10 20 11
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3
72
Table 13 shows the ranking of MIG training courses by the superintendents from the
focus districts. The results show that foundation in governance was the most important to this
group, followed by school finance. Table 14 shows the responses to this item from the larger
group. The larger group also reported that foundation in governance was the most important,
followed by school finance.
Table 13
Superintendents’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance (MIG) Modules in Order of
Importance to Their Role as a Member of the Governance Team: Focus Districts (N = 3)
Ranking
Module #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Foundation in Governance 3 0 0 0 0
Policy and Judicial Review 0 0 0 2 1
School Finance 0 3 0 0 0
Human Resources 0 0 0 1 2
Community Relations 0 0 3 0 0
73
Table 14
Superintendents’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance (MIG) Modules in Order of
Importance to Their Role as a Member of the Governance Team: Larger Group (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
Table 15 shows the results of the ranking of MIG modules for by board members of the
focus districts. Board members from the focus districts selected foundation in governance as the
most important module, followed by policy and judicial review and then school finance. Table
16 shows the results of this ranking by the larger group board members. The pattern of results for
the larger group was the same as that for the focus districts.
74
Table 15
Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance (MIG) Modules in Order of
Importance to Their Role as a Member of the Governance Team: Focus Districts (N = 9)
Ranking
Module #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Foundation in Governance 5 2 0 2 0
Policy and Judicial Review 2 3 2 2 0
School Finance 1 2 3 1 3
Human Resources 0 1 2 3 3
Community Relations 1 1 1 1 5
Table 16
Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance (MIG) Modules in Order of
Importance to Their Role as a Member of the Governance Team: Larger Group (N = 180)
Ranking
Module #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Foundation in Governance 119 34 9 10 8
Policy and Judicial Review 21 63 48 27 21
School Finance 30 56 57 26 11
Human Resources 2 10 33 67 67
Community Relations 8 17 33 50 72
75
It is interesting that superintendents and board members differed in their rankings, as
superintendents chose school finance as the second most important module and board members
chose policy and judicial review as the second most important module.
In the interviews, superintendents articulated that MIG training had been helpful. The
superintendent from Chile said, “I also think the foundations allow them to understand what their
role is so until they understand their role, I don’t think they can do anything else, effectively, so I
would have to go with probably the foundations.” Understanding the foundation of governance
and going deeper into district specific matters were noted.
The superintendent from Three Rivers stated that the content that is taught in MIG had
been helpful for board members,
I think that’s been very productive. It just helped create all of us kind of speaking the
same language, especially among themselves. And since I have a seven-member board
that tends to be really, really important. And so, I think it’s really helped create a
foundation of speaking a common vernacular around where they’re coming from and
what perspective they’re coming from.
Superintendents from the larger group agreed that the content of MIG training was beneficial:
I think the content is excellent. I think it does help, but I do think perhaps some reflection
and look at the delivery model, the timeline, might serve to really solidify the learning
that the board members get, because we’ll have to constantly think back to your
governance. (Almond superintendent)
The content is dynamic, and it is important to keep abreast of the information. The
superintendent shared that the importance of the finance training has to do with the knowledge
76
that board members have on the subject. “They love the finance, one. I mean, that’s the one that
they don’t understand, and they really have a lot of questions about that.”
The superintendent from Apple Unified School District agreed that the content was
important to his own learning,
so, the finance was one that I was like, “I need to tackle this first.” It’s usually what gets
superintendents fired, relations with the board and then financial issues. But I thought it
was a solid first kind of stab at the 360 of the job, of everything that you’re responsible
for.
It is important to keep up with the evolving laws that apply to school districts:
Obviously, there’s a lot of changes annually when it comes to governance and law. So
it’s critically important for the board, who’s the governing body, to have the knowledge
that basically that we can operate within the parameters of the duties and responsibility of
the school board. (Good Needles superintendent)
Board members agreed that learning the content was beneficial to them. A board member
from Chile said, “If you’re in politics or not, you do need some kind of training because being a
board member is a whole different animal.” Another board member from Chile said, “I believe
the finance one is critical to what we do because that’s what we do, you know, approve
expenditures.” A board member from Three Rivers agreed that learning about finance was
important. “The finance one because I can still tell you about 2 days after Prop 13 and the old
five and I’ve gone through three different funding models in this state.” It is important to keep
with the changing funding models.
Board members from the larger group also shared that learning content was helpful and
many cited learning about finance as very important. A board member from Lake Erie said, “I
77
think for me the school finance was the most important. It’s probably where I had the least
amount of knowledge and let’s face it, there are so many different acronyms.” A board member
from Creek Old agreed that learning the content was helpful,
for me personally I’m definitely better prepared. I know what our CFO is talking about,
which is giving the budget reports and all that. I think it makes me better prepared, better
able to do the job...that was the thing I didn’t understand the most.
Being a new board member can be daunting if one does not have content knowledge:
So, once I got appointed, you go to this meeting, and all the executive cabinet comes in,
and they started throwing all these acronyms at you, and looking at these multimillion
dollar budgets, and you don’t have a clue what the heck they’re talking about. So, I’m big
into jumping in and trying to fully understand, to do what I can to do my job the best that
I can. (Charlie Tree board member)
The content that is taught at MIG supports board members in dealing with very difficult
situations:
I think the foundations piece is a great way to start. I remember my very first year on the
board we were going through some major budget cuts, and because of that our unions
were pretty outraged. So, my first two board meetings, the unions came to the board
meeting and they picketed, and they stood outside, and there were so many of them that
they couldn’t even fit in the boardroom. It really scared me, and I looked out on the
crowd and I saw teachers that were my friends, and I was just horrified that they were
now on the opposite side of the fence, so to speak, from me. It wasn’t until I got into MIG
and understood the foundations piece and understood the inner workings of how unions
78
work and that there’s a playbook that they all follow, that this is business as usual. This
was not personal. (Naples board member)
The content taught at MIG supports board members in navigating difficult situations and is
important in their participation as members of a governance team.
Discussion of Research Question 2
Board members and superintendents agreed that MIG training helped to build
relationships, supported board members in their roles as democratically elected representatives,
and offered content that helped them to be better in their roles.
For many newly elected board members, the responsibilities were new. In this new role,
building relationships can foster better governance work. Serving the community becomes easier
when one understands one’s responsibilities. Furthermore, learning content, especially when one
is new, is essential. Laws are everchanging and it is critical to keep up with them. Always
striving to improve oneself to serve the community better is vital.
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth? It was generally agreed that MIG training does not have a direct impact on student
achievement; instead, school boards exert an indirect impact on student achievement though their
governance and setting priorities as a cohesive board.
MIG Training Has an Indirect Impact on Student Achievement
Although Johnson (2012) identified 12 governance practices that support student
achievement, this study recognized a gap in the literature regarding board governance and
student achievement. While Rice et al. (2000) reported that high-achieving districts and low-
79
achieving districts perceived students and staff differently and that low-achieving districts could
not articulate plans for school renewal as high-achieving districts could do.
Table 17 shows the results of responses by superintendents and board members regarding
how MIG training influenced data usage related to student achievement. A majority of
superintendents and board members strongly agreed or agreed that MIG training encouraged
governance teams to use data related to student achievement. Although the results were
favorable, they did not establish a direct correlation to student achievement and growth.
Table 17
Responses to the Survey Item: As a Result of the Masters in Governance (MIG) Training, I
Encourage Governance Team Members to Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions
Regarding Student Achievement
Focus Districts All Districts
Superintendents Board Members Superintendents Board Members
(n = 3) (n = 9) (n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f % f % f %
Strongly Agree 2 66 3 33 31 50 69 38.3
Agree 1 33 4 44 28 45 88 49.9
Disagree 0 0 2 22 3 5 21 11.7
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.1
80
Table 18 shows the results of responses by superintendents and board members related to
how MIG training impacted student achievement.
Table 18
Responses to the Survey Item: Attending Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Has Positively
Impacted Student Achievement in My District
Focus Districts All Districts
Superintendents Board Members Superintendents Board Members
(n = 3) (n = 9) (n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f % f % f %
Strongly Agree 1 33 1 11 8 13 39 21.7
Agree 1 33 4 44 46 74 89 49.4
Disagree 1 33 4 44 8 13 50 27.8
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.1
81
Overall, the surveys showed agreement regarding a correlation between MIG training and
student achievement. However, survey responses alone are inconclusive as to whether there has
been a positive impact on student achievement. In an interview, the superintendent from Three
Rivers stated,
It’s a difficult one for me to make a direct correlation in relationship to those two things.
So again I do know that I’m really proud of my board members in regard to what they
know and how they support student achievement but I’ve never asked them directly and
haven’t heard them say directly oh, I learned this in Masters in Governance. . . . I don’t
know that I can completely correlate the two of them, you know, our board has always
been very good about keeping student achievement and how we’re supporting our kids
and I honestly don’t feel like I can create direct correlation to training. (Three Rivers
Superintendent)
From the larger study, the superintendent from Peaceville said, “I don’t know that I can
tie a specific academic measure to MIG.” The San Joaquin superintendent stated,
I don’t know if it would really have a huge impact on student achievement, because I
don’t think that the details really provide even how to accurately interpret the California
Dashboard or anything along those lines, it’s really how you’re operating as a member of
a team and as a board member.
The superintendent from Valencia stated,
I couldn’t make an observation of causality for that at all. That would be a stretch. And
what I would say is it has absolutely focused the board’s attention on student
achievement and raised their interests to the point where we’ve had several board study
sessions that are known as special board meetings in addition to our regular board
82
meetings so they can get caught up on what’s going on with their special education
students, what’s going on with our alternative education students, what’s going on in
mathematics.
Overall, superintendents generally agreed that there is no direct correlation between MIG
training and student achievement.
A board member from Mariposa said, “Again, I don’t see a direct relationship between
the two.” Another board member from Mariposa stated almost the same thing: “I don’t see a
direct relationship between the two.”
Board members have indirect influence when they hire and fire people. A board member
from Mariposa stated,
our former chief of instructional learning was not as effective as I would have liked. And
so, I pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed so it did not go well because
I knew that we were not at the level that we should be as a district and so now we have a
new chief of instructional learning and she is doing a really good job.
While board members articulated that they did not see a relationship between board
governance and student achievement, culture was elevated as being important to this.
Board members in the larger study echoed that more is needed in this area of MIG
training:
I wish I could say that. To be honest with you, I think that’s one area, the student
achievement, that I really didn’t get much out of it. It was very general. And with the
annual CSBA Conference, yes, there are lots more sessions that you can go that directly
relate to student achievement, but the Masters in Governance, I don’t seriously recall
getting anything huge as far as student achievement. Yes, all of the things that we’re
83
doing ultimately the goal is to get to the student achievement, but specifically in that area,
I would say I didn’t get much out of it. (Glover Board Member)
A board member from Chloe Oak shared an interesting perspective on this:
MIG has no play in the student achievement component of things. For the same reason I
alluded to before. It’s not my job to develop the student achievement. It’s the
professional’s job to develop that, to work on that. (Chloe Oak Board Member).
While the surveys indicated that superintendents and board members agreed that MIG
training positively influenced student achievement, the interviews did not support this position. It
was concluded that the relationship between MIG training and student achievement is indirect.
Setting Direction and Student Achievement
Vision and direction setting constitute the first articulated responsibility of boards of
education (CSBA, 2017). In setting direction, boards should be collaborative in this process and
work with multiple stakeholders, including district staff (CSBA, 2017). According to Rice et al.
(2000), boards in high-achieving districts could clearly articulate the goals of the district. It is
important for boards of education to set the direction of a district and articulate it.
Table 19 shows the results from superintendents about school board members who have
earned MIG certification and student achievement. The results from the focus group showed that
the superintendents were divided on this question.
84
Table 19
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item: School Board Members Who Have Earned
Masters in Governance (MIG) Certification Demonstrate an Increased Focus on Student
Achievement
Focus Districts (N = 3) All Districts (N = 62)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 1 33 14 23
Agree 1 33 44 71
Disagree 1 33 4 6
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
Table 20 shows the results of responses by board members regarding whether, as a results
of MIG Training, their focus was on student achievement. Overall, most board members strongly
agreed or agreed that MIG training had helped them to focus more on student achievement. The
results showed the same pattern between focus districts and the larger group.
Interviews with focus group superintendents highlighted importance of setting direction.
The training provides that basic foundation but it helps with student achievement,
because part of what the board members are tasked with is helping to set direction though
setting direction is all about your vision for student achievement, and I think that it does
play a role and our board members do play a role in that because in our district for
example, we have a strategic plan and then it’s all based on the needs of our students, it’s
based on a review of our data and our board members were a part of the development of
our strategic plan which is focused on student academic achievement and all of that is
85
based on setting direction which is one of the critical elements that is discussed during
the CSBA trainings. (Chile Superintendent)
This sentiment was echoed by the superintendent from Mariposa.
So, setting direction is all around identifying those concrete goals, goals are based on data
student achievement data and thinking about how we could strategize and come up with a
plan to include improvement for student achievement.
Table 20
Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item: As a Result of the Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training, My Focus Is on Achievement
Focus Districts (N = 9) All Districts (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 3 33 49 27.2
Agree 4 44 91 50.6
Disagree 2 22 39 21.7
Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 .6
86
Superintendents from the districts in the larger study agreed that setting direction was
important for student achievement. The superintendent from Opal said, “I don’t know that we
can point specific data to show how it’s affected student achievement outside of setting a vision
and setting a strategic plan.”
Board members from the focus districts agreed that the direction of the district supported
student achievement. A board member from Three Rivers stated, “I don’t know that you’re
getting to attribute it to anybody outside of teachers and I wouldn’t want to take credit, other than
simply than the district focuses on certain things.”
Board members from the districts in the larger study agreed that MIG provided a
foundation of how to be effective board members:
Masters in Governance, it really didn’t help directly with student achievement other than
to give us the tools that we need to do to be effective board members, to understand
finances of the school district so that we could provide programs. (Plane Board Member)
Although the surveys showed favorable results for MIG training as it relates to student
achievement, the interviews showed a more in-depth perspective that highlighted no direct
relationship between MIG training and student achievement, rather that setting direction is
critical to this work.
Board Cohesion as Beneficial to Student Achievement
The New England School Development Council reported that, when there was a positive
relationship between the superintendent and the school board, there were positive outcomes for
students (Education Writers Association, 2003). Districts with quality governance had positive
outcomes for students (French et al., 2008). Strong relationships and quality governance are
important for student outcomes.
87
Table 21 shows the results of responses regarding MIG training and effectiveness of
school board meetings. The majority of superintendents and board members strongly agreed or
agreed that MIG training helps to make school board meetings more effective. The patterns in
the focus districts and the large group districts was the same.
Table 21
Responses to the Survey Item: The Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Encourages School
Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of Our School Board Meetings
Focus Districts All Districts
Superintendents Board Members Superintendents Board Members
(n = 3) (n = 9) (n = 62) (n = 180)
Response f % f % f % f %
Strongly Agree 2 66 4 44 30 48.5 104 58
Agree 0 0 5 55 30 48.5 72 40
Disagree 1 33 0 0 2 3 4 2
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88
Table 22 shows the results of responses by superintendents regarding their perception of
board members’ ability to accept decisions. A majority of superintendents from the districts in
the larger group strongly agreed or agreed that MIG training supported board members ability to
accept decisions. This differed from the results for the focus districts.
Table 22
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item: The Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Has
Improved School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even When They
Hold the Minority View
Focus Districts (N = 3) All Districts (N = 62)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 1 33 17 27
Agree 1 33 42 68
Disagree 1 33 3 5
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
89
Table 23 shows the responses from board members regarding majority view decisions.
Most focus board members strongly agreed or agreed that MIG training had helped them to
accept majority decisions. The pattern was the same for board members from the larger group.
Table 23
Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item: As a Result of the Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training, My Ability to Constructively Accept the Majority Decision, Even If I hold the Minority
View, Has Improved
Focus Districts (N = 9) All Districts (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 3 33 78 43
Agree 5 55 75 42
Disagree 1 11 26 14
Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 1
90
In the interviews, superintendents from both groups articulated that board cohesion is
important:
I definitely think it impacts student achievement. Because when you’re dealing with
things that are either a power struggle, that are violations of Brown Act that are you know
fights between, that’s when it’s not collaborative. All of those things take the focus away
from students, and it becomes about adults and when it becomes about adults, student
achievement suffers. . . . Being a part of districts and seeing the changes in boards and
when a board becomes more cohesive you see that the direction is student centered and
you actually see growth in student achievement. So, I’ve seen it, seen where you know,
board members do not particularly understand their role and they overstep and I’ve seen
how it really hurts student achievement and I’ve seen that as those members are replaced,
student achievement actually starts to bottom out. (Chile Superintendent)
A superintendent from the larger study agreed,
I don’t think that there’s a hugely direct tie through MIG to student achievement, but I
think there’s an argument that can be made without an effective training program similar
to MIG. It could take away from student achievement with board members potentially
really operating outside of their role, the effectiveness could really break down a system.
(San Juan Superintendent)
Board members from the focus districts agreed with the superintendents:
It’s based on the effectiveness of the school district with a strong superintendent and a
board who is supporting that superintendent, so it is a layered as opposed to the board
91
directly impacting student achievement, because the board should not be in the day-to-
day operations of that district. (Mariposa Board Member)
A board member from Chile articulated that, if the board cannot work well together, they
could never get to student achievement,
I’ve been asking to please focus on the students and that’s probably been mentioned three
times by other people on the board meetings in that time and that like the time because
it’s been just the drama going on and I don’t know if we’re alone in that I have friends
and other boards other small district boards and they are having such financial trouble
that they can’t get past that to get to the academic achievement.
Board members from the districts in the larger study also articulated that a lack of
cohesion affects the work that the board does with student achievement. A board member from
Chaney Oaks said, “Even though we receive training . . ., there is still favoritism that goes on the
school board, so that can hamper our ability to move forward with student achievement.” A
board member from Plane district said, “I don’t think it impacted student achievement at all
because I think the best way to impact student achievement as a board member or as a
governance team is you have to have a really functional board.”
When governance teams function well, they can focus on student achievement. School
board training can help board members to be more cohesive.
Summary for Research Question 3
Although the survey results showed positive perceptions of the relationship between MIG
training and student achievement by both superintendents and board members, the interviews
showed only an indirect influence on student achievement. Setting direction, one of the critical
92
responsibilities for boards of education, can support student achievement; again, there is no
direct relationship. Boards of education that are cohesive can focus on student achievement.
Summary of Findings
Three research questions were addressed in this study. The first question focused on the
factors that influence the decision by school board members to participate in MIG training. Three
main reasons influenced school board members to be trained. School board members and
superintendents agreed that understanding the foundational principles of being a school board
member was essential. Part of understanding the foundations includes understanding the roles
and responsibilities of board members.
The second factor that influenced board members to attend MIG training was that they
could understand the expectations of the role. Board members and superintendents found that
board members wanted to ensure that they were doing a good job as elected officials. District
cultures encouraged board members to attend training so that they could understand what they
needed to do to fulfill their expectations.
The third factor that influenced board members to attend MIG training was to build their
capacity. Understanding the foundations, fulfilling expectations, and building capacity were
critical factors that influenced board members to attend MIG training.
The second research question explored whether MIG training encouraged and equipped
board members with behaviors of effective governance. Superintendents and board members
agreed that MIG training helped them to build relationships and that this behavior supported
effective governance.
Superintendents and board members agreed that elected board members representing the
community well was an effective behavior in strong governance.
93
Learning content that is specific to being an effective board member was a factor that
encouraged and equipped board members with effective behavior. Both superintendents and
board members agreed that learning the content that is taught in MIG training supported board
members with effective governance.
The third research question explored whether MIG training had an impact on student
achievement. Both superintendents and board members agreed that, although there were positive
impacts that supported board members with being able to focus on student achievement, there
was no direct relationship between MIG training and improved student achievement. One of the
factors that supported the position of indirect relationship with student achievement was that
school boards helped to set the vision and direction of the school district. Superintendents and
board members agreed that it is important to have a cohesive board that can work well as a unit
and focus on student achievement.
Overall, attending MIG training for board members was considered by participants to be
positive for school districts, students, and the larger community.
94
Chapter Five: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
This study examined whether school board training improves the relationship between
school boards and superintendents and affects performance indicators for school districts.
Twenty researchers examined the impact of the MIG training and its implications for school
board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance. Moreover, the
purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of school board members and
superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school governance and student
achievement.
Research Team Description and Process
Under the direction of Dr. Michael Escalante, the team of 20 researchers distributed a
recruitment and information letter (Appendix A) to districts in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties. The list of counties was expanded to include
Alameda, Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Santa Barbara, and Santa Clara counties. Information was
gathered to see which school districts met the criteria of having at least three board members
who had have been trained in MIG.
The team of researchers was divided into pairs, each of which was responsible for
focusing on three school districts. Although each person in the pair was responsible for three
districts, the second researcher supported the work of the first person.
Each researcher interviewed and surveyed three superintendents and nine board
members. The interviews were coded using Atlas TI and the survey data were analyzed utilizing
Qualtrics. Data were collected and analyzed to compare the focus districts to the larger study.
95
Research Questions Restated
To study the purpose, three research questions were developed.
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Participants, Sample, Instruments
The research team selected districts in which at least three board members had
participated in the MIG training. Each researcher secured three focus districts and interviews
were conducted via Zoom with three superintendents and nine board members. Each interview
lasted from 20 to 45 minutes. After the interviews, the participants completed a survey that was
sent to them via email using Qualtrics. Surveys alone would have made it challenging to measure
the perceptions of the interviewees; interview data and the reviewed literature triangulated the
results.
Findings Related to the Research Questions
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What factors impact the decision of school board members to
participate in the MIG training program? The three themes that emerged were that it was
important for board members to (a) build their foundational knowledge, including their roles and
responsibilities; (b) understand their expectations; and (c) build their capacity.
It is paramount for board members to understand the foundation of governance in school
districts. An integral part of understanding the foundation of governance is understanding their
96
roles and responsibilities. CSBA (2017) maintained that boards of education should be centered
on five responsibilities and that understanding the roles within these responsibilities is essential.
Effective governance is illustrated when board members know and understand their roles and
responsibilities.
The second theme that emerged was that board members wanted to understand what was
expected of them so that they could fulfill those expectations. Understanding the expectations
closely aligned with board members wanting to have better foundational knowledge. In addition
to growing their knowledge base, it was symbolic that board members attended MIG training.
Bolman and Deal (2003) described the symbolic leadership frame as one that makes sense of
matters when there is confusion. When board members are new, they attend MIG training to
show that they are going to learn in order to serve the community well.
The third emergent theme was that board members attended MIG training to build their
own capacity. Board members are responsible for many aspects of a school district, including
hiring and firing of the superintendent and budgetary decisions (CSBA, 2017). Because board
members must make important decisions, it is critical that they build their capacity in all areas.
MIG training supports board members with learning the various aspects of their roles.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, How does the MIG training program encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance? The three themes
that emerged were that MIG training (a) helped to improve relationships, (b) supported board
members to fulfill their roles as democratically elected representatives, and (c) taught them
important content that they could use in their roles.
97
Board members and superintendents agreed that MIG training helped them to build
necessary relationships with one another. The human resources frame suggested by Bolman and
Deal (2003) prioritizes people and states that it is important to organizations that their people
know how important they are. This leadership concept supports the findings that relationships are
critical to the work in districts.
The second theme was that board members should have strong relationships with their
community, as they are the representatives of the community. MIG training supported board
members’ behavior of effective governance with the community. Representing one’s community
has been an evolution, as the history of boards of education shows that the culmination of having
local representatives was indeed a process (Feuerstein, 2002).
The third theme was that learning content in MIG training, such as school finance, helped
board members to exhibit effective governance. For example, CSBA (2018c) discussed the
importance of board members monitoring, adjusting, and approving the district’s budget. This
responsibility is primary to board members’ responsibilities. When board members understand
the content that is taught in MIG training, they can exhibit effective governance. Without an
understanding of the content that is taught in MIG training, it is difficult to be effective.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth? The three themes that emerged were that (a) there is no direct link between MIG
training and student achievement, (b) setting the direction of a school district is important to
student achievement, and (c) boards of education that are cohesive can focus on student
achievement.
98
The literature reports a gap regarding the connection between board governance and
student achievement (Johnson, 2012). Although the data from the surveys in this study showed
favorable results regarding a relationship between MIG training and student achievement, there
were no direct connections. Superintendents and board members agreed that MIG training did
not have a direct influence on student achievement through their interviews.
Since there was not a direct correlation between board governance and student
achievement, superintendents and board members agreed that setting the direction and vision of
the district supported student achievement. Rice et al. (200) found that boards of education in
high-achieving school districts articulated the goals of the district, in contrast to lower-achieving
districts. Board members setting the direction of the district goals supports student achievement.
The third emergent theme was that board cohesion supports student achievement. When
there are positive relationships between superintendents and boards of education, there are
positive outcomes for students (Education Writers Association, 2003). Superintendents and
board members agreed that, when there is cohesion on the board, the board can focus on student
achievement and growth rather than on issues that divide the board.
Limitations of the Study
There were several limitations in this research study. The COVID-19 pandemic began in
March 2020 and continued throughout the study. Because of the pandemic, all interviews were
conducted via Zoom, rather than in person, and during a limited time frame. The pandemic
brought many challenges to school districts. Another limitation was that all members of the team
of researchers were educators and, in some cases, knew the participants. This could have led to
selection bias, but the researchers were very aware of this limitation and stayed focus on the
questions that had been developed by the team to minimize any bias. The third limitation was
99
that only MIG, not the only board governance training, was studied. The fourth limitation was
that the study was conducted in with California districts, so generalizability may be limited.
Delimitations
There were several delimitations in this study. The team interviewed only three board
members in each district, not the entire board. Only 12 counties in California were included, thus
not representing the entire state.
Implications for Practice
The research team examined whether school board governance training improved critical
relationships and improved the practice of board members. There are several implications for
practice. First, MIG training should have an explicit section on the critical nature of
relationships. Second, school board training should be mandatory in California.
MIG Training to Include Importance of Relationships
The importance of relationships was highlighted throughout this study by both
superintendents and board members. MIG training should train people explicitly on the
importance of relationships. To develop this, scenarios of difficult situations should be developed
in which board members and superintendents play different roles that are not on the same page.
The team should be coached on how to work through these scenarios. Effective protocols should
be taught that board members and superintendents could put into practice when situations
become complex in their districts. To build effective relationships, superintendents and board
members should attend the training together. Bonding activities should be built into MIG training
for school district teams.
100
Board Training Should Be Mandatory
Overall, the study showed that board member training is appropriate. Since requirements
to be board members are minimal, it is important that all be trained to provide a strong
foundation of governance. To make board training mandatory in California, legislation would be
required; the initiative would have to be resourced and supported. CSBA is not the only
organization that provides training, and other organizations should be explored, as well.
Recommendations for Future Research
While the study, through a triangulation of reviewed literature, surveys, and interviews,
found that, overall, MIG training has positive effects for boards of education, future research can
delve into the impact on student achievement.
The theme of board cohesion emerged in this study. It would be interesting to compare
the perceived cohesion of boards of education to students’ standardized test results. Might there
be a link between board cohesion and student growth in districts? Do turbulent boards hurt
student achievement? This examination would have deep implications for practice.
A related topic for future research would be to examine student growth and achievement
data from states that mandate board training and states that do not mandate it. Although board
members and superintendents in this study agreed that there was no direct correlation between
board training and student achievement, it would be interesting to see whether student
achievement data support this conclusion.
It would be interesting to understand the roles of boards of education in collective
bargaining. Since boards of education approve collective bargaining agreements, it would be
informative to learn about the impact of those agreements on student achievement.
101
Conclusion
The public perception of school districts is affected by the relationships between the
superintendent and the board of education. In order to maintain a positive perception so that
school districts can leverage external partnerships and continue to function as a public school
system, it is imperative that boards of education be trained in governance.
The three research questions examined why board members attend MIG training, the
perceptions of the impact of the training on their practice, and the relationship between training
and student achievement. The results indicated that, in general, board training was positive. This
conclusion was derived from an examination of the literature and results of the surveys and
interviews.
Future research should include an examination of the relationship between board
cohesion and student achievement, comparing student achievement in states that mandate board
training versus achievement in states that do not do so. An examination of collective bargaining
agreements, student achievement, and the role of the board in these matters would be productive.
102
References
Allen, A., & Plank, D. N. (2005). School board election structure and democratic representation.
Educational Policy, 19(3), 510–527.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805276144
Alsbury, T. L. (2008). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 7(2), 202–229.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701748428
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
California Department of Education. (2020). California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress (CAASPP). http://www.caaspp.org/administration/about/testing/index.html
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards.
https://www.csb.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrdLeadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2010). Masters in Governance.
http://www.csba.org/Services/Services/GovernanceServices/MastersInGovernance.aspx
California School Boards Association. (2012). Masters in Governance.
http://www.csba.org/Services/Services/GovernanceServices/MastersInGovernance.aspx
103
California School Boards Association. (2013). Defining governance: 1.
https://www.csba.org/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/GovernanceBriefs/20131
0GBDefiningGovernanceIssue1.ashx?la=en&rev=72df64cf620344b2b60ec693f40348f6
California School Boards Association. (2014a). Defining governance: 4. https://www.csba.org/-
/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/GovernanceBriefs/201406GBDefiningGovern
anceIssue4.ashx?la=en&rev=979d7f07b2b64d6fa7ec05c3f5f66765
California School Boards Association. (2014b). Defining governance: 5. https://www.csba.org/-
/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/GovernanceBriefs/201407GBDefiningGovern
anceIssue5.ashx?la=en&rev=5a6fa5e84893488cad093d7cd285441a
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/201705BoardResearchReport.ashx?la=en&rev=6aea
555a678e4fb6a40494f013e2546f
California School Boards Association. (2018a). California’s school boards.
https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Masters in Governance: Governance education
for school board members and superintendents.
https://www.csba.org/TrainingAnd Events/MastersInGovernance.aspx
California School Boards Association. (2018c). What it takes to lead: The role and function of
California’s school boards. https://www.csba.org//media/CSBA/Files/Governance
Resources/EffectiveGovernance/20180613_WhatItTakesToLead_Final.ashx?la=en&rev=
b99adf0f20bb4e12aebf41edb468c4fb
104
California School Boards Association. (2018d). Superintendent governance standards.
https://www.csba.org/en/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/Professi
onalGovStandards/ProfessionalGovernanceStandardsForDistrictSuperintendents
Campbell, D., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 391–395.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Cunningham, W. G. (2003). Grassroots democracy: Putting the public back into public
education. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 776–779. 10.1177/003172170308401012
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local school
boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 67–73.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1301187972/
Danzberger, J. P., & Usdan, M. D. (1994). Local education governance: Perspectives on
problems and strategies for change. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 366.
Dewey, J. (1903). Democracy in education. The Elementary School Teacher, 4(4), 193–204.
Education Writers Association. (2003). Effective superintendents, effective boards: Finding the
right fit. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/effective-
superintendents-effective-boards-finding-the-right-fit.aspx
Feuerstein, A. (2002). Elections, voting, and democracy in local school district governance.
Educational Policy, 16(1), 15–36. 10.1177/0895904802016001002
French, P., Peevely, G., & Stanley, R. (2008). Measuring perceived school board effectiveness in
Tennessee: The latest survey results. International Journal of Public Administration,
31(2), 211–243.
105
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690701465327
Gemberling, K., Smith, C., & Villiani, J. (2000). The key work of school boards guidebook.
National School Boards Association.
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(3), 601–627. 10.1093/jopart/mup043
Johnson, P. A. (2012). School board governance: The times they are a-changin’. Journal of
Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(2), 83–102.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup043
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229–278.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072002229
Litow, S. S., Casserly, M., Maclaury, B., & Viteritti, J. P. (1999). In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Problems
of managing a big-city school system (pp. 185–230). Brookings Institution Press.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Moe, T. (2006). The union label on the ballot box: How school employees help choose their
bosses. Education Next, 6(3), 58–66.
National School Boards Association. (2020). About school boards and local governance.
https://www.nsba.org/About/About-School-Board-and-Local-Governance
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and tomorrow’s
promise.: Education Commission of the States.
106
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Bruce, J., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2000, April 10–14). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/
superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student
achievement (ED453172). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. ERIC
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453172.pdf
Roberts, K., & Sampson, P. (2011). School board member professional development and effects
on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(7), 701–
713.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
Strunk, K. (2011). Are teachers’ unions really to blame? Collective bargaining agreements and
their relationships with district resource allocation and student performance in California.
Education Finance and Policy, 6(3), 354–398.
https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00039
Strunk, K., & McEachin, A. (2011). Accountability under constraint: The relationship between
collective bargaining agreements and California schools’ and districts’ performance
under No Child Left Behind. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 871–903.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211401006
Timar, T. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Peabody
Journal of Education, 78(4), 177–200.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7804_09
U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). QuickFacts.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/.../PST045219
107
Webber, D. J. (2010). School district democracy: School board voting and school performance.
Politics & Policy, 38(1), 81–95.
Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan.
108
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
109
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
110
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your chances of participation?
(check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced my
participation in the MIG training was . . . (check
all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Unable to determine
❏ Other
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
As a result of MIG training, my focus is on
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
8
As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek
community input through a variety of methods
(email, town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
111
9
As a result of the MIG training, I understand the
importance of aligning the decision-making
process with the district’s vision and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
The MIG training clarified the differences
between my roles and responsibilities as a school
board member and those of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data
consistently to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
112
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
113
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your school board members’
chances of participation? (check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced school board
members to participate in MIG training was . . .
(check all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Other
❏ Unable to determine
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
School board members who have earned MIG
certification demonstrate an increased focus on
student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
8
School board members who are MIG certified
actively engage the community and utilize a
variety of communication methods (email, town
hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
114
9
School board members who are MIG trained
understand the importance of aligning the
decision-making process with the district’s vision
and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
School board members who are MIG trained
exhibit a clearer understanding of the difference
between their roles and responsibilities and those
of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
school board members.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the school governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data consistently
to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
115
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
116
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?
117
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?
118
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: _______________________________________________________________________
119
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 examines the impact that Masters in Governance (MIG) training, provided by the California School Boards Association (CSBA), had on the relationship between superintendents and school board members, the impact on effective school governance, and student performance indicators. The conceptual framework that was utilized to frame the study was the leadership framework by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
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 governance training and student achievement
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
PDF
The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
PDF
Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
PDF
Does school board training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ramirez, Maricela
(author)
Core Title
K−12 school board training in California
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
K-12,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board training
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael F. (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy (
committee member
), Cherniss, Alexander (
committee member
), Franklin, Gregory (
committee member
)
Creator Email
maroramirez@yahoo.com,rami377@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-438995
Unique identifier
UC11667586
Identifier
etd-RamirezMar-9406.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-438995 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RamirezMar-9406.pdf
Dmrecord
438995
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Ramirez, Maricela
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
K-12
school board training