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
/
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
(USC Thesis Other)
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Impact of Training on School Board Members’ Perception of Governance
by
Elias Anderson Miles
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 Elias Anderson Miles 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Elias Anderson Miles certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Alex Cherniss
Rudy M. Castruita
Gregory Franklin
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
When school district leadership teams align a vision around achievement, focus on performance
standards, leverage student data, and create collaborative structures, student achievement has
been shown to improve. This study examined the impact that the California School Boards
Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training program had on effective school
board governance practices and behaviors. MIG is a voluntary training program that offers
customized small-group, large-group, and online training and tools specifically designed for
board members and superintendents in their role as governance team leaders. While California
does not require that ascending board members complete training before taking office or as part
of ongoing professional development, many state legislatures have established mandatory
training requirements for new and returning school board members. California’s distinction as a
voluntary state establishes the opportunity to examine districts whose school board members had
undergone training with respect to their perceptions about the impact on governance and the
performance of their school district. This was a qualitative study evaluating data collected
through surveys and interviews with school board members and superintendents who had
participated in the MIG training program. As a conceptual framework, the study utilized the
professional governance standards provided by CSBA, Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s
framework and definition of leadership, and the seminal school leadership examination of the
Lighthouse Inquiry by the Iowa Association of School Boards. The purpose was to determine
whether MIG had impacted school board members’ ability to adhere to best practices for
effective governance. The participant pool was California public school districts. The research
team used surveys, structured interviews of school board members and superintendents, and
relevant research. Findings from this study should inform legislation on required training for
school board members, especially when considering the perceived link between school board
member training and effective governance and improved student achievement. The results of this
study add to the cannon by informing the effect of the MIG training on the leadership and
governance of the school boards of local education agencies.
vi
Dedication
To the Miles family—Madeline, Sutton, and Joy: I am an amalgamation of their love, energy,
and support.
To my parents, Eleanor and Herbert, without whom none of my success could be possible.
vii
Acknowledgements
I am forever indebted to my dissertation chair, Dr. Michael Escalante, for his guidance,
leadership, and wisdom that carried this work. I also thank Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. Alex
Cherniss, and Dr. Greg Franklin, who gave of their time and themselves to sit on my committee.
Their feedback and insight were invaluable. I am also grateful to all the incredible professors of
the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.
My colleagues have been the greatest collection of educators that a simple man such as
myself could ever ask for. They are tremendous people and a daily inspiration to what we can
accomplish on behalf of children. I love that we have walked this journey together.
To the children of California, let us not forget that we are first children with a school and
not the other way around.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 3
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 5
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 5
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 6
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 6
Delimitations ....................................................................................................................... 7
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 7
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 8
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
Theories of Leadership ..................................................................................................... 12
History of School Leadership Structures .......................................................................... 14
Preparation for School Board Members ........................................................................... 19
The Relationship Between School Board Training and Student Achievement ................ 26
The Relationship Between School Boards and Their Superintendents ............................ 27
Dissatisfaction Theory ...................................................................................................... 36
ix
Communication ................................................................................................................. 37
Perceptions of School Board Members and Superintendents ........................................... 38
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 43
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 45
Purpose of the Study Restated .......................................................................................... 45
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 46
Research Team .................................................................................................................. 46
Research Design................................................................................................................ 46
Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 48
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 49
Instrumentation Development and Design........................................................................ 49
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 51
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 52
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 54
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 55
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 56
Organization of Findings .................................................................................................. 56
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 56
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 61
Cultural Expectations and Encouragement ....................................................................... 62
Skill and Capacity Building .............................................................................................. 64
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 74
Roles of School Board Members ...................................................................................... 75
x
Foundations of Governance .............................................................................................. 80
Application of Skills and Tools ........................................................................................ 87
Results for Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 95
Alignment of Focus........................................................................................................... 95
Collective Efficacy: Capacity to Effect Positive Impact ................................................ 100
No or Limited Connection .............................................................................................. 104
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 108
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 110
Research Team Description and Process ........................................................................ 110
Research Questions Restated .......................................................................................... 110
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 111
Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................. 114
Delimitations of the Study .............................................................................................. 115
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 115
Creating a Certification ................................................................................................... 115
Changing the Structure ................................................................................................... 116
Recommendations for Further Studies............................................................................ 116
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 117
References ................................................................................................................................... 119
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails .................................................................... 137
School Board Member Recruitment Email ..................................................................... 137
Superintendent Recruitment Email ............................................................................. 13838
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey .......................................................................... 13939
xi
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 142
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ........................................................... 145
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ................................................................... 14646
Appendix F: Informed Consent .............................................................................................. 14747
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix .............................................................................. 14848
xii
List of Tables
Table 1: California School Board Association’s Masters in Governance Course
Progression
24
Table 2: Summary of Participation From 62 Districts 57
Table 3: Demographics of Ventura County and California 59
Table 4: Demographic Information (numbers of students in each category) for
Highland Elementary School District, Summit Unified School District
and Viewridge Unified School District
60
Table 5: School Board Members Responses to Survey Questions Related to
Research Question 1
63
Table 6: Focus Group and Broader Survey Responses Regarding Primary Factors
Influencing Participation in MIG Training
66
Table 7: Focus Group and Broader Survey Responses Regarding Preferences for
MIG Training Program Platform (s)
70
Table 8: Participant responses about impact of MIG training on School Board
Members Understanding roles and responsibilities
79
Table 9: The MIG training encourages school governance teams to contribute to
the effectiveness of our school board meetings
86
Table 10: Superintendent and School Board Member responses to, “The MIG
training helps school board members to differentiate among policy,
leadership, and management.”
88
Table 11: As a result of the MIG training, I encourage governance team members
to consistently use data to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement
99
Table 12: Superintendent and School Board Member responses to, “The MIG
training impacts my ability to govern effectively.”
104
Table 13: Superintendent and School Board Member responses to, “Attending MIG
training has positively impacted student achievement in my district.”
107
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The current context of school in America demands that school districts address a
multitude of goals. Districts must respond to a growing emphasis on student achievement,
include and plan for the success of traditionally underserved populations, navigate complicated
and changing funding streams to ensure fiscal solvency, and work with collective bargaining
units. This arduous task is accomplished in small to large bureaucratic entities, the nature of
which is an organization governed through distributed leadership. School boards represent the
leadership structure for local education agencies (LEAs) through a structure of local citizen
oversight via regular elections of private citizens to governing bodies. These private citizens
enter the role of school board members with a variety of experiences but no absolute expertise,
certification or credentialing requirements. Unlike other industries or jobs, a school board
member needs only to be a resident of the school district and be an appropriate age to run for
office. Each member does not have to complete any preservice training program to assume his or
her position.
Research linking preservice training to successful governance is limited, although broad
studies have shown that training of school board members results in a positive influence on
student achievement (Roberts & Sampson, 2011), improves school board behaviors, and
increases practices that raise achievement (P. A. Johnson, 2012; Plough, 2014; Shober &
Hartney, 2014; G. Weiss et al, 2014). Further studies have examined the nature and structure of
the relationship between the school board and its sole employee, the superintendent. Research
concludes that there are best practices for the nature of the working relationship (Callen &
Levinson, 2011; Hanover Research, 2014; Kremer & Rickabaugh, 2000; Mayer, 2011).
Governance issues have emerged as school boards exhibit behaviors not associated with
2
effectiveness (Danzberger, 1994; McGonagill, 1987). The promising results of these studies
encourage school board members to attend and complete training before joining the board or
while they are serving, not only to improve their effectiveness but also to improve a school
district’s student achievement record.
The California School Board Association (CSBA; 2018c) has developed the Masters in
Governance (MIG) training program for school board members. This program has five modules
that prepare school board members for the role and responsibilities of governing a school district.
Modules are offered at multiple dates and locations and are designed to develop governance
skills in members so that they may respond appropriately to the complicated context of education
and the demands of a school district. The MIG program has been retooled recently to include an
accelerated timeline designed to support the personal learning of individual school board
members. Despite the fact that is voluntary, to date more than 2,000 school board members and
superintendents have participated in MIG training.
This study examined the training of California school board members who had
participated in the CSBA’s (2018c) MIG program. The perceptions of these members and of
their superintendents were measured to draw a link between the MIG training program and the
effective governance of the board. Participants explained their motivation to attend training, their
assessment of the quality of the training, and their reflections on the impact on the board’s
workings. The behavior and practices of school board members were analyzed to determine the
link to effective governance. Finally, this study examined the potential link between the MIG
training and the achievement of district students.
3
Background of the Problem
American public schools serve students within a convoluted and layered system, with the
goal of high performance for all. The governance structure of school districts includes elected or
appointed private citizens who act as the governance body. This body is tasked with (a) setting
the policies and vision of a school district; and (b) hiring the superintendent, who handles the
district’s operational tasks. The responsibility of local citizens to oversee the school board dates
to the original laws outlined in Massachusetts in 1642 and 1647 (Goldhammer, 1964). Soon
thereafter, the 1727 state law ordered townships to create locally managed organizations to
oversee the operations of public schools (Kirst & Wirt, 2005). The school board continued to
morph throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, seeing restructuring move decision making from
local to state and federal levels and school boards becoming active policy developers (Wiles,
1975).
According to the California Department of Education (CDE; 2020a), the state’s
accountability system “is based on multiple measures that assess how local educational agencies
(LEAs) and schools are meeting the needs of their students” (Background section, para. 1). The
state outlines eight priorities on which school districts must focus: basic services, academic
standards, parent engagement, student achievement, student engagement, school climate, course
access, and course outcomes. Each district must craft a plan to address the focus areas. On an
annual basis, each district is measured and the results of schools and districts are released to the
public. Further requirements come from the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; U.S.
Department of Education, n.d.), which forces state agencies to determine schools’ eligibility for
Comprehensive Support and Improvement—an increased layer of planning and reporting for
schools that underperform. Additional documentation and accountability measures are in place
4
for those districts that serve students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and that receive
additional monies through the U.S. government’s Title 1 program (CDE, 2020b).
Within this context, LEAs are governed through local oversight, as private citizens are
elected to school boards whose members fulfill five major responsibilities. School boards set
direction, establish an effective and efficient structure, provide support, ensure accountability,
and provide community leadership as advocates for children, the school district, and public
schools. Additionally, school boards hire and direct the superintendent, the lone employee of the
board. This structure of governance, with elected board members directing the work of a
superintendent, can be both successful and unsuccessful, often depending on the effectiveness of
the school board. The expansive responsibilities inside the complicated context of schooling
exemplify the type of training, expertise, and experience that a school board member could need
to effectively lead a school district.
School board members assume their positions on the board with a variety of experiences
with respect to interacting with school districts, the state department of education, and the
organizational structure of the public sector. There are training options developed and offered to
support school board members’ transition into the role and their effectiveness once on the board,
with some states requiring training completion before board members can begin their tenure. The
CSBA (2018b) offers a five-course training program called MIG, which covers effective
governance, policy, finance, human resources, and community relations.
Statement of the Problem
The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of
informed decision making that influences the quality of public education. To improve the public
5
perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and boards of
education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance their shared and distinct
responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance,
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
The following research questions were developed collaboratively by the research team to
determine whether a correlation exists between the MIG training program and effective school
board governance:
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?
6
Significance of the Study
The importance of this study is twofold. First, this study sought to establish a connection
between MIG training and the effectiveness of school board governance. Second, this study
sought to establish a link between (a) school board governance and training and (b) student
achievement. The researchers recognized the crucial role that school boards play in providing
effective governance and leadership in LEAs on behalf of students, student growth, and
achievement. The study offers conclusions about the success of the MIG training and should
inform school districts’ decisions about participating in the MIG training as well as school board
members’ perseverance to complete the training program. Further benefits include highlighting
the positive qualities and areas of growth for the MIG program from the perspective of school
board members and superintendents. A broad examination of the conclusions should inform
lawmakers regarding new policies and potential state mandates about school board preservice
training and onboarding. Finally, the conclusions accentuate the training elements of the MIG
that are most and least beneficial.
Limitations
The study was limited by time, resources, and scope. The research team, based in
southern California, conducted research in school districts limited to 12 counties in California.
This process was originally limited to participants who were local but use of video meetings via
Zoom™ expanded the range of potential participants. Research was conducted in the spring and
summer of 2020, and the time frame limited the quantity of data that could be collected. The
research team was targeting school board members and superintendents who had participated in
the MIG training, thus limiting the research to that preparation program.
7
In March of 2020, most school districts in the state of California closed as a precaution
due to the COVID-19 virus. This closure impacted the availability of the sample, population, and
participants, and forced the team to adjust and adapt the methodology.
Delimitations
The study was conducted in California school districts that were governed by a school
board in which more than half of the members had participated in more than half of the training
sessions of the CSBA’s MIG training. The research team did not consider the demographic
characteristics of the districts, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or language proficiency.
The study used as guidance on leadership evaluation the theoretical frameworks and works of the
following authors: Bolman and Deal’s (2017) leadership frames, the CSBA’s (2018c) school
board responsibilities, Ghasemy and Hussin’s (2016) theory of management, the Lighthouse
Inquiry’s (Rice et al., 2001) leadership and impact, Northouse’s (2015) definition of leadership,
and Senge’s (1990) leaders’ vision work.
Assumptions
Assumptions undergirded the study regarding the methods, participants, and the links
between the sample and the schools. The research team assumed that a qualitative approach was
best suited for investigating the chosen phenomenon. The team collaboratively developed
interview surveys and protocols and assumed that these tools were valid and reliable. The
participants in the study, school board members and superintendents, were in governance roles in
their districts; their active participation impacted students. Assumptions about adult learning
were made, particularly that participation in leadership and governance training changes the
school boards’ leadership and governance behavior. Finally, assumptions were made about the
quality of the CSBA’s MIG training program, especially the fact that it is based on research.
8
Definition of Terms
For the study, the following terms are defined:
• Accountability: The concept that schools and school districts will be held
responsible for performance or producing documents and records, creating and
following plans, and reporting student performance on assessments.
• Assessment: The annual summative evaluation of student learning through state-
sanctioned multiple-choice exams.
• California Department of Education (CDE): The state of California’s governmental
organization that supports and supervises education.
• California School Board Association (CSBA): According to the CSBA (2018a),
the CSBA is the nonprofit education association representing the elected officials
who govern public school districts and county offices of education. With a
membership of nearly 1,000 educational agencies statewide, CSBA brings
together school governing boards and administrators from districts and county
offices of education to advocate for effective policies that advance the education
and well-being of the state’s more than 6 million school-age children. A
membership-driven association, the CSBA provides policy resources and training
to members, and represents the statewide interests of public education through
legal, political, legislative, community, and media advocacy. (para. 1)
• Governance: The overarching actions of the school board in creating policies for a
school district.
• Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP):
9
A 3-year plan that describes the goals, actions, services, and expenditures to
support positive student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The
LCAP provides an opportunity for LEAs [local education agencies] to share their
stories of how, what, and why programs and services are selected to meet their
local needs. (CDE, 2020b, LCAP Overview section, para. 1)
• Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): The law enacted in 2013–2014 to simplify
how funding is provided to LEAs. Previously, funding included over 50 categorical
funding lines designed to give targeted services based on student demographics
(CDE, 2020c).
• Local Educational 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: A five-course training program offered by the CSBA to
support the development of school board members.
• School board or board of trustees: An elected or appointed group of private
citizens who combine to craft policies for a LEA.
10
• School board member or trustee: Locally elected public officials entrusted with
governing a community’s public schools (CSBA, 2018c).
• School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding
over the public meetings of school boards.
• School district: Synonym for LEA; a public organization tasked with operating
public schools and serving students within a designated geographic area.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter One has introduced the study and
presented the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions, the
significance of the study, and the definitions of key terms. Chapter Two explores the relevant
literature that relates to the roles, responsibilities, and training of a school board members. The
chapter deals with the relationship between school board members and superintendents, school
board training, and effectiveness and reviews pertinent leadership theoretical frameworks that
served as concepts to evaluate the results of the study. Chapter Three outlines the methodology
of the study and the research design. The chapter further details the rationale for the sample and
participants, data collection techniques, a description of the instruments, and the process of data
collection. Chapter Four presents the research findings and an analysis of the data with regard to
each of the research questions. Chapter Five presents and summarizes the findings of the overall
study, including implications for future research.
11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Public school districts in the United States are tasked with serving unique communities of
students across wide demographic areas with limited resources within a complicated system. The
role of leadership for public school districts falls to elected or appointed school boards, a group
of private citizens who then hire superintendents to do the operational work of running the
organization. Superintendents work closely with school boards to execute policies, manage
budgets, and hire and staff schools—thereby translating school board members’ broad goals into
actionable steps.
This chapter reviews the relevant literature covering school boards, superintendents, the
relationship between superintendents and school boards and key informative theories of
leadership. The relationship between school board members and superintendents is worthy of
study, particularly the nature, requirements, and content of training that private citizens receive
as they ascend to leadership positions on the school board.
The following topics are covered from the review: theories of leadership, the history of
school boards, the history of superintendency, preparation and training for school board members,
and relationships between school boards and superintendents. While training for school district
members is available, it is mandatory in some states—Alabama and New York, for example—
and voluntary in others, such as California. Training has been shown to improve the effectiveness
of school boards and effectiveness tied to successful school districts (Rice et al., 2001). A deeper
examination is placed on the CSBA’s MIG training and the impact of completion for school
board members’ effectiveness.
12
Theories of Leadership
Northouse’s (2015) description of leadership provides a framework to guide the analysis.
In his work, he defined leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of
individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 6). His definition includes important concepts to
consider, such as process, influence, groups, and common goals. His work first explains that
leadership is a process, emphasizing that leadership involves interaction and is available to
anyone. Next, Northouse addressed influence, indicating that this is how the leader affects the
followers and thus is a crucial and necessary element of leadership. He explained that leadership
takes place in a group context and involves working toward a mutual purpose.
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) work expanded on Northouse’s (2015) groups and indicated
that leaders must understand and examine the mental models they have so that they can
successfully work in the context of their environment. The mental models are structural,
political, human resources, and symbolic. The structural frame sees organizations as a
bureaucratic combination of units, rules, roles, and discreet policies. The human resource frame
focuses on the relationships between people and organizations and emphasizes that organizations
need people for energy, effort, and talent. The political frame views organizations as coalitions
composed of individuals and groups with differences, competing for scarce resources. Power and
conflict are at the center of decision making. The symbolic frame highlights tribal aspects,
including symbols, myths, and heroes, to create and understand culture.
The IASB’s seminal research (Rice et al., 2001) into school board leadership and its
impact on student achievement, called the Lighthouse Inquiry, delivered key findings that inform
examinations of superintendent–school board relationships. The key findings of the study that
examined high- or low-performing school districts were caring about children, peaceable
13
relationships, board opinion of the superintendent, tension about roles in a site-based system,
students in categorical programs (e.g., special education, Title I, bilingual programs), and local
backgrounds of board members and staff. The Lighthouse Inquiry identified three key
characteristics of high-performing districts that were absent in low-performing districts. First, the
board– superintendent team viewed students as elevating, contending that it was the school
district’s job to raise each student to his or her potential. Second, school board members had a
deep understanding of district initiatives and their impact on schools and students. Finally, school
board goals linked to school goals and staff could identify how staff development and data
analysis were connected to student learning.
Ghasemy and Hussin (2016) explored theories of education leadership and management
and identified six models of educational management: formal, collegial, political, subjective,
ambiguous, and cultural. The formal model includes structures of bureaucratic systems. The
collegial model indicates that organizational decisions involve discussion and consensus. The
political model posits that decisions stem from negotiations and bargaining. The subjective
model rejects organizational models, instead indicating that decisions are born in individual
members and not in subgroups or units. The ambiguity model builds on loose coupling to capture
the complexity of organizational decision making. Finally, the cultural model relies on the rituals
of an organization to guide behaviors and decisions. The authors encapsulated the research into
recommendations for change-oriented leadership that included trend analysis, organizational
development, values, outcomes, strategies, and resources.
The CSBA (2018c) outlined the role that school board members play and the five major
responsibilities for school district leadership. The CSBA articulated that school board members
are “locally elected public officials entrusted with governing a community’s public schools. The
14
role of school boards and their members is to ensure that school districts are responsive to the
values, beliefs and priorities of their communities” (para. 1). According to the CSBA (2018c), these
responsibilities are as follows:
• Setting direction
• Establishing an effective and efficient structure
• Providing support
• Ensuring accountability
• Providing community leadership as advocates for children, the school district, and
public schools. (para. 2)
Maricle (2014), on behalf of the CSBA, reviewed the relevant research on effective
school boards and established a framework that may be used. The role of school board members
falls into three categories, fiduciary (working toward financial health and long-term stability),
instrumental (ensuring the school district complies with the law), and representative (as servants
to the community). Effective boards, the report continues, focus on improving governance by
monitoring and evaluating the performance of the board. The author posited that effective boards
establish governance commitments, adopt practices to increase their effectiveness, focus on core
governing decisions, and engage the community.
History of School Leadership Structures
History of the School Board
The school board as a leadership entity has undergone changes and developed throughout
the history of the United States. The state of Massachusetts passed seminal education laws in
1642 and 1647 (Goldhammer, 1964). These laws outlined the responsibility of the local citizenry
to administer and maintain the local schools. Two decades later, the Plymouth Colony Law,
15
passed in 1677, describe the obligation of the public to provide funding for local schools (Kirst &
Wirt, 2005). Soon thereafter, a 1727 Massachusetts state law ordered townships to create
organizations to oversee and steward public schools (Kirst & Wirt, 2005). Loose structures of
colonial men stayed in place, until the task grew overwhelming and the original school boards
were developed (Campbell & Green, 1990). In 1791, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution released the governance of schools to the states. Additionally, local towns sought to
keep control of their schools (Callahan, 1966). In 1837, the first state board of education was
created, as well as the first appointed state superintendent of schools (Callahan, 1966). Land
(2002) explained that a period of restructuring followed in which school governance became
more centralized and school board roles and the election process changed. The 20th century
brought a shift in the nature and source of power in school boards. School boards did not
previously take an active role in the development of school district policy (Salmon, 1975). Power
shifted from local school boards to the federal and state levels; and more recently, school boards
have undergone another shift, this time to becoming active policy developers working tightly
with the superintendent (Wiles, 1975).
Support Organizations
Various organizations have been developed to provide training, resources, and support for
school boards. In California, the CSBA (2007) represents the elected and appointed officials who
govern school districts and county offices of education. A not-for-profit entity, the CSBA
represents nearly 1,000 education agencies and provides policy resources and training to its
members. Additionally, the CSBA provides a MIG training program designed to develop board
members and superintendents’ skills to create an effective governing structure. (This training
program will be discussed in more detail in a later section.)
16
The National School Boards Association (NSBA; 2019) was founded in 1940 as an
advocate for public education, opening a branch in Washington D.C. in 1967, and focused on
federal funding for public schools. In the 1970s, the NSBA created the National Caucus of Black
School Board Members, the National Hispanic Council of School Board Members, and the
National Council of American Indian/Alaska Native School Board Members. NSBA currently
includes 49 state associations and represents more than 90,000 school board officials. Unlike the
CSBA, the NSBA does not offer training for board members but has produced the Key Work of
School Boards (sold on the website), which addresses “the core skills that effective boards need
to ensure that all students achieve at high levels” (para. 1). Primarily, the NSBA organization
focuses on linking school board members and superintendents to networks of peers (NSBA,
2019).
Characteristics of Current School Boards
There are approximately 95,000 school board members serving on 15,000 school boards
(Land, 2002). School boards are elected or appointed from the local community, but their
demographic characteristics can differ substantially. Grissom (2007) collected a stratified sample
of school board members in California and disaggregated the data based on demographic
characteristics and members’ attitudes. The study found that the average school board member is
wealthier, educated, 55 years old, and male. Men constitute 53% of school board members;
women, 47%. While adult Whites in California make up 61% of the population, this
demographic comprises 77% of school board members. Adult Latinos represent 35% of the
population but only 12% of school board members. Grissom pointed out that Latino students also
represent 47% of the student population served by school boards. School board members, on
17
average, are more well off, with more than 50% reporting a yearly household income of more
than $50,000 (Crane, 2005).
History of the Superintendency
Original Need
The role of superintendent for a school district has similarly undergone a transformation
in public schools in the United States. The role of superintendent has five phases: the teacher-
scholar, manager, the democratic leader, the applied social scientist, and the effective
communicator (Björk et al., 2014). Callahan (1966) described the setting for the emergence of
the role, explaining that between 1880 and 1900, schools grew in size and developed and the
infrastructure for managing and leading schools did not exist.
Stages of the Role
The context surrounding public schools in the late 19th century ushered in the
superintendent as a teacher-scholar. The superintendent began as the head teacher or school
master, or master teacher (Björk et al., 2014; Glass et al., 2000), whose job it was to implement a
state curriculum and to supervise teachers (Kowalski, 2005). Cuban (1976) posited that
superintendents should train teachers, revise the course of study, and ensure the delivery of
supplies.
The turn of the century brought a change in the superintendent’s role, transforming the job
into that of a manager. The design drew from a corporate model, with the superintendent
operating the school district based on the school board’s policies (Glass et al., 2000). The
responsibilities shifted to management as superintendents began focusing on tasks such as budget
development and operation procedures (Björk et al., 2014). The school board’s role became
expansive, as members established committees and subcommittees for trivial administrative
18
duties, thus driving a need for centralized power under the superintendent (Wirt & Kirst, 2009).
Finally, the transition turned superintendents into planners who implemented district programs
and then evaluated program outcomes (Thomas & Moran, 1992). In a 1901 opinion article
penned by W. E. Hatch, the superintendent of New Bedford, the author outlined the duties of the
superintendent as (a) attending to the organization of schools; (b) attending to the selection and
retention of teachers; (c) being aware of the broader educational world; and (d) supporting the
teachers, especially when dealing with displeased parents.
In the 1930s, the superintendent’s role shifted again, this time into being the democratic
leader. The need surfaced for the superintendent to advocate for increased funding for public
schools to secure financial support (Björk et al., 2014). The context of scarce financial resources
for education drove school leaders into political activity and lobbying (Björk & Lindle, 2001).
The role began to shift again as superintendents struggled to lobby against other
governmental services (Kowalski, 2005). Following the Great Depression, between 1950 and
1970, the superintendent became an applied social scientist. This role required addressing
educational problems through the development and application of theoretical models (Glass et
al., 2000). Superintendents were expected to be leaders in the field of education and needed to
apply scientific inquiry to support problems in public schools (Björk et al., 2014). The
expectation of expertise tasked superintendents with addressing broader social and institutional
problems, including crime and poverty (Kowalski, 2005).
The final shift saw the role of the superintendent transform into that of the effective
communicator. A need to impact school cultures and identify and work to solve problems in
schools brought the superintendent’s communication skills into prominence (Björk et al., 2014).
19
Kowalski (2004, 2005) explained that effective communication became an expectation and
influenced tasks such as developing a vision, facilitating dialogue, and gaining community
support.
Characteristics of Current Superintendents
District school boards of education hire candidates for the position of superintendent.
Hired superintendents represent an opportunity to examine the demographic characteristics of
superintendents. According to the 2006 State of the Superintendency study from the American
Association of School Administrators (AASA; 2019), 21.7% of superintendents are women.
Minority superintendents account for 6% of total superintendents. Sixty percent of
superintendents have completed their doctoral degree, and the mean age of superintendents is
between 54 and 55 years of age. Wirt and Kirst (2009) shared a compilation of statistics from
AASA studies from 2000 to 2006 that showed superintendents to be 93.8% male, 78.3%
White—with one third each Democrats, Republicans, and independent. The 6th Triennial Study
of the Superintendency in New York (Rogers, 2006) found that female superintendents increased
from 8% in 1991 to 30% in 2006. In 2014, the Council of the Great City Schools (2014) released
a survey of 53 member districts designed to identify the characteristics of big city
superintendents. These data showed that 45% of superintendents identified as White, 42% as
Black, and 9% as Hispanic; 28% were women (13% Blacks, 13% Whites, and 2% Hispanics).
Preparation for School Board Members
School Board Roles and Responsibilities
CSBA (2018c) has outlined the roles and responsibilities for school board members in
California, describing broadly that “the role of the school board is to ensure that school districts
20
are responsive to the values, beliefs and priorities of their communities” (para. 1). The CSBA
(2018c) noted that the core functions of the school system require an accountability to the public
and that the elected authority of the board is granted to the body and not to individual board
members.
Additionally, CSBA (n.d.) has produced Professional Governance Standards, which are
designed to “enhance the public’s understanding about the critical responsibilities of local boards
and to support boards in their efforts to govern effectively” (para. 1). The document outlines
guidance in three sections: the individual trustee, the board, and the board’s job. The standards
support school board actions that maximize the ability to govern effectively and increase the
awareness of the public with respect to the nature of school board work.
School Board Training
Elected school board members assume office with a variety of experiences regarding
engaging with the school district. To support new and continuing school board members, states
have introduced optional and compulsory training opportunities. These initiatives vary across
state departments of education. The state of Arkansas, for example, first introduced legislation
requiring training for school board members in 1987, subsequently revisiting the law in 2005,
2011, and 2012 (Arkansas Legislature, 2012). In a study seeking to link school board members’
professional development to student achievement, Roberts and Sampson (2011) found that states
that required training rated higher and that state board directors perceived a positive effect on
student achievement. Inductive analysis of the researchers’ questionnaire showed that states
requiring training received overall grades of B or C; states that did not require professional
development received C or D. Crane (2005), citing the case study of an Illinois superintendent,
recommended that boards commit to professional development such as state conferences and
21
even administrative and teaching conferences. Further exemplifying the lack of preparedness in a
case study of a high School in Ohio, Griswold (1997) found the board of trustees could not
articulate the mission of the school. The author outlined four recommended stages of
development for the board: articulation, education, integration, and evaluation.
The CSBA (2017), in a review of literature, reported that effective district leadership
requires continuing professional learning, especially surrounding the roles of the superintendent
and the school board. Callan and Levinson (2011), in a piece designed to provide
recommendations for superintendents, emphasized ensuring that ongoing training is in place for
school board members, particularly based on state laws. Finally, the 10-year study of the
American school superintendent indicated that 46.2% of superintendents deliver the training
themselves (Glass et al., 2000). Glass et al. (2000) indicated that superintendents consistently
rated their boards as “qualified” but not “well qualified.”
Mandatory Training Requirements
Many state legislatures have established mandatory training requirements for new and
returning school board members. Examples include the state board of education requirements for
Texas, Alabama, New York, Arkansas, New Jersey, and Illinois.
The state of Texas Administrative Code §61.1 and Texas Government Code (Sections
551.005 and 552.012) outline the training required for new board members, who must complete
6 hours of continuing education on topics such as local district orientation and education code
within the first 120 days (Texas Education Agency, 2019). Returning board members in Texas
complete 3 hours annually of team building and targeted education based on the assessed need of
the school district. Additionally, returning board members must take 3 hours of training every 2
years on evaluating and improving student outcomes.
22
Per Alabama’s Governance Act, local school board members must earn 6 hours of
training every year, including a member orientation that covers state law (Alabama Association of
School Boards, 2019). To improve effectiveness, the state requires 2 of the 6 hours annually to be
whole board training for board–superintendent teams. School board members who do not
complete the required trainings may be sanctioned by the state superintendent of education.
The New York State School Board Association (2019) offers training options in person
and online to support newly elected board members’ completion of mandatory training. State law
requires a minimum of 6 hours of training including school board purpose, board meetings, legal
dos and don’ts, fiscal oversight, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities.
The Arkansas education code outlines training requirements for board members, setting a
6-hour threshold for returning school board members and 9 hours for newly elected members
Arkansas (School Boards Association website, 2015). Failure to complete the training hours will
result in a board member being removed from office. In 2012, the Arkansas General Assembly
added a requirement that training include how to read and interpret an audit (Arkansas
Legislature, 2012).
The requirements of the New Jersey’s Governance II, III and IV School District
Accountability Act demand that newly elected board members receive training on orientation,
finance, and student achievement (New Jersey School Boards Association, 2019). Reelected
school board members are required to complete training on legal updates.
The Illinois Association of School Boards (2019) offers in-person and online training that
fulfills the state-mandated requirements. Newly elected board members must complete the Open
Meetings Act’s certification and file it with the school board within the first 90 days after taking
the oath of office. Within the 1st year of a school board member’s term, he or she must complete
23
4 hours of training on education and labor, financial oversight, and accountability and fiduciary
responsibilities. Finally, school board members must complete a training program on the
Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) prior to voting on a dismissal based upon an
“optional alternative evaluative dismissal process for PERA evaluations” (FindLaw, 2020, para.
1). This law, passed in 2010, requires teacher and principal evaluations include student growth
measurements.
The California Model
Although the training is not required, the CSBA offers customized small-group, large-
group, and online training and tools specifically designed for board members and
superintendents in their role as governance team leaders (CSBA, 2018a). The primary training
program for school board members in California is the MIG training program, which “equips
board members and superintendents with the knowledge and skills to build and support an
effective governance structure” (CSBA, 2018c, para. 1). The MIG training involves five courses
entitled Foundations of Effective Governance. Policy and Judicial Review, School Finance,
Human Resources, and Community Relations and Advocacy. The course descriptions are listed
in Table 1. Each of the five courses is 1 day, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 4:00 p.m., and
costs $349 per course, for a total cost of $1,745 per board member.
24
Table 1
California School Board Association’s Masters in Governance Course Progression
Course
Number
Course Title Course Description
Course 1 Foundations of Effective
Governance | Setting
Direction
In Foundations of Effective Governance develop
insight into the roles and responsibilities of the
governance team and focus on the core concepts of
the Masters in Governance program: trusteeship and
governance. In Setting Direction learn how to create
a vision that best describes the district’s direction,
focus, commitment and beliefs; engage stakeholders
into the vision setting process; and focus all efforts
on student learning.
Course 2 Policy & Judicial Review |
Student Learning &
Achievement
Effective policies are at the core of successful
school governance. In Policy and Judicial Review
learn the purpose, types and use of policy and the
policy development process; understand the role of
the board, community and district personnel in
policy development; and develop an understanding
of the board’s role in the judicial appeals process.
Student Learning and Achievement drives
everything the district does and is constantly
evolving. Discover how to meet the demand for
higher academic achievement by aligning the
board’s responsibilities to support student learning
through policy, setting expectations for student
learning; and using data to make sound decisions
Course 3 School Finance In School Finance learn how to achieve a balance
between district goals and student achievement by
establishing budget priorities; developing
appropriate processes for budget development,
adoption and revision; implementing the budget;
and monitoring and auditing the district’s finances.
Course 4 Human Resources |
Collective Bargaining
Human Resources explores the board and
superintendent relationship; elements of employing
the superintendent; the board’s responsibility to
other personnel; establishing a framework for
evaluation; and fostering a culture of accountability
for sound personnel practices across the district.
Collective Bargaining provides insight into the
25
board’s role in collective bargaining and the
collective bargaining process including building a
positive climate, monitoring the process,
understanding stressful situations, and effective
communication strategies.
Course 5 Community Relations and
Advocacy | Governance
Integration
In Community Relations and Advocacy, deepen
your understanding of community leadership by
applying theory to everyday situations. This session
explores the role and responsibilities of the board,
effective communication, working with the media,
managing crisis; and building community support
by informing and engaging while being responsive
to community concerns and interests. Governance
Integration integrates the concepts of trusteeship
and the governance team with the jobs of the board.
At the end of the session, graduates of the program
receive the Masters in Governance certificate, an
honor recognizing dedication to your role as a
school governance leader and demonstrating to your
community your commitment to education.
Note. Adapted from Masters in Governance, by California School Board Association, (2018b),
https://www.csba.org/en/TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance, MIG Course 1-MIG Course
5 sections
In addition to the MIG, the CSBA (2018c) offers continuing education to new and
experienced board members, superintendents, and executive assistants. Examples include an
annual conference, board presidents’ workshops and legal symposiums, and county board
governance workshops. These trainings are listed on the CSBA’s website and are optional for
school board members. Through training, tools, and resources, the CSBA provides guidance to
school boards and their members. The CSBA (n.d.) offers a self-evaluation tool that school board
members may use to measure the board’s perceptions of effectiveness. The design of the survey
26
is comprised of a Part One, with questions about the conditions of effective governance and a
Part Two with questions addressing the board’s five major responsibilities.
The Relationship Between School Board Training and Student Achievement
Findings have shown a connection between student achievement and school board
training, with results falling into themes of perception and behavioral practices. Plough’s (2014)
empirical analysis of 105 board members in low-performing school districts and 82 in high-
performing school districts found that while there were similarities, members differed in
perceptions of demonstrating commitment, deliberative policy development, and connecting with
the community. Additionally, school board members from high-performing districts spent more
time interacting with government and community agencies to enhance the district’s ability to
raise student achievement. In a mixed-methods study of 50 directors of state boards of education,
Roberts and Sampson (2011) found that most states did not require professional development for
school board members but that school board professional development had a positive effect on
student achievement. Those surveyed identified the grades that schools received as being higher
when boards of education have training.
Perceptions
A case study of the perceptions of a superintendent, school board president, and school
board secretary on professional development and their impact on student achievement found three
interrelated themes regarding board members’ professional development and the effect on student
achievement: board members’ roles, the positive effect of professional development, and personal
agendas of school board members (Korelich & Maxwell, 2015). Further findings on the
perception of training indicated that student achievement outcomes have become a priority for
superintendents and school board members (R. S. Weiss et al., 2014). An action research study
27
showed that the role of the superintendent is moving toward macro influence and now requires
diverse leadership skills. Additional findings indicate that superintendent–school board discord
occurs from the misuse of position and that the impact of the community on superintendent–
school board relationship is fluid.
Practices
Shober and Hartney (2014) analyzed data from a NSBA survey of 900 board members
from 417 school districts from states across the continental United States and found that school
board members who had an academic focus and exhibited certain work practices were associated
with better student achievement than expected, given their district conditions. Additional analysis
from Waters et al. (2003) of the effects of leadership practices on student achievement through a
review of 70 studies established a balanced leadership framework that included knowledge,
skills, strategies, resources, and tools to improve student achievement. In a separate meta-
analysis of 2,714 districts, 4,434 superintendent ratings, and 3.4 million student achievement
scores from 1970 to 2005 (Waters & Marzano, 2006), findings linked district-level leadership to
student performance. Distinct behaviors were identified including effectively carrying out
responsibilities, establishing non-negotiable goals for instruction, and not letting other initiatives
or individual board members’ agendas impede this process.
The Relationship Between School Boards and Their Superintendents
The relationship between school boards and their superintendents can be complex and
can suffer from problems. Wirt and Kirst (2009) described four states of the relationship between
school boards and superintendents. The first state is characterized by a strong superintendent
trusted by the school board, who dominates policymaking and administration. Second, a strong
board with a distrusted superintendent sees the board dominate policymaking and administration.
28
Third is a mixture where the roles of the superintendent and school board members cross over
frequently. Fourth is a clear delineation between the roles, with both superintendents and school
board members understanding and accepting those roles.
Structure of the Relationship: Governance and Policymaking
The traditional governance culture of school districts can cause role confusion for school
board members. Literature has addressed and outlined best practices for the working relationship
of superintendents and school boards (Hanover Research, 2014; Kremer & Rickabaugh, 2000).
Further examination of board operations has been divided between (a) professional, where
governance is technical; and (b) political, where governance is a negotiation between school
boards and superintendents (Greene, 1992). Glass et al. (2000) found that the initiation of policy
most often comes from the superintendent, then central office staff, before the school board or its
chair. Mayer (2011) explained that a board member should not micromanage school operations
but instead remain in the role of supervising the administrator. In Callan and Levinson’s (2011)
text, the authors shared that superintendents succeeding a previous leader who failed to navigate
the relationship will find a board turned from policy creation to operations and
micromanagement. In a case study of school board policy adoption in a small midwestern school
district, Heinze and Zdroik (2018) found that while finances played a part in decision making,
the primary approach used by the school board was to align the decision to the culture of the
community—in this case, relying on the superintendent to make community beliefs salient to
board members.
Dawson and Quinn (2000) outlined recommendations for school boards to address this
confusion, particularly that school boards should focus exclusively on policy governance. The
authors argued that school boards can and should state policy-level concerns in broad policies and
29
then leave the administrative detail to the superintendent. The authors’ article restricts the school
board to only four kinds of policies to express values for the organization: the governance
process, board–staff relations, ends policies, and executive limitations policies. The governance
process policies include how the board conducts business, how to discipline members, and how
to govern with excellence. Board–staff relations policies include how the board and
superintendent will interact and how the superintendent’s performance will be measured. Ends
policies describe the ultimate benefits that the district will provide for students and what the
costs will be. Finally, executive limitations policies outline the boundaries within which the
superintendent may make operational or means decisions while working to achieve ends. Further
literature has documented the work of superintendents within these structures (C. Campbell &
DeArmond, 2011).
The Institute of Educational Leadership (IEL) completed three major studies and
developed recommendations on how school boards should be reformed and restructured
(Danzberger, 1994). The 1985–1986 study found that special interests, shifting leadership, and
school board– superintendent relationships were causing problems in governance functionality.
The second study in 1992 demonstrated boards’ self-reporting inabilities and struggles working
with their superintendents. The last study, also in 1992, focused on urban districts and found that
school boards were not engines for reforms. The recommendations of the IEL included a
framework to restructure school boards into education policy boards. An example of this
recommendation was the requirement to set personnel policies regarding hiring the
superintendent (Danzberger, 1994). McGonagill (1987), buoyed by the publication of the IEL
1985–86 study, identified barriers to partnership between school boards and administrative staff
30
as role confusion, internal board fragmentation, and competition over who would control
policymaking and implementation.
School boards have been shown not to focus on student achievement. Recommendations
drawn from a piece connected to the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry Project (Rice et al., 2001)
implored superintendents to add a student achievement goal agenda item to every school board
meeting and focusing meetings and board work on targeted actions and aligned resources. A
study that examined 115 superintendent contracts in the state of North Carolina found that school
boards did not include student achievement goals or even references to student academic
performance in superintendents’ contracts (CSBA, 2017). The CSBA (2017) posited that
elections are settled on nonacademic matters, such as social ties; that school board members have
trouble holding superintendents accountable; and that boundaries exist between the ideologies
that would highlight the impact of student achievement.
The connection between school board governance policies and student achievement has
been observed in recent studies. P. A. Johnson (2012) examined a case study of school board
policies and identified 12 practices associated with higher student achievement: creating a vision,
using data, setting goals, monitoring progress, and taking corrective action, creating awareness
and urgency, engaging the community, connecting with district leadership, creating a climate,
providing staff development, developing policy with a focus on student learning, demonstrating
commitment, and practicing unified governance.
Educational reforms have altered the governance authority of school boards (Land,
2002). In a literature review, governance reforms such as site-based management, the rise of
charter schools, and the increase of state and mayoral takeovers of schools have seen school
boards’ power diminish. Land collected research and identified two proposals that have
31
developed to eliminate school boards in their current state: (a) a local educational governance
within local general governance and making schools one of several government departments; and
(b) the creation of a local board to oversee integrated, comprehensive education, health, and
social services for children and families. An example of this trend was the study of Jacobson and
Linkow (2014), who analyzed 12 Teach for America (TFA) alumni who campaigned for school
board seats in 2009 and 2010. The authors tracked campaign materials through quantitative
analysis to evaluate the relationship between the national agenda of TFA and the local interests of
the communities. The results of the study showed that TFA alumni run significantly different
campaigns than do local opponents, particularly, that TFA candidates incorporate more of TFA’s
national priorities, while maintaining local issue focus and statistically insignificant rates.
Problems in the Relationship
Key excerpts of Kowalski’s (2013) book identify the problems that superintendents face.
These can be categorized into three broad themes: institutional, social, and professional. Social
problems are community issues such as poverty, while professional problems involve the lack of
qualified staff and institutional problems concern district culture and strategic planning. A case
study of a superintendent for the Tukwila School District in the state of Washington (Coogan et
al., 2015) found that that a superintendent hired to initiate a turnaround had to overcome conflict
and dissent using inclusion of key actions. The superintendent managed employee dissatisfaction
through building relationships with the school board, district staff, and community; hiring and
firing cabinet members, administrators, and teachers; revamping instructional and evaluation
practices while seeking to build trust with stakeholders; and bringing predictability and voice to
district governance.
32
Local Control and Board Effectiveness
Finn (1991) called for the abolishment of local school boards, scathingly announcing
them as “dysfunctional” groups that “insulate education decisions from the voters, taxpayers and
parents” (p. 28). The criticism continued that board members were merely “a lay school
committee which hired a professional superintendent to manage the system” (p. 25). Like Finn,
Whitson (1998) called for a movement geared toward national oversight and standards and away
from the control of local school boards. In 1992, the Twentieth Century Fund/Danforth
Foundation Task Force levied charges against local school board leadership, including the
critiques that school board membership was a steppingstone to a higher office, school board–
superintendent relationships were forcing vacancies, that low voter turn-out implied lack of
legitimacy, and that school boards lack coordination and focus (Wagner, 1992).
In a 2012 study that included 155 board meeting observations, Lee and Eadens
determined key differences between boards representing low-, medium-, and high-performing
districts that might contribute to effectiveness (Lee & Eadens, 2012). Using the School Board
Video Project Survey, the researchers collected and analyzed survey data and found that
respondents observing low-performing districts’ board meetings perceived them as less orderly,
with less time spent on student achievement. Board members were not listening respectfully and
attentively, with members seeming to advance their own agendas. Other problems were less
effective working relationships among the governance team, lower board members relying on the
superintendent for advice and input, having one member stand out for taking too much of the
time, and perceiving members as not acting on policy items as much as high- and medium-
performing school districts.
33
A study examining the implementation of the Education Reform Act of 1985 in Illinois
reviewed the board minutes of 12 school districts between 1984 and 1987 to measure the degree
of policymaking (Nowakowski & First, 1989). The findings showed that in the immediate
aftermath of the passage of the act, reform topics increased. The agendas, however, constrained
by internal, external, and historical elements, continued to be dominated by routine maintenance
and local concerns, with few agenda items associated with reform. The author concludes that
school boards have been left out as key pieces of educational reform movements.
Superintendent Turnover
The 10-year Study of the American School Superintendent set the average tenure at 8.5
years, representing an increase from the 1992 study that found the average to be 6.4 (Glass et al.,
2000). The study indicated that the top reasons that superintendents left their positions were the
lack of adequate finances for district operations and lack of community support. The 2006 State
of the Superintendency study from the AASA (2019) found that the mean tenure for a
superintendent was 5–6 years and that the annual turnover rate for superintendents was between
14% and 16%.
A survey by Byrd et al. (2006) of superintendents in Texas indicated that nonsignificant
factors toward turnover were age, salary, highest educational level obtained, reported level of
preparedness, school board–superintendent relationships, politics, and bureaucracy impacting the
superintendent’s role, and fiscal resources for the district. These nonsignificant factors were
compared with factors such as the relationship between the superintendent and school board,
especially the relationship with the school board president.
A 1991 quasi experiment by Weller et al. probed the link between (a) general elections,
wherein the incumbent school board member could be either reelected or defeated as the
34
independent variable; and (b) the continuation or termination of employment of the
superintendent within 1, 2, 3, or 4 years of each general election as the dependent variable. No
statistically significant relationship was found.
In 2002, a longitudinal study by Natkin et al. demonstrated a predictability in
superintendents’ survival. The study identified several nonsignificant factors, such as age,
gender, and district size, but showed that short tenures were associated with a combination of
high poverty, low support for construction, and school board micromanagement. The 2014
Council of the Great City Schools study found that big city superintendents had an average
current tenure of 3.18 years and an average turnover of 4.5 years.
In a series of studies, Alsbury (2003, 2004, 2008) examined superintendent and school
board member turnover. Alsbury’s (2003) mixed-method study explored the link between
superintendent and school board member turnover through the lens of community and board
values, district policy, and citizen participation. The study’s conclusions included recommending
that future research examine political versus apolitical turnover through qualitative methods.
Further research from Alsbury (2004) found that superintendent turnover increased as politically
motivated school board turnover increased and as districts grew in enrollment. Alsbury’s 2008
study found a link between school board member turnover (especially politically motivated
turnover) and student achievement, although the author cautioned against drawing conclusions of
causality.
Hiring and Dismissal
Cox and Malone (2001) reported that school boards face struggles within the hiring
process. Potential superintendents—for example, central office administrators who were
considering the job—reported that the scope of the job, the loss of job security, and family
35
responsibilities were discouraging. Rogers (2006), whose 9th Triennial Study of the
Superintendency in New York State examined 411 responses, found that “promising principals
and central office administrators do not aspire to the superintendency due to the perception that
the demands of the job will negatively impact on their family and personal lives” (p. 25).
Oishi (2012) pointed out that salary caps for superintendents and the fact that the job is
contract work and not tenured have shrunk the pool of candidates; Oishi recommended starting
early, leveraging local firms, considering superintendents nationwide, and connecting with the
state’s association.
A case study was conducted by DeMitchell and Stipetic (1995) of the court case, Kinsey
v. Salado Independent School District, in which the superintendent campaigned publicly for a
losing candidate for school board and was subsequently fired by the winning candidate. The case
addressed the balance between the superintendent as a citizen with free speech protections and
the loyalty required for a close working relationship with the school board. The court’s final
decision established that as an employee of the board, the need for loyalty for an effective
relationship outweighed the free speech rights of the superintendent.
Struggles can exist for a superintendent if the relationship is not established initially after
hiring. Fossey (2011) examined the case study of the San Antonio School Board’s attempts to buy
out the contract of Superintendent Diana Lam. After board members blocked the hiring efforts
that the superintendent had put in place and stopped other initiatives, Lam negotiated a buy-out,
only to have local business leaders lobby to have the school board keep her. Ultimately, after
support waned and the relationship between the superintendent and the board became ineffective,
the school board agreed to buy out Lam’s contract. Another case study by Hackmann (2012)
examined the newly appointed superintendent of a predominantly rural, blue-collar community
36
with three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. The superintendent’s
initial conflicts with the school board complicated her efforts to respond to parents who were
concerned about access and opportunity at the high school.
Rogers (2006) identified several explanations for how superintendents pursued the role.
While responding to a posted advertisement created the highest response, the researchers found
growth in the area of school board invitations to apply. Additionally, there was an increase in the
percentage of internal candidates pursuing and being selected for superintendencies. Kamler’s
(2009) qualitative study of 15 superintendent search consultants in Long Island sought to identify
the differences in context between 1995 and 2005. Through analyzed interviews, the authors
found that consultants developed a profile that would be the best fit, then advertised nationally,
modeled consensus building among board members, and ultimately processed background
checks and conducted interviews.
Dissatisfaction Theory
Dissatisfaction theory describes a demographic shift that initiate changes to community
values, that, in turn, result in dissatisfaction with the school board (Adler, 2010; Lutz &
Iannaccone, 1978). Board members seek consensus with one another; ignore constituent issues;
and suffer from political mobilization, losses in board elections, and superintendent turnover.
Initially described by Lutz and Iannaccone (1978) as building on the concept that a
superintendent’s behavior is subject to school boards who are driven by the local community,
dissatisfaction theory is used to examine case studies of superintendent–school board
relationships. Davis (1984) leveraged dissatisfaction theory to review multiple elections in Santa
Barbara, concluding that extensive policymaker turnover must precede shifts in organizational
priorities and that the voting public influenced the implementation of valued education programs.
37
In an analysis of a superintendent’s dismissal, Hosman (1990) utilized dissatisfaction
theory to explain a school board’s decision to remove a popular superintendent. The hiring and
dismissal followed a similar path: The values of the board and community drifted apart;
incumbent school board members were defeated; and the new board replaced the superintendent.
Criswell and Mitchell (1980) studied school board elections over extended periods of
time to measure the dissatisfaction theory. They concluded that substantial school district policy
shifts typically involved several elections that shifted the constitution of the school board. Le
Doux and Burlingame (1973) sought to apply the dissatisfaction theory to school board election
results in New Mexico and found that the model did not account for differing changes in the
community, for school board members who voluntarily exited, and for local versus state
financing structures. Lutz and Gaberina (1977) validated the dissatisfaction theory through a
study of Massachusetts school district board elections. The authors confirmed the validity of and
identified connections between the community’s desires and the success of school board
members, especially as relating to socioeconomic elements such as tax rates.
Communication
One commonly cited reason for difficult or strained relationships between school boards
and superintendents is confusion and lack of effective communication (Mountford, 2004). In an
evaluation of a portion of a larger study, Mountford (2004) used qualitative methods to examine
the conceptions of power and motivations of board members. A link was found between
members with a power-over orientation and having personal reasons for serving. Another link
was found between school board members believing in power with and demonstrating altruistic
reasons for serving.
38
School leaders can struggle to effectively communicate with their constituencies, parents,
and broader communities (Howlett, 1993). In an opinion piece, Howlett (1993) gave
superintendents five recommendations: (a) not being an isolationist, (b) looking to the future, (c)
clarifying the superintendent’s role, (d) letting go of the public-school monopoly, and (e)
engaging in actions around playing politics. Glass et al. (2000) found that 62.1% of
superintendents spent more time with the school board president but only 3 or fewer hours per
week communicating directly with board members. Problems arise when board members, who
commonly have no support staff of their own, rely on a superintendent for all information
(Maeroff, 2010). Superintendents act as gatekeepers of information, thereby undermining
transparency and in some cases leading board members to cultivate their own sources and to
violate roles and protocols. In a 2006 case study of a school board that hired a superintendent
from outside of the education field, Fusarelli found that conflict was created in leadership style,
unilateral decision making, and community culture.
Perceptions of School Board Members and Superintendents
School Board Members
In a mixed-methods study of board perceptions, Plough (2014) measured members’
responses to surveys, followed by in-depth personal interviews, and found differences in
perceptions between high-performing and low-performing school districts. Both sets of districts
agreed that a separation between the board and superintendent should exist. Disagreements
existed in demonstrating commitment, deliberative policy development, and connecting with the
community. Of import was the difference in governance, with low-performing school district
board members believing that commitment was more important than training and that a district’s
primary job should be educational reform.
39
An exploratory study of randomly chosen school districts indicated that board presidents
perceived that a superintendent’s ability, credibility, social attractiveness, assertiveness, and
emotiveness were effective and compelling elements of influence (Petersen & Short, 2001). The
authors examined board agendas and voting decisions through a social influence theory lens to
demonstrate that social attributes and social style are essential to the superintendent. Of
important note is that the quantitative results of the study showed that a superintendent’s
reputation and job survival were dependent on others’ perceptions of credibility and the ability to
influence critical policy decisions.
A mail survey that was sent to every school board member in Tennessee in 2004–2005
asking about the board members’ perceptions of their effectiveness in raising student
achievement, capital spending, and staff salaries found that school board members’ perceptions
were not aligned to actual outcomes (French, 2009). An examination of school board members’
perceptions of the superintendent as relating to negotiations determined a distinct link (Caldwell,
1970). The negotiations between teachers and school boards in 272 school districts across 26
states were studied, and board members were shown to prefer that a superintendent plays an
advisory negotiation role.
Examining the motivations to run for school board, a study analyzed data from a cross-
sectional national survey of candidates drawn from a random sample (Deckman, 2007). The
author found a distinction between female and male candidates about purposes for serving. Men
were significantly more likely to report that they ran to apply their moral or religious beliefs to
policy and to acquire more political experience.
Wilson (1994) chronicled the perceptions of a board member who saw the superintendent
as an ally together against the struggles of a district, such as with lack of funding and
40
concentrations of poverty. The author sought to respond to criticisms heaped on superintendents
and school boards, even when acknowledging the complex and sometimes strained relationship
between a lay employer and a professional employee. McCloud and McKenzie (1994) explained
that superintendents often attempted to exert too much control and to resist school board
members’ questions about decisions. The authors noted that internal forces, such as school board
members with single-issue agendas, contributed to breakdowns in the relationship.
A study using mailed questionnaires to the superintendent and school board president of
100 districts in the states of Washington, Missouri, and New Jersey sought to chronicle the
frustrations of school board members (Merz, 1986). Results demonstrated that the varying
expectations for school board members was a primary source of frustrations but that more
differences emerged between states than between positions. Respondents complained of specific
variables, such as declining enrollment, state financial support for schools, the property tax rate,
and the average income of property owners, as reasons for leaving the role.
Perceptions of Superintendents
Superintendents have indicated that school boards expect that the role includes both
instructional leadership and general district management. Time management and financial
limitations were the primary reported problems for superintendents and school boards, with only
a small percentage reporting conflicts with the school board (Glass et al., 2000).
A selection of superintendents reported that the top reason that New York superintendents
took on the role was to have a greater influence on children’s lives, followed by greater
challenges and new experiences (Rogers, 2006). In the survey of New York state
superintendents, respondents reported that the school board’s perception was that the
superintendent’s role is as a day-to-day manager, primarily over curriculum. The same study
41
showed that 90% of superintendents rated their boards “effective,” with the primary reasons for
the rating of “ineffective” being failing to recognize their primary function of establishing policy.
When Rogers (2006) prompted New York state superintendents to comment on their school
boards’ adherence to state policy, superintendents shared that ineffective boards struggled with
understanding that their primary function was to establish policy, to keep confidentiality, and to
base decisions on facts. An analysis of focus group interviews (Lamkin, 2006) in 2001 and 2002
of 58 rural superintendents in three states—New York, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee—found that
superintendents stated two complaints: (a) a lack of proper training, particularly in school law,
finance, personnel, government mandates, and district and board policies; and (b) the
requirement to have broad skills.
Gender and the Superintendency
Although women and men comprise varying proportions of superintendents, there were
no reported differences between the sexes in overall job satisfaction (Young, 1984). Young’s
(1984) sampling of job factors for females were advancement and supervision, whereas males
identified responsibility, working conditions, and interpersonal relationships. Certain
articulations of the superintendent’s role, necessary skill sets, and desired characteristics have
created the persistence of men’s dominance of positions of power (Chase & Bell, 1990). An
analysis of interviews with 27 female superintendents between 1986 and 1989 produced data
about how men’s dominance of positions of power is reproduced (Chase & Bell, 1990).
Female superintendents, however, provide key insight to the use of power in leadership
roles (Katz, 2008). In a mixed-method study of female superintendents in the Midwest, women
described overcoming gendered experiences, such as preconceived ideas about women’s skills in
networking, work ethic, and confidence. Kelsey et al. (2014) conducted a qualitative analysis of
42
20 female superintendents using grounded theory in the state of Texas to evaluate their
perceptions of barriers, strategies, and career experiences. These superintendents described their
leadership style as building relationships and focusing on participatory leadership. They
identified support organizations as increased opportunities to network and posited that
encouragement and mentoring is the best way to serve future leaders.
A separate mailed survey of school boards in 19 western states showed that urban and
suburban school districts, in addition to boards that had majority women, tended to hire more
female superintendents (Marietti & Stout, 1994). Moreover, school board members who hired
female superintendents had a higher socioeconomic status and had higher personal achievement
in the form of graduate studies. In New York, the perception of superintendents surveyed was that
women had made gains in accessing superintendencies, even while the percentage of women in
the superintendency in New York had remained stable (Rogers, 2006).
An essay crafted in response to the previously mentioned study by Glass et al. (2000)
examined women’s formal, experiential, and personal preparedness as they sought
superintendencies (Brunner & Kim, 2010). The authors used data from a study of
superintendents and central office administrators conducted by Brunner and Grogan (2007) to do
a secondary analysis. Findings indicated that women sought equal credentials to men; that
women’s career paths included much more curriculum than men’s; that women had more variety
in positions, had little finance preparation, and had more opportunities to be mentored.
A qualitative study used snowball sampling to explore the perceptions of 20 female
superintendents who left their positions (Tallerico et al, 1993). These superintendents reported
that while gender played no role in their leaving, multiple gender-related factors influenced their
experience. The authors explained that superintendents leaving were either from “pulls” (i.e.,
43
attractions pulling participants away toward new jobs or family) or “pushes” (i.e., political
factors such as school board dysfunction, union influences, noneducation foci such as financial
or facilities concerns, and moral or ethical clashes).
A review of the literature on the leadership strategies of superintendents over the second
half of the last century produced conclusions about the paradoxes of the superintendency. Grogan
(2000) pointed out key struggles that superintendents experience—for example, the task of
setting a vision before understanding the community, initiating reform but not seeing efforts
through to the end, navigating encroaching private sector values, and balancing decentralized
authority with increased accountability. The author then utilized postmodern feminist
perspectives to inform the strategies that a superintendent can employ, such as being comfortable
with contradiction, working through others, appreciating dissent, developing a critical awareness
of how children are being served, and adopting an ethic of care.
Chapter Summary
The review of pertinent literature suggested important themes in theories of leadership,
the history of school leadership structures, the preparation for school board members, and the
relationship between school boards and superintendents. Examining the leadership structures in
school districts produces insight into the complex relationship between the elected private
citizens who make up school boards and the board’s primary employee and leader of a school
district—the superintendent. The working relationship between the school board and the
superintendent can be effective, but governance training opportunities can support school boards,
superintendents, and school districts. The California model for governance training, the MIG
training program, although voluntary, provides the opportunity for school board members to
44
build their knowledge, to focus the district’s vision, to maintain financial stability, and to
improve student achievement.
45
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter presents a description of the research design, research team, sample and
participants, data instruments, and the procedures for data collection and analysis. The previous
two chapters provided, respectively, an overview of the study and an examination of literature
relevant to the topic.
Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Rocco and Plakhotnik (2009) contended that qualitative studies must build on a body of
literature with a conceptual or theoretical framework. This study, employed as a framework,
various theories of leadership proposed by multiple authors. Specifically, the research team will
use Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four leadership frames, the CSBA’s (2018c) school board
responsibilities, Ghasemy and Hussin’s (2016) theory of management, the IASB’s Lighthouse
Inquiry (Rice et al., 2001) on leadership and impact, Northouse’s (2015) definition of leadership,
and Senge’s (1990) leaders’ vision work. The work of these authors in leadership provides theory
and context for examining the impact of the MIG training on the leadership and governance of
school boards.
46
Research Questions
The researchers developed three research questions to examine the impact of the CSBA’s
MIG preservice training for school board members’ governance and leadership. The
collaborative process of creating, editing, and revising the wording of the questions followed the
recommendation of Agee (2009), who explained that “good qualitative questions can be
significant tools that shape a study design and analysis” (p. 446). These questions are the
following:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Research Team
The research team consisted of 20 doctoral students under the direction of Dr. Michael
Escalante of the EdD Educational Leadership program at the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California (USC). The researchers began working together in 2019 and
met monthly to plan, collaborate, and examine current research and practices. The team created
study instruments, crafted the research design, and outlined a plan for completion. The
participants were school board members from various school districts in California and current
superintendents.
Research Design
A qualitative approach was deemed the most appropriate choice for gathering the
necessary data to answer the research questions. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained
47
qualitative research as having four characteristics. First, this type of research focuses on process,
understanding, and meaning. Second, the researcher becomes the instrument of data collection
through observations and interviews. Third, the process is inductive, as the researcher modifies
and creates understanding of a phenomenon while the research is occurring. Fourth, the product
is richly descriptive. The design of the present study examined a phenomenon and produced a
thick description of the perceptions of participants through a process of surveying and
interviewing, with the members of the research team as the instruments.
Qualitative research is done through interviews and observations. Merriam and Tisdale
(2016) described interviews as second-hand accounts of the phenomenon of interest, with data
being drawn from direct quotations regarding the understanding that people have developed.
Observations take place in the settings where the phenomenon occurs, and the researchers collect
first-hand accounts.
Qualitative methods generally involve interviews and observations are specifically
appropriate to answer the research questions because the phenomenon that the study aimed to
understand were the perceptions of superintendents and school board members with respect to
the impact of the MIG. School board members who had attended the training shared in
interviews and surveys their opinions of the training’s quality and impact. Additionally,
superintendents provided their viewpoints regarding the changes in governance skills that school
board members who had completed training exhibited, as compared to school board members
with no training. This connection between the perceptions of trained school board members and
the perceptions of their superintendents created the potential for alternate viewpoints, including
various opinions and perceptions based on the role of the individuals participating in the survey.
48
Efforts within the study included the potential to link school board governance with high or
increased academic performance in districts.
The research methods used in this study involved the use of a survey and interview
protocols. The survey and interview protocol were comprised of questions regarding leadership
practices and governance, with each question aligned to one or more of the three research
questions. The research team worked collaboratively to develop the survey and interview
protocols. The surveys were sent to school board members and superintendents with a cover
letter (Appendix A) introducing the study. Interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom or
phone due to the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic that prevented face-to-face interviews.
Sampling
R. B. Johnson and Christensen (2014) described sampling as the process of drawing a
subset from a population in order to study the unique characteristics. The authors defined a
population as the larger group from which a sample is drawn. The population for this study was
school board members in California and their superintendents. The researchers surveyed and
interviewed superintendents and school board members representing 62 districts in 12 counties.
A purposeful sampling technique was used to identify the school board members and
superintendents to target for the study. Purposeful sampling is the process of identifying the
characteristics of a population of interest and then seeking out individuals who possess those
characteristics (Johnson & Christianson, 2014). The sample was comprised of school board
members in the 12 targeted counties in California where a majority of school board members had
attended a minimum of three of the five modules of the MIG training. The sample ultimately
included the school board members who had attended or completed training and the
superintendents who worked with those school board members. The research team called school
49
districts in the targeted sample and then sent out surveys (Appendices B and C) and scheduled
follow-up interviews. Given the identified limitations of social distancing imposed by the state of
California as a result of the COVID-19 virus, interviews were conducted virtually, using the
Zoom platform and recorded for later transcription.
Participants
The researchers will be organized into working groups to begin the targeting of
participants. The two groups targeted for participation in the survey were school board members
and superintendents. School board members were identified because they had attended training
and then leveraged their governance skill set to manage school districts. Superintendents were
identified because their role was to oversee the operations of the school district under the
guidance and leadership of school board members and consequently were direct observers of the
development and change of school board members’ behaviors. Participants were required to
meet the following criteria: (a) school board members in California who had attended MIG
training, (b) school board members in California who had completed the MIG training, and (c)
superintendents who worked with school board members who had attended or completed the
MIG training.
Instrumentation Development and Design
The research team worked to develop qualitative data instruments to collect data for the
study. Each instrument aligned to one or more of the research questions and was informed by the
theoretical framework that comprised the foundation of the study. The instruments were designed
to compile data into categories that could be compared and contrasted based on job roles. The
instruments were surveys and interview protocols (Appendices B through E). The rationale for
using surveys and interviews was to triangulate the data for analysis; to explore a broad
50
collection of data via surveys; and to delve deeply into the phenomenon through follow-up
interviews, thereby validating the developing analysis of the phenomenon.
Fink (2013) described surveys as “information collection methods used to describe,
compare and explain societal knowledge, feelings, values, preferences and behavior” (p. 2). The
team developed two surveys, one for school board members and one for superintendents. Each
survey included 19 questions with a 4-point Likert scale response ranging from Strongly Agree to
Strongly Disagree. The two surveys were designed to match, question for question. For example,
a question to the school board member asked about the perceived impact of the MIG training,
and the comparable question for the superintendent asked about the observed impact on the
behaviors of the school board member(s). The purpose of designing the surveys to be comparable
was to align the collected data for analysis and triangulation. The superintendent survey also
included questions designed to elicit ratings about the effect of school board members’
governance skills and abilities, thus further juxtaposing the perceptions of school board members
and superintendents. Conversely, the school board survey focused tightly on how the MIG
training impacted a board member’s leadership and governance skills.
Patton (1987) posited that in-depth interviewing involves “asking open-ended questions,
listening to and recording the answers, and then following up with additional relevant questions”
(p. 108). The research members developed two interview protocols, one for school board
members and superintendents. The interview protocols were designed to be standardized, open-
ended interviews, with the questions carefully aligned to take the participants through the same
set of questions (Patton, 2002) and to provide a setting for the interview to be dominated by the
participant’s remarks (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The types of questions included on the protocols
focused on several question categories: (a) on experience and behavior questions, designed to
51
elicit descriptions of actions; and (b) on knowledge questions, designed to collect factual
information. Last, the protocols asked feeling questions, designed to explore the emotional
responses. The interview protocol included 12 questions that were developed to be open ended
and to elicit broad answers from a session that lasted approximately 45–55 minutes. The
researchers included specifically designed language to manage the transition between the
questions and question categories within the interviews ®. S. Weiss, 1994). These interviews
allow the school board members and superintendents to articulate their perceptions and beliefs
about the MIG training and its impact on governance by carefully using a qualitative technique
to delve into the participants’ perceptions of the phenomenon.
Data Collection
The research team began collecting data in the spring of 2020, using the collaboratively
developed survey and interview protocol instruments. Selected school board members and
superintendents were sent recruitment letters (Appendix A) that outlined the details of the study,
including the confidentiality and anonymity afforded to those who participated and a request for
consent. This action aligned with the recommendations from Bogdan and Biklen (2007), who
explained that the novice researcher should use overt approaches to gain access to the people and
spaces in which they are interested. As participation in the present study was completely
voluntary, all participants provided written consent of their agreement to participate in the study,
as required by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Surveys were sent to school board members and superintendents, complete with a cover
letter (Appendix A) that introduced the study and an informed consent form (Appendix F) that
outlined the purpose and permissions. The survey offered consent to be contacted for a follow-up
interview. The research team monitored, organized, and recorded data as surveys were completed
52
and followed up on incomplete surveys. The Question Alignment Matrix in Appendix G
illustrates how the survey and interview questions were aligned with the research questions.
When a school board member or superintendent indicated that he or she would be willing
to participate in an interview, researchers reached out to schedule the interview. Follow-up
interviews were conducted with three or four school board members or the school board
president and the superintendent. Interviews were recorded and transcribed using the Rev.com
platform, which formatted the remarks of the subject. Finally, the files were collected and
categorized in a shared database.
Data Analysis
Data analysis occurred after data were collected through the surveys, interviews, and
observation protocols and were analyzed to explore answers and themes related to the study’s
three research questions. The research team used the review of the literature to further triangulate
the collected data within the broader context of the study of superintendent–school board
relationships.
First, the survey data from all the counties were compiled. The individual researchers
separated the focus group survey data and then compared the focus group survey responses to the
broader survey responses; this examination established trends. Then researchers participated
within data analysis working groups to further refine the emerging trends.
Analysis of the interview data came out of a grounded-theory approach, which includes a
three-part coding process: open, axial, and selective (Lichtman, 2013). Researchers began with
open coding. Interviews were uploaded into the Rev platform for transcription. Interview
transcriptions were scripted by individual researchers and analyzed to identify broad and
emerging themes. This practice was reinforced by the work of Harding (2013), who
53
recommended identifying the initial themes through reviewing the transcripts. Axial coding
followed, as the themes were compared and aligned to produce codes. Finally, selective coding
involved the analysis of codes that were then adapted and refined before being used for
secondary coding. The codes of survey and interview responses were compared with those of
multiple members of the research team to ensure validity.
With the initial themes generated, the researchers reread and reflected on each interview
transcript with additional analysis, thereby building a deeper commitment to each theme and
pulling out data pieces to categorize under themes. Refining codes through the acquisition of a
batch of data—a new transcript, for instance—fits into the nature of qualitative research. This is
defined as a collection and analysis of data that are “continuous and simultaneous,” with “no
clean cut-off” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 267). Next, the data were triangulated more broadly
and collaboratively with the entire research team, who had evaluated the data pieces collected
individually within each category. Finally, the data pieces were pulled from transcripts and
collected under the refined codes to begin to create assertions. Assertions were drafted and
evaluated in working groups before being presented to the entire research team for feedback and
critique.
Multiple researchers participated in the initial theme development and subsequently the
coding and refining, thereby ensuring that the data analysis would be credible and trustworthy.
Again, the study was informed by Merriam and Tisdale (2016) to discipline subjectivity. The
action of sharing among researchers the data, coding, and code book represented the strategy of
peer review and examination and ensured the congruency of the emerging findings and tentative
interpretations. The second strategy employed was maximum variation, in which researchers
identified and targeted school board members and superintendents in multiple counties, school
54
districts, and settings to interview—each individual with different experiences so as to provide a
distribution of perspectives.
Ethical Considerations
Ensuring Ethical Behaviors
All members of the research team complied with the USC’s IRB process, which included
completing the Collaborative IRB Training Initiative (CITI). This training includes modules
designed to certify that researchers can conduct research on human subjects. To ensure ethical
interviews, researchers worked with the dissertation chair to develop the research questions and
the design of the study. Additionally, before each interview, the context of the study was
presented, including contact information for the chair, the purpose of the study, and the research
questions. Considering the concept of informed consent (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012),
each participant received the protocol to ensure that he or she knew the content of the questions
and could read the research questions.
Positionality and Bias
As a straight, male, multiethnic researcher, I bring a positionality to the work of
interviewing school board members and superintendents and observing public meetings and
trainings. My position was as a subordinate level as it relates to the interviewees—a factor that
created a unique position of power-over in the relationship. Additionally, my experience as a site
and district administrator gave me a perspective and bias about how professional training
impacts adult learners. Finally, as a researcher who has a postpositivist worldview—defined by
Creswell (2014), as “the thinking after positivism . . . recognizing that we cannot be positive
about our claims of knowledge when studying the behavior and actions of humans” (p. 7)—I had
55
to be cognizant about how this framed the conclusions drawn from my data analysis and further
underscored the necessity for triangulation and efforts toward credibility and trustworthiness.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has reviewed and outlined the research methodology that were employed for
the study and explained the components of the research process. The chapter restated the purpose
of the study, gave the context of the theoretical framework, restated the research questions, and
provided a rationale for approaching the study through a qualitative lens. The chapter then
presented the sample and population, participants, as well as the study instruments and the
approach to data collection and analysis. The chapter finished with an exploration of the ethical
considerations of the study and the positionality and bias of the researcher.
56
Chapter Four: Results
The study focused on school board members and superintendents who participated in the
CSBA’s MIG training. While elected or appointed school board members for LEAs in the state
of California are not required to complete the MIG training, the experience “equips board
members and superintendents with the knowledge and skills to build and support an effective
governance structure” (CSBA, 2018c, para. 1).
Organization of Findings
This chapter reports the results of a qualitative exploration of the perceptions of school
board members and superintendents in counties in California. The study identified school board
members and superintendents who participated in the CSBA’s MIG training to shape the
population; surveys, interviews and document reviews were utilized by the research team.
The findings resulted in three themes each regarding the factors of influence on school
board members, perceptions of the MIG program, and the link between MIG training and student
achievement and growth. The organization of the findings and supporting data is partitioned
according to the study’s three research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Participants
The 12 counties in the broader study were Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey,
Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and
57
Ventura. For the broader study, researchers sought to interview and survey the superintendent
and three board members in each district where more than half of school board members had
participated in MIG. Table 2 indicates the number of superintendents and school board members
who participated in the survey and the interviews. The research team conducted 62
superintendent interviews and 177 school board member interviews. Additionally, 62
superintendents and 180 school board members completed the surveys. Interviews were
conducted during the months of June, July, August, and September and held via video
conference using the Zoom platform. In some instances, only two school board members
completed the survey and/or the interview, and in some instances four school board members
completed the survey and/or the interview. In some instances, the superintendent failed to
complete the survey after participating in the interview.
Table 2
Summary of Participation From 62 Districts
Participants
n
%
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses
62
100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses
180
97
Interviews 177 95
58
The focus group for this researcher’s investigation consisted of three superintendents and
11 school board members. The three school districts in the focus group were Highland
Elementary School District, Summit Unified School District, and Viewridge Unified School
District (pseudonyms). For the focus group, interviews were conducted with the superintendents
for each district and three school board members from Highland Elementary School District and
four school board members each, from Summit Unified School District and Viewridge Unified
School District.
Ventura County is located on the western coast of southern California. Ventura borders
Los Angeles County on the west and Santa Barbara County to the north. The ethnic
demographics of Ventura County are displayed in Table 3. As a county, Ventura has a larger
percentage of White and Hispanic population than the state of California as a whole and a
smaller population of African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Pacific
Islander residents.
59
Table 3
Demographics of Ventura County and California
Ventura County State of California
Population 832,318 37,253,956
African American 2.4% 6.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native 1.9% 1.6%
Asian 7.9% 15.5%
Hispanic 43.2% 39.4%
Pacific Islander 0.3% 0.5%
White 44.7% 36.5%
Two or More Races 3.5% 4.0%
Interviews were conducted in three Ventura County school districts: Highland
Elementary School District, Summit Unified School District, and Viewridge Unified School
District. Table 4 summarizes the demographics of the three school districts.
60
Table 4
Demographic Information (numbers of students in each category) for Highland Elementary
School District, Summit Unified School District and Viewridge Unified School District
Student Subgroup Highland ESD Summit USD Viewridge USD
African American 78 70 178
American Indian or Alaska Native 37 11 48
Asian 40 1121 434
Filipino 227 73 117
Hispanic or Latino 6646 450 8720
Pacific Islander 21 6 27
White 727 2524 6050
Two or More Races 170 262 662
Not Reported 0 10 0
Total 7946 4527 16236
Information from the Highland Elementary School District 2017–2020 LCAP included
the communities that were in the district: south Oxnard, Port Hueneme, and the unincorporated
communities of Silver Strand and Hollywood Beach. At the time of this study, the district served
students in Transitional Kindergarten (TK) to Grade 8 in 10 elementary schools and two junior
high schools. The superintendent of Hueneme was interviewed, as well as three of the five
school board members.
The Summit Unified School District 2017-2020 LCAP described a high-performing K-12
school district with three elementary schools, a middle school, a high school, as well as an
independent school and an alternative school for students with unique needs. Oak Park drew its
61
student population from the city of Oak Park, with 48% of students coming from neighboring
districts via the District of Choice program as well as through inter-district transfers and permits.
Four of the five school board members were interviewed, along with the superintendent.
Viewridge Unified School District’s 2017–2020 LCAP indicated that the district had
Ventura Neighborhood for Learning, early childhood programs, 16 elementary schools, one K-8
school, four middle schools, three comprehensive high schools, one independent study high
school, one continuation high school, and a robust adult education program. At the time of this
study, the district was the third largest in Ventura County. The superintendent and four of the
five school board members participated in interviews.
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?” Three interview questions each from the
superintendents and school board members’ protocols sought answers aligned with Research
Question 1:
1. What factors impacted your decision to complete a school board training program?
2. Some individuals believe that school board training should be mandated in California.
How do you respond to them?
3. What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members
and/or superintendents?
Results from the data analysis of the interviews and surveys established three themes:
cultural expectations and encouragement, skill and capacity building, and training structures.
62
Cultural Expectations and Encouragement
The interviews established that school board members’ participation in the MIG training
program came from a cultural expectation within the school districts. Bolman and Deal’s (2017)
symbolic frame provides a lens to understand the perceptions of the superintendents and school
board members. Like other organizations, school districts understand their values through myths
and symbols that help members to resolve confusion, to find direction, and to anchor hope and
faith (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Distinguished from a structural requirement, school board members
and superintendents repeatedly drew motivation to attend training from the lobbying of their
colleagues. School board members’ participation represented an event and a process that signaled
the members’ purpose and passion for the role. Ghasemy and Hussin (2014) synthesized the
models of educational management and their links with the leadership styles posited by some
notable authors. Their work highlights the cultural model of educational management, which
introduces concepts such as ideas, beliefs, norms, values, attitudes, symbols, rituals, traditions
and ideologies, and posits that these are considered as central to organizations. Finally, this model
influences members to behave and to assess the behavior of other members based on them.
The behavior of superintendents and school board members is best defined through
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) symbolic frame and Ghasemy and Hussin’s (2014) cultural model of
educational management. One superintendent shared that “our board has a fairly long history of
participating in either the Masters in Governance program or bringing CSBA in, to do board
training and board workshops, so I think that history has lent itself to it.” Another superintendent
offered, “I believe that our board members have had a history here in Viewridge Unified to
participate in the training, and I was asked and encouraged to attend with the board right when I
was hired.” Another superintendent added, “We had a culture that when you were new to the
63
board, you would go through the Masters in Governance program, that everybody would be MIG
trained, and the district would pay for that and we would support that.”
Cultural references dotted the interviews. One superintendent encapsulated this theme: It
has that history that when new board members come on, they talk about we’re a high-
functioning board—this is our expectation. We’re not going to always agree on
everything, but we’re professional. This is how we do business.
Data from the school board member survey supported a symbolic interpretation of board
members’ motivations. The majority of surveyed school board members strongly agreed that
their district culture encouraged participation and that training should be encouraged by the
district. Additionally, school board members believed that training should be mandated. Table 5
summarizes school board members’ responses to survey questions that aligned with Research
Question 1.
Table 5
School Board Members Responses to Survey Questions Related to Research Question 1
Response
Our school board
culture encourages
participation in MIG
training.
n=180
MIG training should be
encouraged for school
governance teams by the
local district policy
n=180
MIG training
should be
mandated in
California.
n=180
Strongly Agree 107 116 73
Agree 60 53 65
Disagree 12 11 37
Strongly Disagree 1 0 5
64
All 11 school board members from the focus group strongly agreed or agreed that their
district’s culture encouraged participation in MIG training, with 10 indicating strongly agree.
Nine of 11 strongly agreed that MIG training should be encouraged for school governance teams
by the local district policy and two agree. Four school board members strongly agreed and five
agreed that MIG training should be mandated in California. Two school board members
disagreed; none strongly disagreed.
Interviews with school board members produced data that supported cultural expectations
as a factor in determining participation in MIG training. A board member described the influence
of CSBA and other board members: “I think the CSBA really helps upsell it a lot and explain to
you the purpose and the benefits of attending.” Another board member shared, “I think the
biggest was just encouragement from our superintendent and our school board, who had already
all been through the training.” Another board member asserted, “It was great to have the other
two board members who had been through the main course, to really encourage us to attend
together as much as we could.” Another trustee called out the superintendent’s explanation,
saying, “He told me that there was this training, and he didn’t know my schedule or anything like
that, but that he thought it would be a very good idea and that the other board members had done
it.” Another trustee identified the desired outcome—that the board culture would be buttressed
through the training: “I just felt it was very important that one, we try to get the board all focusing
in the same direction, and I figured the best way to do that was to have help from some source.”
Skill and Capacity Building
The second theme regarding Research Question 1 was skill and capacity building. The
research participants drew motivation to attend training from the promise of developing their
abilities as board members. The CSBA (n.d.) published professional governance standards to
65
support responsible and effective governance. According to these standards, the primary
responsibilities of a school board are to set a direction for the district, to provide a structure by
establishing policies, to ensure accountability, and to provide community leadership on behalf of
the district and public education. The abilities developed through school board member training
include working to establish policies for a school district, aligning these policies with the state
Education Code and the district’s vision and goals and limiting implementation to the
superintendent. Bolman and Deal’s (2017) human resource frame is based on the assumption that
organizations and individuals who work with and in organizations need one another.
The fit between the organization and the worker can be good or poor; and in cases where
it is good, both the organization and the worker benefit. The Lighthouse Inquiry study (Rice et al.,
2000) established the seven conditions for school renewal. The first condition was that school
districts must possess an emphasis on building a human organizational system, including a
continuous focus on improving education with high levels of involvement and shared decision
making. Improvement was at the core of this conclusion. The report shared that board members
seemed to feel an internal desire to improve. The study report mentioned the importance of
improving education for the sake of students.
Ghasemy and Hussin (2014) outlined the collegial model of educational management,
which contains three leadership styles: transformational leadership, participative leadership, and
distributed leadership. Particularly relevant in the literature was collegial leadership, described as
shared and collaborative,
When school board members were surveyed about the primary factor that influenced their
participation in the MIG training, the top choices were self-motivation (n = 133) and increasing
effective governance (n = 128). These choices represented the school board members’ desire to
66
increase their personal capacity and shed light on their motivation for participating in the MIG
training (see Table 6).
The most popular choice from focus group school board members matched the broader
study. When identifying their motivations to attend training the broader study identified self-
motivation. When asked for the reasons to attend the MIG training, the most popular choice
among the fourteen surveys of the focus group was self-motivation, followed by Increasing
effective governance. Table 6 shows the selections by the focus group.
Table 6
Focus Group and Broader Survey Responses Regarding Primary Factors Influencing
Participation in MIG Training
Selection Focus Group
f (14)
Broader Survey
f (180)
Encourage by board members 6 71
Increasing effective governance 8 128
Increasing student achievement 6 53
School board expectation 5 84
Self-Motivation 9 133
Other 1 0
Note. Participants were asked to respond based on the following question: “The primary factor
that influenced my participation in the MIG training was … (check all that apply).”
67
Superintendents answered interview questions with ideas tied to the theme, capacity
building. One superintendent contemplated the potential mandate. She answered:
But at the same time, I feel like when you’re taking on that kind of a civic responsibility,
having that kind of training, that’s probably crucial to knowing how you’re going to do
your jobs. So, I guess I have kind of mixed—based on just the circumstances. I would
hate for that to . . . Maybe some of our lower-income community members or who don’t
have flexibility with their job, I wouldn’t want to discourage them from being board
members.
The superintendent continued, drawing on Bolman and Deal’s (2017) human resource frame:
I felt like it was a good way for me to bond and to get to know the board members,
because you spend many hours with them during the Masters in Governance training over
several weekends, and so I easily agreed. It wasn’t really even a question.
Some superintendents were more committed. One noted:
I think it should be, yeah, because I had a lot of problems over the years now in education
and watching this. This is year 41 for me in education since being a teacher, and I’ve seen
some school districts ruined by their school boards, and I’ve seen teachers frustrated and
administrators hampered, and seeing school boards and board members awry is very bad
for the education of children. I think a lot of that could be prevented by some quality
training, and having someone like CSBA do that training is better than having the state
department do it.
The prospect of a mandate excited one superintendent:
68
I don’t know how any of that would play out, but no, I think that having accountability
for board members to a professional association and a set of standards is a really good
idea, and I think there’s a lot of people who would agree with that.
School board member interviews established capacity building as key in determining
their MIG training participation. A board member shared, “It’s a great tool to get board members
to talk about the job that they’ve taken on.” A board member described the potential benefits: “I
think the CSBA really helps upsell it a lot and explain to you the purpose and the benefits of
attending.” Another board member felt the benefits were clear: “I think it has logic to it, and it’s
always beneficial to learn, and if we’re given the opportunity and the resources, why not?”
School board members heaped praise on the training. One shared, “And so, it was really
helpful to be able to go to this training to learn what I’m supposed to do.” Another trustee
identified the desired outcome: “I just felt it was very important that one, we try to get the board
all focusing in the same direction, and I figured the best way to do that was to have help from
some source.” One trustee offered a blunt response: “Being informed. You can’t be a good board
member unless you’re informed and you’re legal in all areas. And that was the deciding factor
for me.” A different trustee indicated the size and complexity of the district necessitated training:
“So, I guess I don’t want to make a blanket rule, but I would say I would if you have a mid-sized
district or above, you need to have a MIG course.” An adamant response came from a different
board member, who argued, “I think training is critical for their understanding of what’s going on
and to get them in line with what has to happen according to the laws of the state of California.”
Another board member noted:
69
I really wanted to have a well-rounded view of how CSBA works. How a board member
should act, what I should know, what I should be looking for, things like that, I guess was
my main motivation for doing it.
A board member expressed the value as follows:
The Masters in Governance Program really helps level you up a little bit, lets you learn
the ropes and lets you, even if you are used to a corporate structure, lets you see what it’s
like in government, which is very different than in private corporations.
Another board member shared her motivation for improvement:
When I was first elected, I guess I just felt like if I were going to do this, if it was
something that I was going to dedicate my time to, I really wanted to do it well. And I felt
like a part of that is understanding the role and how you can make change and where you
can make change. And so, it was an opportunity for me to just really spend time
understanding my role and how to achieve the things I thought were important to change
in our schools.
The value of training was clear to one board member, who asserted:
I think that when we started with the Masters in Governance and people started
understanding the difference between the roles of the superintendent and the board, it
made things a lot easier and a lot better. And we didn’t violate the Brown Act
1
that way.
Training Structure
The third theme that emerged in relation to research question one, was training structure.
The interview answers of superintendents and school board members consistently drew
understanding from the tight structure of the training itself. The structural frame places faith in
the establishment of roles and responsibilities to minimize distractions and maximize
70
performance (Bolman & Deal, 2017). For Ghasemy and Hussin (2014), this represents the formal
model of educational management, which is defined by systems; structures; and bureaucratic,
rational, and hierarchical models. The identified importance and overlay of structures and
systems onto the experience of superintendents and school board members in completing MIG
supported the third theme of training structure. Superintendents and school board members used
this understanding of MIG to give feedback on the program and suggestions about how the
program could improve. Table 7 displays the school board member perceptions about the training
being mandated, with 39% strongly agreeing with a mandate and another 35% agreeing. This call
for a structural change to the requirements connected to Bolman and Deal’s (2017) structural
frame, particularly the emphasis on technical qualifications and vertical coordination, whereby
the newly trained school board members control the work of the subordinates, the superintendent
and district and school site staff through authority, rules, policies, planning, and control systems.
Table 7
Focus Group and Broader Survey Responses Regarding Preferences for MIG Training Program
Platform (s)
Selection Focus Group
f
Broader Survey
f
Online 5 54
Hybrid 6 105
Locally Hosted 6 125
Other 0 4
71
When prompted to identify ways in which the MIG training could increase the chance of
participation, school board members suggested moving online, transitioning to hybrid, and
establishing locally hosted training opportunities. Table 7 demonstrates the alignment of the
focus group to the broader study in response to how the MIG could increase participation. Out of
11 school board members in the focus group, one strongly agreed and six agreed that the current
cost of the MIG training program impedes school board members from participating. Four focus
group school board members disagreed.
Superintendents’ interview responses focused on the structural frame in their feedback.
One superintendent thought the standing structure should support completion of MIG training in
one calendar year: “Consolidating the training and doing it over the course of one school year
and just being intense is better than spreading it over 2 or 3 years, whatever CSBA allows over
that kind of thing.” Another superintendent bemoaned the current structure of the training:
Already, like my sports and all the things going on and all of that, so if there was the
opportunity to do it, more flexibility than not just being on the weekends, although I
know for board members that is probably super helpful.
The third superintendent questioned the programming and the wasted potential opportunity for
an expanded audience:
If there were potentially a superintendents module every once in a while, that might be a
good idea. Just invite superintendents and share with superintendents from the
perspective of board members different material, different topics that they might learn
without board members sitting right next to them.
One superintendent suggested more structure:
72
I think that preparation for board meetings—I don’t know what all that goes into, but
maybe some foundational skills. Here’s the top five things that you should do before a
board meeting: reviewing your packet and making a list of questions, contacting the staff
ahead of time, that kind of stuff.
Much like their superintendents, school board members offered answers best understood
through the lens of the structural frame. A trustee called into question the lack of flexibility in the
delivery: “Maybe like a later start time for those that commute and are early risers. But besides
that, . . . I even thought, sometimes I felt like it was a little heavy, so maybe splitting it up more
than 5 days.” The praise for the program continued. “I think we’d get higher quality governance
if we did it more often and revisited it” reflected another trustee.
There were critiques of the current training structure, especially the costs incurred by the
districts for their board members to participate. A board member contemplated deeply how
wealth may create an inequitable access structure: “It was paid for by our school district for me to
attend. I don’t know if that is the case for everybody. If board members need to pay for it
themselves, I don’t know if that’s a prohibitive factor.” Equity continued to be at the forefront of
board members’ minds, another of whom stated: “I guess if it was mandated, I would also want
the cost to be taken care of them.”
Other critiques emerged. One trustee suggested, “Just making it available online and sort
of self-paced.” Another suggestion addressed the location of the training: “I guess there’s the
option to have training come to you, like to have the training come to the school boards, which
could probably be very effective also, and to do it as a board versus other school boards.” A
different trustee addressed the structure directly: “I think the way, at least I took the training—the
73
way it was structured, it was in two different locations in our southern California area, which
required travel and overnight.”
In critiquing the MIG structure, trustees were generous with offering solutions. A board
member suggested that access be tied to the county offices of education: “But the only thing I
think that could make it more accessible is to get school boards, basically the school boards
association, to try to hold it in every county.” Another board member explained that the current
situation has taught them methods to make the structure of the training more accessible; she
maintained that “now in the new age of Zoom and everything, I think having webinars and
making sure that it’s available.” The same board member offered suggestions about locations:
Like they’re trying to do now and they’ve had it in Santa Barbara; then they had it in San
Diego—getting it in areas that are easy, more accessible for people to come down for a 1-
day training. That would be helpful. But they’re doing that. I think that continuing on that
path is a good thing.
Results Summary: Research Question 1
In exploring Research Questions 1, “What factors impact the decision of school board
members to participate in the MIG training program?” three themes emerged. Evidence drawn
from interviews with superintendents and school board members, explained through the lens of
the conceptual frameworks that undergirded the study and buttressed through the expansive
survey of the broader study, established the perceptions of participants to complete three
categories: cultural expectations, skill and capacity building, and training structures. School
districts often possess a cultural expectation of participating in the MIG training, and the
adherence to this expectation by superintendents and board members represents the required
“symbolic act”—a ritual that represents many meanings at once (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
74
The necessity to develop as an individual, as a governance team, and as an organization
contextualized the second emerging theme. The human resource frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017)
establishes the core principle that organizations and the people that comprise the organization
should have their respective needs aligned.
Finally, school board members and superintendents alike critiqued the umbrella structure
of the MIG training. Their criticisms fit within the structural framework (Bolman & Deal, 2017),
noting the inconsistencies of the meshing of vertical and horizontal procedures, a key
requirement of an organization, but still understanding the training through the structural
understanding.
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?” Eight interview
questions from the superintendents and school board member protocols, respectively, sought
answers aligned with Research Question 2:
1. How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
2. Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
3. How could MIG be improved, if at all?
4. How has the MIG training affected how your school board members govern your
school district, if at all? If so, please explain.
5. What role did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process
(teamwork) in your district, if any?
6. What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
75
7. What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members/
superintendents?
8. How do you use what you learned in MIG training in your role as a superintendent,
if at all?
Results from data analysis of the interviews and surveys established three themes: roles
of school board members, foundations of governance, and application of skills and tools.
Roles of School Board Members
The first theme that emerged from the examination of interviews, literature, and survey
data was the roles of school board members. The foundations of governance that rely on formal
models of educational management draw power and authority from formal positions (Ghasemy
& Hussin, 2014). The CSBA’s (n.d.) governance standards notes the distinction between the roles
and responsibilities of staff and of the board. The text demands that an effective school board
refrains from performing management functions that are reserved for the superintendent. Bolman
and Deal’s (2017) structural frame calls upon features of the organization, such as a hierarchy of
office and a fixed division of labor.
Superintendents and school board members espoused the development of an
understanding of the specific roles and responsibilities through the MIG training program. One
superintendent bemoaned,
The role of a board member and a board is not, in my opinion, very clearly defined in
California, and so there’s a lot of gray areas over that. You hear some people who say,
“The board has one personnel decision. It’s to hire the superintendent, and then that
person makes all the final decisions.” Well, that’s not really how it works, according to
the Ed Code, and it’s very foolish for superintendents who try to operate under that style,
76
and I’ve watched some try to do that. They just frustrate themselves, because school board
members, in their minds, have an opinion of what their roles are.
The superintendent introduced the MIG training as a solution:
When they go through the MIG program, it helps to define that, and more importantly, it
just brings a lot of school board members from around the state together, especially if you
go to the statewide ones rather than the local ones, which I think are more valuable
because it shows you this disparity of ideas that people come with and what their thinking
about their role is. And then to have it more clearly defined by citation of the law and
intention by the CSBA—it really helps a great deal.
Another superintendent contemplated the impact of MIG: “They govern more professionally.
They understand what their role is as an individual. That’s the hardest thing, though, but they
understand that better.” The superintendent then expanded the idea: “They do a really good job
of—when they have a board meeting, making sure that they listen to each other and then how to
come to a consensus, for example.
The MIG training outlines the roles of the governance team, as one superintendent
clarified,
They focused their units on topics that are relevant and useful. They’re not all that
theoretical. For example, they focused on the budget and what the budget looks like.
They focused a unit on student achievement, and they brought in the LCAP. Very hands
on, very practical. Maybe one of the biggest ones is focusing on real world practical
situations in terms of the roles and how the roles play out between the board and the
superintendent.
77
Board behavior fit nicely into the role of a board member after MIG training, claimed a
superintendent:
I can tell you that I feel like they were positively influenced by the training for all the
reasons I talked about earlier, in terms of being knowledgeable about their roles,
knowledgeable about what information they should be asking for and knowledgeable
about, being a single board member in a group of five.
Board members’ behavior outlined the impact of the MIG training. One superintendent noticed
the language that his board members began using the following:
One is giving them a common language. I hear them often saying, “Well, I’m only one of
five.” They talk about that in the board training. Or they will say, “That’s not an
appropriate role for the board. I think that’s the superintendent’s job.” Or they will say,
“We would like to have a special study session to bone up on the budget so we can make
good decisions.” They use a language that is common, and it’s good. To me it’s
reinforcing because they’re all using the same language when they talk about their roles
and their concerns and interests and they have a foundation.
School board members reflected openly about their pretraining. For example, one commented,
“Well, for me, I didn’t know a lot about the expectations of the different roles. And they
give you a very good overview of what’s expected and how things work.” The underlying
message of the MIG training came through for school board members. One trustee
explained, “But for me, it just raised my awareness of issues and some roles and
responsibilities, and it also gave me resources through the materials, and I even made
some contacts.” Another trustee shared, “And I would say that it helped shape my
perception and my expectations and understanding going in.” Another school board
78
member acknowledged, “Well, it did identify the roles of the superintendent and board
members; and while it’s still not always clear, sometimes I think that that helped.”
Another board members remembered the message clearly: “I was thinking about this—
it’s been awhile since I took the training—but it really gives you a foundation for what
the role of a board member or trustee is in a school district.” Finally, a board member
concluded that “the one thing that MIG really pushes is that the board’s role is to guide
instruction and to be focused on instruction.”
The application of the knowledge of roles appeared as one trustee stated,
It made me even more sensitive to not micromanage is one thing. And to really kind of
keep my boundaries, like what a board member should be asking about and doing and
what a board member should not be doing, because that’s more important than what you
can do, is what you shouldn’t do, in my opinion. And it’s something I love anyway, the
collaboration, getting people to work together, but I think it strengthened my ability to do
it with maybe just how to approach issues.
The impact of roles within the school board appeared in school trustees’ answers. One
explained that “it’s helped me to understand my fellow board members and where they’re
coming from a little bit better. It’s brought a unity of purpose to what we’re doing. We’re all
focused on the same direction.” Another reflected that “when we started Masters in Governance
and people started understanding the difference between the roles of the superintendent and the
board, it made things a lot easier and a lot better. And we didn’t violate the Brown Act.” Finally,
a school board member expressed the desire for a stranger message about the roles of a school
board member, arguing that “for me, I think they could be more forceful in making sure that
79
board members understand basically what I’m going to call, the separation of powers. What the
board’s role is, what the superintendent’s role is.”
The focus group school board members indicated that eight strongly agreed and three
agreed that the MIG training clarified the differences between their roles and responsibilities as
school board members and those of the superintendent. Table 8 indicates the overwhelming
agreement of superintendents and school board members about the impact of the MIG training
on the awareness of differing roles and responsibilities within the governance team.
Table 8
Participant responses about impact of MIG training on School Board Members Understanding
roles and responsibilities
Response
Broader Study
Superintendents
(n=62)
Broader Study
Board
Members
(n=180)
Focus Group
Superintendents
(n=3)
Focus Group
School Board
Members
(n=11)
Strongly Agree 31 117 1 8
Agree 30 54 2 3
Disagree 1 8 0 0
Strongly Disagree 0 1 0 0
Note. The survey questions were: “School board members who are MIG trained exhibit a clearer
understanding of the difference between their roles and responsibilities and those of the
superintendent.” and School Board Member responses to, “The MIG training clarified the
differences between my roles and responsibilities as a school board member and those of the
superintendent.”
80
Foundations of Governance
Foundations of governance emerged as a second theme. While CSBA (n.d.) articulated
the importance of the difference in roles between the superintendent and the school board, the
organization identified the qualities of the governance team as that they work together and have
collective responsibility. The collegial model of educational management outlines a leadership
structure that relies on decision making through a process of discussions, agreements, consensus
building (Ghasemy & Hussin, 2014). This model builds on the assumption that there exists a
common perception of organizational objectives.
High-quality governance and the behaviors that contribute to an effective governing body
was a second theme that emerged based on interview responses from superintendents. Praise
came from one superintendent: “They all sincerely want to be part of a high-functioning board,
and enough of them have gone through the training, but I think it talks about what a high-
functioning board is.” Another superintendent offered additional compliments to the board of the
district: “They get that foundation when they go into MIG, because they learn about how to
reach consensus without having group-think. They learn how to bring their individual points of
view out in a respectful manner.” The superintendent continued, explaining that “I never have a
board meeting where somebody has their feelings hurt or can’t work with the other person.
We’re all in this together. We’re all tired of that saying, but in school boards, everybody has to
work together.”
A third superintendent shared that the best thing is this idea of a governance team,
That’s what all my board members know, and we all talk about the governance team of
the school district. Rather than directing around the superintendent, there’s a governance
team and the superintendent has a role in that. It’s not in making policy, but it’s in
81
recommending policy and it’s in enforcing policy, and it’s in coming up—finding
problems and solutions to help them and work together.
The displaying of core foundations to good governance pleased a superintendent, who shared,
The Foundations unit was really valuable. Some of the other units could have been done
in other venues, but the whole business about what the proper role of a board member is
and where their authority should begin and end, and how it overlaps with the role of the
superintendent and the staff, that is not best handled outside of that arena. Hearing from
your own professional association that there are limits to your authority, that you can’t act
individually, you have to act as a board and that your focus is the big picture on what gets
done, not how it gets done. Those things are only handled well through an authority that
they respect and that they see as one of their own.
The dedication to a team ran through the interview responses of school board members. One
board member positively reflected,
I think my stress with MIG is that the vast majority of people that go through it kind of
get an awakening and go, “Oh, I get it. That’s what I’m supposed to be doing.” It really
improves the governance in the district, significantly improves it.
School board members expressed an understanding of how to be an individual board
member that works as part of a team. The teamwork message came through for one board
member: “I don’t always look back at this, but I do feel that Masters in Governance taught me
about the governance team and what our roles are and how we work together well, or how we
should be working together.”
Another board member shared,
82
I think it was very, very important. I mean, starting from the “we” to learning how to
approach different issues, and just realizing, too, how important every facet is. Not just
collaboration amongst the board or the governance team, but the entire district.
That idea came through another board member’s message.
The biggest thing was, “Try very hard not to use the word I and to think of it as a we.”
And that’s . . . it’s a really kind of a new concept. There’s a lot more collaboration than
there was when I started on the board. Now people tend to think more in “we” than “I.”
But when I started, I think just in general, not just school board members, and people
really thought “I” more than “we” and it really . . . between what he told me and then the
opportunity at the Masters in Governance, that’s what I think was the most important
thing was to learn that we had stuff that as individual board members, we really hold very
little influence. And that then the main idea is really that we’re going to need to
collaborate as a team to be effective.
One trustee expounded,
You have to create a coalition, and you have to create a vision that people will buy into.
The whole conversation about boardsmanship and about governance is the heart of the
whole MIG process. It’s talking about, “What are we here to do? What can we do? What
can’t we do? What is our role as a team?” As a governance team that includes the
superintendent to move the district in the proper direction?
Another trustee noted,
If all of your board members went through the same training, you’re all operating from
the same set of understanding of what you’re supposed to do. So, it makes the meetings go
much smoother. It makes the process go more smooth, and you’re not working with
83
somebody in every meeting to try to get them off that tangent or to try and focus on the
processes. So, it’s very, very, very good. Obviously, you’ve also got your different
opinions and want things done different ways, with different values, but we all
understand process.
Another board member pointed out the change that she saw in her colleagues.
The biggest change you see in board members is the real understanding of how schools
operate. And they start to understand a little bit more. A lot of them still don’t want to get
into the weeds and deal with what I think are superintendent issues, but I think they
understand more why that’s happening and why it should be that way.
One trustee illustrated the importance of experiencing the training together.
I understood where I wanted to go, and I understood how to get there, but I didn’t have the
buy-in from my colleagues to move us there. And so, by engineering a position where we
all were doing it together and having those shared conversations, it made it much easier to
really reframe our conversations in a good governance model.
Another trustee spelled out the benefits of using the training and how it could lead to a lasting
impact.
Understanding the role of policy, and where it was supported by law and where it wasn’t
supported by law, and how to do my job in a way that I thought could really have a lasting
impact, because when you build good policy, it outlives you. I felt like that was, for me,
the most impactful thing.
The concept of being part of a team was meaningful to school board members. One
shared, “That team building time is so important and gets us all on the same page about things
84
like what are the superintendent’s evaluation goals, and if we don’t like those goals, how do we
change them?”
Another added,
By doing the work of understanding our role as a team, it led to changes in the way we
interact during our board meetings, changed the way we not only set goals, but also
evaluated progress on those goals. I feel like by doing it as a team, it made it possible for
us to really solidify some of the changes that we wanted.
Finally, a board member responded,
The fact that we knew we all took the course. We all know that we want to learn and
we’re motivated and we take this job seriously and this role seriously. Knowing that the
other four trustees had the same program kind of gives me comfort that they have the
basic concepts and foundations that I have.
The mechanisms of a team came out of the interviews with school board members. One
shared that “our board members, we all have our own opinions about things, but we work
together really well. We all get along very well personally, in part because we have that basic
mutual respect and understanding of our roles.”
A different board member described her approach,
I’ve learned that if I disagree with someone’s policy decision, I disagree with that choice,
but it doesn’t mean I couldn’t work with them on something else or have respect for at
least the process. So, I use it a lot, and I advocate for it outside of our organization as
well.
A board member noted the concept of a team with established processes and explained,
85
We’ve had to train new members and explain to them to stay in their lanes and how it’s
going to make the training go faster and better, just smoother along the way. So, it’s
priceless, absolutely priceless. What we get from them is so important to keep things
flowing in a positive manner.
One board member expressed concern for elected officials in other capacities and their lack of
training,
It’s a different arena, but they have no professional training for city council members.
There is no organization that does what CSBA does for board members, and they are the
worst for it. They really need that kind of training. They need the common language on
how to work together, and what are the roles we could each agree to, and what’s our
obligation to one another in the governance team?
The intersection of governance and new learning emerged within the theme, as school
board members disclosed, “Well, I learned that in MIG. I learned that it’s okay to bring people
back on track. In fact, it’s really valuable so you don’t violate the Brown Act.” Finally, a board
member revealed that “the fact that all of us attended the sessions, we all had that base and that
foundation to help us govern effectively.” The trustee further shared that “we worked well
together, and looking back, the training we all went through is one of the reasons why we work
together and we govern effectively.”
Ten of 11 focus group school board members strongly agreed that the MIG training
encouraged school governance teams to contribute to the effectiveness of the school board
meetings. The lone “dissenting” opinion was merely agree. Ten of 11 focus group school board
members strongly agreed that because of the MIG training, their ability to accept the majority
decision constructively, even if they held the minority view, had improved. Again, the
86
“dissenting” opinion was agree. When asked to respond to the statement, “The MIG training
impacts my ability to govern effectively,” nine focus group school board members indicated
strongly agree and two indicated agree. Similarly, nine focus group school board members
indicated the choice strongly agree and two indicated the choice agree when asked to respond to
the statement, “The MIG training helps school board members differentiate between policy,
leadership, and management.” Likewise, in the broader study, school board members and
superintendents agreed or strongly agree that MIG improved the effectiveness of meetings. Table
9 summarizes the responses.
Table 9
The MIG training encourages school governance teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 30 48 104 58
Agree 30 48 72 40
Disagree 2 3 4 2
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
87
Application of Skills and Tools
School board members and superintendents spoke of applying the skills and tools that
they received from the MIG training, in line with current and established research. The formal
model of education explains that managerial leadership, while it does not encompass vision as a
core concept, the style does concentrate on the execution of actions and tasks (Ghasemy &
Hussin, 2014). Additionally, the CSBA’s (n.d.) governance standards support an application of
skills and abilities as a method to achieve increased effectiveness. The application of skills draws
from the human resources frame, which articulates the understanding that members of an
organization should develop more and higher levels of skill and intelligence (Bolman & Deal,
2017).
School Board Members
When asked to rank the modules in order of importance to their role as members of the
governance team, the first module, Foundations of Effective Governance, was consistently
ranked as the most important to the focus group. Seven school board members ranked it first,
with one ranking it second. In two instances, the course was ranked least important; in both of
those instances, the school board members ranked finance as the most important. All of the board
members surveyed representing the three districts strongly agreed that they would recommend
the MIG training to school governance teams.
Eight school board members strongly agreed to the survey statement, “The MIG training
clarified the differences between my roles and responsibilities as a school board member and
those of the superintendent.” The remaining board members all selected agree; none either
disagreed or strongly disagreed. For the survey statement, “The MIG training helps school board
members differentiate between policy, leadership, and management,” nine board members
88
strongly agreed and two agreed. None either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Table 10
summarizes the distribution of responses of superintendents and school board members
regarding the ability to differentiate.
Table 10
Superintendent and School Board Member responses to, “The MIG training helps school board
members to differentiate among policy, leadership, and management.”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 26 42 100 55
Agree 35 56 75 42
Disagree 1 2 5 3
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
89
Superintendents
The application of the skills developed through the MIG training, as well as the
utilization of the tools that the training provided emerged as a theme through interviews with
superintendents. Superintendents explored the use of the MIG training in their work. A
superintendent shared how the school district used the tools from the MIG training:
As a result of that going well, I agreed to have them facilitate my evaluation that the
board does. That’s a facilitated discussion not just on your evaluation, but also, they help
facilitate my goals in a collaborative way.
According to another superintendent, one of the learnings from MIG was the application of a
metaphor:
I use it a lot, because I can remind board members in conversations with them about the
training, and I use those metaphors and examples that they used in the training. The most
common problem that superintendents have with board members is single board members
or the board itself trying to micromanage the school district, and they used a great
metaphor about the board members are supposed to be snorkeling around on the surface,
and then if you find yourself with the whole scuba gear on and everything else down in
the bottom, there’s definitely something wrong.
School board members shared their experience applying the skills that they had developed
and the tools from the training. A school board member expressed appreciation for her growth:
“It really changed me because, although I had already had the 3 years of experience as a board
member, they just made it formal for me. It really impacted the way that I spoke with more
confidence.” Learning the skills of the trade emerged from MIG: “It’s helped me to clearly
understand that I’m in charge of the bigger picture and the what. We impact climate and culture.
90
We direct the superintendent for the things that we want to see happen in our district.” Another
trustee noticed changes in colleagues after MIG:
The specifics—every time I see it at a board meeting, I go, “Oh, great. She went through
MIG.” The kind of questions that are asked, the kinds of responses to the superintendent’s
input, in a respectful and collaborative way. The kind of focus on the community and
actually hearing people’s input before making a decision. Also, the role of explaining
your decision so that the public and the staff will understand why you’re making a tough
decision and having to do something that may be somewhat unpopular.
Changes in colleagues were noted by another trustee:
When you see them leave and you see what happens when they come back, when they’re
first up there on the bench—they’re like a deer in the headlights. When they come back,
they’re actually effective. They’re actually making statements that are valid and make
sense and we can move forward with. And they’re doing it in a way that is consistent with
our processes and protocols. So, that’s helpful.
The MIG makes board members more connected to their work. One shared, “I think it
makes board members more involved. The more you know, the more involved you can be in
decisions.” Another attributed an awareness of collaboration to the training:
For a lot of decisions that we make, there was a section in the training that talked about
that and how you need to collaborate and talk to other stakeholders, not just the
superintendent, but the people at the district office, the people in your community who
are voting you in and making sure that their voices are heard.
An introspective board member suggested that the MIG training could be replicated for other
elected positions:
91
We really have a great, formal way to teach us how this works. What our choices are if
we are up against a wall—how we get something put on the agenda. How we can talk
about something in the open. What we can talk about in closed session—all of those
things. I couldn’t imagine doing this without having the training that I had or the
resources that are provided through just even emailing the people that taught the classes.
It’s helped a lot of times when you come up against a wall and you’re trying to figure out,
“How do I get around this?” They give you the ways that you can do it without causing
yourself to be on the front page of a paper.
Another trustee spoke about how the group used the skills:
The way we use it is as a board, we constantly work on what I call that unity of purpose, or
what school boards call the unity of purpose. It helps us focus any time one of us is
getting outside that box that we should be in.
School board members used metaphors to describe their growth. One example was the
following: “It’s the roadmap. It’s how you get done what you want done. It takes your little
scrambled egg of ideas and puts them into a method of getting this omelet made. For me it’s been
a very useful tool.”
School board members outlined the new skills that they had acquired. One shared, “And I
think for me, Masters in Governance has given me a way to take a deep breath, keep your eye on
your goal, and work this through.” Finally, a trustee captured her growth as follows: “When I
started applying what I learned from Masters in Governance, it really opened my eyes. It
absolutely has made me more objective, more informed, just all-around better leader.”
In addition to applying the newly developed skills, school board members referenced the
tools that they took away from their experience of attending the MIG training. One board member
92
went back to the materials when his role changed, “The year I was president, I went back to
materials from MIG to kind of refresh the Brown Act instruction that we had, just so I could be
prepared to run meetings.” The use of the tools was consistent; another trustee shared: “But I
mean, I learned about some of the things about the school budget or the school finance, and I use
those materials and I would revert back to them, look back at them sometimes.” Another member
disclosed, “I use it all the time. I revisit the things every time I see something coming up at a
board meeting and I think there’s something I’d like to have us discuss more.” Applying the tools
gained from MIG was easier if the other board members had them as well: “In addition, I think
that I often bring it up because I have a couple of MIG-trained board members on my board. I say,
‘Remember in MIG, they talked about this.’ Then we get into that conversation.” Another board
member drew strength from having the MIG resources, “And so having these tools to be able to
focus and give you something to measure yourself, I guess it’s very helpful.” Other examples
echoed the application of tools, “One of the biggest changes for us in practice was that I made a
request that we do board self-evaluation with CSBA and also a CSBA-led superintendent
evaluation process, because our process was very dysfunctional prior to that.” A trustee pointed
out that “the other thing that we have done with the school boards association is we have them
help us every year with our—with two other things basically: the superintendent’s evaluation and
goal setting and the board’s own self-evaluation.”
One board member acknowledged the tools that MIG provides:
They give you a lot of tools, whether it’s self-evaluation tools, or board evaluation tools,
or visualizations of how the governance team is supposed to act within the overall
environment of the school district. I do think they give you a lot of tools that you can
look at to say, “Hey, I operate within the bounds that I’m supposed to set for myself.”
93
And the evaluation tools they do give you, do give some objective measure of how the
board is operating.
The tools helped one board member recall the boundaries of the role:
It gave me the knowledge and tools to hold myself accountable to what I’m supposed to
be doing. There’s a reason that board members are there and making sure that you’re
always operating within what your duties is supposed to be is very important.
Explicit examples of the use of tools came out of interviews:
We have goal setting once a year. When we do our evaluations of ourselves, the
evaluations of the team and set our new goals, we have a facilitator for that, which I
couldn’t imagine doing that without them because we’re five very—none of us are
wallflowers— very strong personalities.
Another school board member revealed that the tools stayed with the board members and that
they returned to their learning:
There’s also a chart that we always referenced back to one of the courses. It’s a quicksand
chart, and it shows what role the board has in the district versus the superintendent,
teachers, and staff. And if we can get too close, if we get too close to like dipping into that
superintendent role, micromanaging, we always remind ourselves in that chart. But it’s
funny how all of us remembered that chart and the role that the board plays, because we
all have different backgrounds, different styles in our—the private sector we’re working,
or we have a couple attorneys that are much into the details. Of course, we have to remind
ourselves and take a step back and think about the role you have as a board, think of all
the stuff—the sessions that we all went through.
94
One board member drew a contrast between the skills of MIG-trained board members and those
without the training:
Some board members listen and understand and get in their lanes, and some board
members don’t. They just—they’re going to do their own thing. But I think over time, in
addition to the Masters in Governance, they offer self-evaluations for boards and
superintendents and where CSBA facilitates it.
Results Summary: 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?” Through
interviews and surveys with superintendents and school board members, as well as reviewing the
relevant literature, three themes surfaced: roles of school board members, foundations of
governance, and application of skills and tools. The clear boundaries of the roles of school board
members came through the accounts of superintendents and school board members, where they
drew on the CSBA’s (n.d.) governance standards. These standards recommend that school board
members understand the distinctions between board and staff roles and refrain from performing
management functions that are the responsibility of the superintendent and staff. Superintendents
and school board members alike credited the MIG training with developing a foundation for their
governance work. Interviews produced reflections about the nature of governance, articulated
through the CSBA (n.d.) standards, which encourage the board and superintendent work together
as a governance team. The theme application of skills and tools was generated through the
interviews and aligned to the formal model of educational management, which focuses on the
concentration of actions and tasks executed proficiently (Ghaseny & Hussin, 2014).
95
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth?” Two interview questions from the protocols for the superintendents and school
board members, respectively, sought answers aligned with Research Question 3:
1. How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
2. What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?
Results from the data analysis of the interviews and surveys established three themes: alignment
of focus, collective efficacy and no or limited connection.
Alignment of Focus
The first theme that emerged from the surveys, interviews and the review of literature to
answer Research Question 3 was alignment of focus. The CSBA’s (n.d.) professional governance
standards indicate that in order for a school board to operate effectively, the board must have a
unity of purpose. This unity extends to the task of keeping the district focused on learning and
achievement for all students. Additionally, the individual trustee’s effectiveness is tied to the
ability to keep learning, with achievement for all students as the primary focus. The standards
further state that the board’s job is to “involve the community, parents, students and staff in
developing a common vision for the district focused on learning and achievement and responsive
to the needs of all students” (p. 2). Bolman and Deal’s (2017) structural frame lends itself to an
understanding of an alignment in board members’ focus. The frame’s strategies include planning
a conscious and intentional course of actions and implementing a consistent pattern of decisions.
In the study interviews, superintendents reported that the MIG training supports a board
member’s ability to focus on student achievement. One superintendent shared that “an effective
96
board would be able to work together better to make decisions not based on their own personal
experience but for students in general.” Another superintendent described an experience at the
MIG training:
I know that when we went through that trustee area, like the election line, that was a
conversation that came up a lot as far as “We’re not just going to be board members for
our area, but we’re board members for all the students in Highland School District.” That
kind of mentality does lend itself to impacting student achievement. A higher functioning
board, effective governance, would lend itself to the kind of thinking of always putting
students first—all students, not just the one student or situation applied for the board, so
to speak.
Another superintendent expressed strong feelings:
It has a huge impact, because it stops the board members and the board from being overly
aggressive. I’ve seen in some situations where they spend all their time arguing about
things that have very little to do with the overall instruction and education of the students
in K-12, so I think having that like that makes a big difference. They get to see what’s
going on, on a bigger scale. It definitely positively impacts student achievement. It makes
them focus on the right things.
He continued, articulating the emerging focus of the board through the training:
The most important thing is that they emphasize what the goal should be. It isn’t about a
lot of other things. It’s tied to student achievement and student success. The fact that the
governance team is governing effectively and keeping that at the forefront of their minds
and using data as much as possible to drive decisions, then that would definitely have a
direct impact on student achievement.
97
Finally, the same superintendent reflected:
We always put the students first as a board. The one thing that came out of it for me,
obviously one of the biggest roles of a governance team is our policies. There’s been a lot
of policies that every meeting we review policies, discuss the policies, and we always put
the students first.
Another superintendent displayed reflection:
It’s attempted to focus their attention on issues of student achievement and also on the
accountability system because that’s part of the training. [It’s attempted to focus their
attention on] What is the current accountability system and what can you expect to see as
a board member in terms of presentations from your staff.
School board members, likewise, introduced concepts of focus as outcomes of the MIG
training. Some trustees were blunt with their assessment of the connection between focus and
achievement. One noted, “You can’t get stuff done as a school board, and can’t get stuff done as
a district, if you’re sitting in board meetings fighting about stuff that is not related to student
achievement.” Another trustee shared emphatically that “the MIG training has a dramatic impact
on student achievement, because when you’re focused on student achievement, you’re then
focusing your district on student achievement, versus your educational side of the house
becoming just something you do.” Another school board member agreed: “The way we use it, we
come back and we focus—we constantly work on unity of purpose. It helps us focus any time
one of us is getting outside that box that we should be in.”
A board member remarked about the change observed: “That really helped focus the
board on changing our agendas to 90% on instruction and learning, and 10% on other matters.
We’re not totally there, but we’re getting there. It’s important that we use that as a focus point.”
98
During the interviews, one board member offered a succinct reflection:
If we’re all speaking about our work through the lens of what we do for students and not
through all the other lenses that we might carry around with us—our own personal lenses,
or money or politics or all those things. But if we can keep the conversation issue around
student achievement and what we’re doing for [our] community’s children, then it really
is helpful, because we’re at least having the same conversation.
One school board member concluded with the way that focus supports achievement:
If you have a quorum of participants from any district, whether that includes the
superintendent or executive staff or not, I think it can have a huge impact on student
achievement, because it reframes the way you have conversations about the goals and
what you’re all there for. It gives you a way to talk about these hard-to-quantify things in
more tangible terms.
Further feedback from school board members elucidated the experience of focusing as a result of
training. One said:
How it helps is the big training focuses you on the major facets of a school district, such
as personnel, curriculum instruction, board–superintendent relationships. They have a
whole curriculum basically that helps board members start to focus on everything from,
like I say, the board–superintendent relationships to finance to what good instruction
should be.
When responding to the survey statement, “As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to consistently use data to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement,” five focus group school board members selected strongly agree and six selected
agree. Displayed in Table 11 are the responses that show the work of aligning the efforts of the
99
governance team, learned in MIG training, with student achievement; 87% of school board
members and 95% of superintendents selected strongly agree or agree. These results echoed the
interview responses of participants who established an alignment of focus as a theme.
Table 11
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage governance team members to consistently use data
to make informed decisions regarding student achievement
Superintendents Board Members
(N = 62) (N =180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly disagree 31 50 69 38
Agree 28 45 88 49
Disagree 3 5 21 12
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 1
100
Collective Efficacy: Capacity to Effect Positive Impact
School board members and superintendents linked the improved collective ability,
developed through training, to an increase in student achievement, thus constituting the second
theme for Research Question 2. Ghasemy and Hussin (2014) outlined the collegial model of
educational management, which relies on the commitments and competencies of members, and
the greater capacities for goal attainment contributes to success. Bolman and Deal’s (2017)
human resource frame indicates that the needs of organizations and individuals can be aligned
and that this alignment will ultimately profit the school district.
Superintendents spoke effusively about the skill and ability development of their
governance teams. One shared, “Well, I think it’s very well connected only because again, when
you have an effective relationship between the board and the superintendent and that’s positive,
then you can solve problems.”
This superintendent continued:
If you can get an effective governance team together by the training, then you’re more apt
to be able to solve those problems, whatever they might be. You can’t train the board on
individual, specific issues. In other words, that’s not the point of MIG. It’s an
understanding of how you function as a school board and as a governance team that’s
important.
School board members described a broadening of their governance capacity as a result of
the MIG training experience. Board members saw a direct line between the two. One said, “Well,
personally I think that student achievement can be directly associated with how effective your
governance board is.” School board members attributed improved board performance to
improved student achievement. One commented, “I know for a fact that our climate and culture is
101
different. I know that there’s better lines of communication all the way from the top to the
bottom and back up. I know that that impacts student achievement.”
Effective governance as a pathway to student achievement emerged from school board
members’ interview answers. For example: “And I think when you have a strong governance
team and a strong district that works together, that’s how you’re going to improve achievement.”
Another board member agreed: “Once you’re a highly effective board, you can then start to look
at things like improvement or achievement and things like that. So, it helps, but it’s just the first
step to get in.” Board members reflected openly as they discussed student achievement. One
noted:
I think it does [affect student achievement], but I think it goes back to how it impacts
your governance of the district as a whole. It’s like I couldn’t say there’s a one-to-one
correlation, but I think when you have the proper collaboration and . . . well, first of all,
the governance team working as a team with the superintendent.
A trustee attributed growth in understanding the role of the board to MIG:
To me, the MIG training that could help you really become a great LCAP leader, which is
what the boards are supposed to be—could conceivably impact the achievement of
children in poverty, English learners, and foster and homeless youth, if they focused on
those issues. So, I think there’s the potential there that governance could matter even
more than it has in the past, but I don’t have any real evidence that it has.
Another board member outlined the skills that were developed:
Well, I think if you have a board that’s more communicating, it’s going to trickle down to
the superintendent, to the staff, to administration. They know you’re willing to ask
questions. You’re not judgmental. You’re not there to get your name in the paper. You
102
don’t have any hidden agenda. Once you’re willing to be out there and talk, they know
you better. And I think that helps.
Another outlined the steps between the school board and student achievement:
I think in order to see students achieve, to student improvements, you have to be able to
set those goals that force or guide the staff to do what they need to do to get students to
achieve them. You can’t effectively set those goals unless you’re effective as a
governance team.
Effectiveness appeared in school board member interviews repeatedly:
Any time that you can get your school board to be higher functioning, it’s going to
translate to the rest of the district being higher functioning. If your governance team is
effective in what they do and in overseeing the district that they’re supposed to be
governing and making sure that the things that the community wants are being
represented and brought forward and carrying through, because MIG training doesn’t just
teach you how to vocalize what it is you want. It shows you the path that you take to
actually get those things done. And then along with the professionals that you hire
underneath you, obviously the superintendent and the superintendent hires the rest of
them. But if you’ve got an effective governance team, you’re going to have an effective
district.
Another trustee gushed over the benefits of the social learning embedded in the MIG program:
Oh, absolutely it does. Because when you’re in MIG training, anytime you’re in with
other people, like-minded people that are governing boards all over the state of California.
You’re learning things that they do in their districts which are helpful. And also, again,
going back to staying in your own lane, if your board is dysfunctional, your district is
103
going to be dysfunctional. And the one focus of the MIG training is roles and
responsibilities, effective governance, everybody doing what they’re supposed to do—
finance even.
Finally, a trustee captured the theme as follows:
It isn’t exact. However, when you have a board that gets along and it is functional and
agrees to disagree, we can then spend more time on the important things we have to deal
with, like curriculum and instruction for kids and technology in the classroom and the
one-on-one. If we’re spending all of our time arguing with each other and not doing our
roles correctly, we can’t govern the board. We can’t be the governing board that sets
policy for our district because we’re too busy fighting. We’re too busy being distracted.
So absolutely, even though it’s not a direct hands-on necessarily with curriculum and
what happens in the classroom, it really affects what happens with curriculum and in the
classroom. If your board can’t get along, your whole district is pretty much sunk—really,
in my opinion. And it’s been proven across the state.
The survey of the school board members who participated in the focus group linked the
training to student achievement, with five choosing strongly agree and six choosing agree to the
survey statement, “Attending MIG training has positively impacted student achievement in my
district.” The data presented in Table 12 summarizes the opinions of participants about the ability
to govern effectively. The largest proportion of both superintendents and school board members
selected agree with respect to whether the MIG training had a positive impact. The next largest
contingency selected strongly agree.
104
Table 12
Superintendent and School Board Member responses to, “The MIG training impacts my ability
to govern effectively.”
Superintendents Board Members
(N = 62) (N =180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly disagree 20 32 72 40
Agree 36 58 82 46
Disagree 6 10 20 11
Strongly disagree 0 0 6 3
No or Limited Connection
The third theme to emerge for Research Question 3 was that there is no connection
between training and an increase in student achievement. Bolman and Deal (2017), in describing
their structural frame, introduced the concepts of structural limitation, differentiation, and
integration. Differentiation is how an organization allocates work; integration is how an
organization coordinates diverse efforts after parceling out responsibilities. These concepts
elucidate the complications that could lead to the failure of an organization to meet its goals,
which are presumably to raise or keep elevated student academic achievement.
Both superintendents and school board members denied a causal relationship between the
MIG training and the performance of students in a school district. One superintendent grappled
with the thought:
I’m thinking of the process that we’ve been going through right now, in terms of schools
and reopening schools, and there’ve been conversations about the budget and the
105
additional funding that we’re getting and how that funding is going to be utilized to
support student achievement. I don’t know. It’s hard to say if there’s a direct tie. I feel
like there has to be, but hard to come up with an example, I think.
Another superintendent displayed more directness:
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 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.
School board members grappled with the connection, as well. Some were outright skeptical.
“I’m not sure that I see a connection necessarily between the Masters in Governance training and
student achievement. I don’t see a direct line,” one superintendent said bluntly. He continued,
“That’s a tough one for me. I know that data should drive our decisions, and that’s taught in
principle, and our student achievement in Summit is quite high to begin with.”
School board members felt that there could not be a trace between the training and
growth in student achievement. One commented: “That’s hard. I mean, I’m sure it happens, but I
don’t think I could connect the dots. The stronger you are as a team and a district and your
relationships with teachers, but I couldn’t draw one to one.” Another board member echoed the
thought: “It’s hard to tie effective board governance to student achievement, and there’s probably
something there. I just can’t think of right now.” While the connection wasn’t established yet,
another school board member offered hope for the future:
106
So, we were just starting, I think, to see some improvement. It’s all anecdotal at this time.
We don’t have any hard data because of the change with COVID and that, but I think we
were starting to see some movement. I know we’re seeing some change in teacher
behavior and principal behavior as far as focusing in on student achievement.
In the broader survey, superintendents and school board members produced mixed results
in data. School board members reported using the training to focus their colleagues’ attention on
student achievement but were split when assessing the positive impact that the training had on
the achievement itself. In response to the survey statement, “Attending MIG training has
positively impacted student achievement in my district,” as many board members disagreed as
strongly agreed. Table 13 summarizes the distribution of answers from superintendents and
school board members.
107
Table 13
Superintendent and School Board Member responses to, “Attending MIG training has positively
impacted student achievement in my district.”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 8 13 39 22
Agree 46 74 89 49
Disagree 8 13 50 28
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1
In contrast to the broader survey results, the focus group felt that the training did
positively impact student achievement. This sentiment was despite expressing doubt about the
in-person interviews. When asked about the linkage between the training and a positive impact
on student achievement the survey elicited, there were five strongly agree and six agree
responses.
Results Summary: Research Question 3
Research Question 3 sought to link the MIG training to school districts’ student
achievement, asking, “Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?”
Using literature, survey data, interviews, and observations, the data results indicated three
themes: alignment of focus, collective efficacy and no or limited connection. School board
members and superintendents attributed an impact on student achievement to the governance
team’s alignment of focus. In line with the CSBA’s (n.d.) governance standards, school board
members recognized the necessity and positive impact of a unity of focus and the resulting
108
efforts of the board. Secondly, study participants recognized the link between the collective
efficacy of the board, particularly the effective working relationship between the school board
and the superintendent, as being impactful on the district’s performance of student achievement
metrics. A slice of superintendents and school board members identified no link between the
MIG training and student achievement. The responses of these participants varied from believing
there was no link to struggling to identify one but expressing belief that such a link might exist.
Chapter Summary
The study sought to determine the answers to three research questions related to the
relationship between the CSBA’s MIG training and a school board’s effectiveness. The purpose
of exploration into these research questions was threefold. First, the study offered inquiries into
whether a trained school board exhibited an improved relationship with colleagues and the
superintendent. Secondly, the study explored how the MIG training armed school board members
with the ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance. Third, findings illuminated
the extent to which the MIG training impacted student achievement and performance indicators
for school districts.
The results of this study were the findings of three themes for each research question. For
Research Question 1, “What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate
in the MIG training program?” three themes emerged: cultural expectations and encouragement,
skill and capacity building, and training structures. For Research Question 2, “How does the MIG
training program encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
school governance?” three motifs developed: roles of school board members, foundations of
governance, and application of skills and tools. For Research Question 3, “Does MIG training
109
have an impact on student achievement and growth?” three lines of thought developed: alignment
of focus, collective efficacy and no or limited connection.
The findings of this study provided understanding of the relationship between the
CSBA’s MIG training and the perceptions of superintendents and school board members. Both
groups of participants shared that the culture of the district influenced their choice to attend
training and that the training armed them with the skills and tools to improve as a governance
team. Finally, superintendents and school board members drew a connection between the
experience of training and improved capacity for effectiveness as said governance team, thus
ultimately improving as a governance team and increasing student achievement.
110
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Team Description and Process
Twenty doctoral students from the USC’s Rossier School of Education worked under the
tutelage of Dr. Michael Escalante. The research team collaborated to produce interview protocols
and survey questions for superintendents and school board members, the problem statement and
the research questions for the study. The robust data collection of interviews and surveys,
combined with relevant research, allowed for triangulation of interview data, survey data, and
literature to produce distinct findings. The researchers leaned on a conceptual framework that
drew on a foundational definition of leadership from Northouse (2015), upon which we laid
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames, the Lighthouse Inquiry study’s seminal evaluation (Rice
et al., 2000), Ghasemy and Hussin’s (2016) models of management, and the CSBA’s (2007) own
description of the roles and responsibilities of school district leadership.
Research Questions Restated
The study used the following research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
111
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Summary of Findings
The targeted sample for this study was superintendents and school board members in
school districts where more than half of the board members had participated in MIG training.
Researchers solicited districts and identified those that qualified. The research team interviewed
and surveyed 62 superintendents. The team also interviewed 177 school board members and
surveyed 180 school board members. The focus group was three superintendents and 11 school
board members from three school districts in Ventura County. For Research Question 1, the
cultural expectations of the district, along with the promise of developing skills and capacity and
the particular structure of the training, influenced the motivation to participate. For Research
Question 2, the outlining of the roles of the board, the foundational development of governance,
and the arming of school board members with skills and tools equipped the board with the ability
to exhibit effective governance. For Research Question 3, participants credited MIG with an
alignment of focus and a development of collective efficacy. Moreover, superintendents and
school board members perceived no connection between MIG and student achievement.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 explored the motivations that contributed to MIG participation. The
three themes that emerged from interviews, surveys, and relevant literature were cultural
expectations and encouragement, skill and capacity building, and training structures.
The culture of the district contributed to school board members attending MIG. The
encouragement of board member colleagues and superintendents sent trustees to the training.
112
The symbolic frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017) and the cultural model of school management
(Ghasemy & Hussin, 2016) explain this phenomenon, whereby the norms and values of a district
guide its leaders’ decisions.
School board members also cited the opportunity to grow and develop as a motivating
factor. The Lighthouse Inquiry study (Rice et al., 2000) recognized that a human organization
needs continual improvement; the collegial model of educational management (Ghasemy &
Hussin, 2016) describes a collegial leadership style; and ultimately, the CSBA’s (n.d.)
professional governance standards detail the abilities of a school board member as crucial.
Participant responses drew understanding from the hard edges of a firm training structure.
This relates to the structural frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017), which ensures maximum
performance through adherence to roles and responsibilities. The responses from superintendents
and school board members included regular references to the nature of the training structure,
such as length, frequency, location, and cost.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 examined the behaviors of effective governance and how MIG
training enhances board members’ abilities. The three themes that emerged were roles of school
board members, foundations of governance, and application of skills and tools.
School board members and superintendents spoke extensively about the MIG training
and how it articulated the various roles and responsibilities of the governance team. School board
members drew understanding from the formal model of education management (Ghasemy &
Hussin, 2016). The structural frame again provided a context for learning the appropriate and
inappropriate actions that school board members could undertake.
113
The exhibition of high-quality governance behaviors that led to a high-functioning
governance team came out of the interviews and surveys. The CSBA introduces a governance
team concept, and board members reiterated that learning is key to how the MIG training impacts
a district’s governance effectiveness. Furthermore, the collegial model of educational
management describes leadership through consensus building, potentially a key cog to effective
governance.
School board members gave examples of the skills they learned from MIG and the tools
they took from the training. The CSBA (2007) calls for the application of abilities as a method to
be employed by school board members. The human resource frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017)
argues that the goals of the organization and the individual—in this case, a school district and a
school board member—can be aligned; and through development of the individual, the
organization profits.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 sought to identify the linkage between the MIG and student
achievement. The three themes that emerged were: alignment of focus, collective efficacy, and
no or limited connection.
School board members documented an increase in their common vision under the theme,
alignment of focus. The CSBA (2007) has discussed vision and focus as core for the
effectiveness of the governance team of a district. Bolman and Deal (2017) explained the
conscious and deliberate course of action within the structural frame. Superintendents and school
board members perceived collective unity to lead to decision making directed toward student
achievement.
114
The MIG training teachers school board members to improve their collective efficacy,
trustees reported through interviews and surveys. The collegial model for educational leadership
details the commitments and competencies of individuals as crucial for effectiveness (2014). A
portion of school board members and superintendents argued there is no connection between
student achievement and the MIG training. The structural frame introduces two concepts
applicable to participants’ contextual understanding (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Differentiation is
how the organization allocates work and how misallocation can lead to inappropriate
assignments; integration is how an organization coordinates its efforts. Trustees and
superintendents contemplated the work they had done but declined to draw a causal link.
Limitations of the Study
The study was limited by time, resources, and scope. Research was conducted in the
spring and summer of 2020, and the time limited the quantity of data. The research team targeted
school board members and superintendents who had MIG training, thus limiting the research to
the MIG program. This situation limited the study to participants who were in California and
impacted the nature of the responses, data, and conclusions. In March of 2020, most school
districts in the state of California closed as a precaution due to the COVID-19 virus. The closure
impacted the availability of the sample, population, and final participants and forced the team to
adjust and adapt the methodology. The research team was based in southern California, and the
research was conducted in school districts initially limited to counties within the greater Los
Angeles area. The further impact of the COVID-19 virus allowed for video interviews and thus
expanded the potential population to outside the original counties (total of 12).
115
Delimitations of the Study
The study was conducted in California school districts that were governed by a school
board in which more than half of the members had participated in more than half of the training
sessions of the CSBA’s MIG training. The research team did not consider the demographic
characteristics of the districts, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or language proficiency.
The study used as guidance a conceptual framework based on the literature of Bolman and Deal
(2017), CSBA (2018c), Ghasemy and Hussin (2016), and Rice et al. (2001).
Implications for Practice
The goal of this research study was to explore the perceptions of superintendents and
school board members as relating to the CSBA’s MIG training program. Researchers sought to
determine the factors that led a school board member to attend the training, the influence of the
training on school governance, and the potential impact of the training on student achievement
for the school district. Based on the findings of the study, several implications for practice were
generated: (a) to create a certification and (b) to change the structure of the training program to
increase accessibility.
Creating a Certification
School board members reported that self-motivation was a key factor in determining their
participation in a training program. Creating a certificate that is awarded upon completion of the
training program could positively influence a school board member’s self-motivation. School
board members would receive the certification through ceremonies that publicly honored the
accomplishment.
116
Changing the Structure
School board members and superintendents provided critiques of the current structure of
the training program, including the time frame, location, cost, and duration. Each of these
elements could be adjusted to increase the participation of school board members and
superintendents. Participants in this study suggested structuring follow-up courses to reinforce
the learning of the course sequence in the years after the school board members completed it.
Finally, the suggestion emerged from interviews that MIG sessions should sort attendees into
districts with similar demographics and/or initiatives so as to better share ideas.
Recommendations for Further Studies
While the study findings were drawn from the surveys and interviews of superintendents
and school board members, as well as triangulated through relevant research and conceptual
frameworks, the study had limitations and introduced opportunities for further research. Timing
and location limited the number of school districts that could be part of the study; however,
virtual meetings could expand participation in future studies. Recommendations for future study
include expanding the time frame and locations of the study to include more districts in the state
of California.
Further research should include a broad, quantitative analysis further linking the
performance of school districts to the training statuses of districts’ school board members.
Regression analysis of student achievement data could control for a school board’s training, their
superintendents’ training, and the training of the overall board. This analysis could further
establish the linkage between a school board training program, such as MIG, and student
achievement.
117
Other states have voluntary training programs and statewide measurements of school
performance that can be included in a study linking training to governance and student
achievement. Expanding research into states that have voluntary training programs would
strengthen and add to the research findings of the present study. Along this vein, states that have
mandatory training requirements for school board members offer the opportunity to evaluate
changes in student achievement over time, as new school board members (who are presumably
untrained) join the board and replace veteran and trained board members.
Future research should introduce comparative analysis through interviews and surveys of
perceptions of governance targeting superintendents and school board members who have not
participated in training of any kind. This analysis would explore the varying opinions of
governance quality and the evaluation of the elements outlined by CSBA. Furthermore, this
research could combine with research of school districts whose governance teams have
participated in the training and provide comparative analysis opportunities.
Conclusion
The school district governance team includes an odd-numbered collection of school
board members and a single superintendent. This governance team is tasked with leading a
school district toward a goal of universally high student achievement. Achieving this goal
requires overcoming challenges in the form of traditionally and historically underserved
populations, complicated and changing state and federal funding streams, and the motivations
and persuasions of local collective bargaining units.
In the face of modern-day challenges, governance teams can deploy skills and abilities
honed through the CSBA’s MIG training program. The training seeks to arm school board
members and their superintendents with the talents to be an effective governing body.
118
Effectiveness, in this case, is established through a deep understanding of the different roles and
responsibilities, a focus on student achievement, a collective efficacy, and a unity of purpose.
This study sought to explore the perceptions of school board members and
superintendents regarding the impact of the MIG training. Through an exploration into relevant
literature, surveys, and interviews, researchers established themes of capacity building, cultural
expectations, training structure, roles and responsibilities, governance, skill application, focus,
and collective efficacy. Ultimately, governance teams’ perceptions of the impact of training were
that the training could improve student achievement outcomes.
Opportunities for further research include expanding the participants, exploring the perceptions
of untraining governance teams, and utilizing regression analysis to determine quantitative
impacts on student achievement.
119
References
Adler, L. (2010). Dissatisfaction theory in the 21st century. Journal of School Public Relations,
31(1), 27–67.
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431–447. https://doi.10.1080/
09518390902736512
Alabama Association of School Boards. (2019). Get on board: Training. http://www.alabamasch
oolboards.org/get-on-board/item-10
Alsbury, T. L. (Ed.). (2008a). The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation.
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Alsbury, T. L. (2008b). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 7(2), 202–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701748428
American Association of School Administrators. (2019). Superintendent and district data.
https://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=740
Arkansas Legislature. (2012). Title 6 Education, Subtitle 2. Elementary and secondary education
generally, Chapter 13 school districts, Subchapter 6—School district boards of directors
generally A.C.A. § 6-13-629. https://arsba.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/6-13-629.pdf
Arkansas School Boards Association. (2015). Board member training. https://arsba.org/training/
Björk, L. G. Kowalski, T. J. & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). The school district
superintendent in the United States of America. Educational Leadership Faculty
Publications (Paper 13).
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/eda_fac_pub/13?utm_source=ecommons.udayton.edu%2F
120
eda_fac_pub%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages Björk, L., &
Lindle, J. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1). 76–91.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904801015001005
Bianchi, A. B. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast, 1(3), 1–4.
https://www.nyssba.org/news/2003/10/01/forecast/school-board-training-mandatory-vs.-
voluntary/
Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). The school district superintendent
in the United States of America. Educational Leadership Faculty Publications (Paper
13).
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/eda_fac_pub/13?utm_source=ecommons.udayton.edu%2F
eda_fac_pub%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations artistry, choice and leadership (6th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Brunner, C. C., & Grogan, M. (2007). Women leading school systems: Uncommon roads to ful-
fillment. Rowman & Littlefield.
Brunner, C., & Kim, Y. (2010). Are women prepared to be school superintendents? An essay on
the myths and misunderstandings. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5(8),
276–309. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F194277511000500801
Byrd, J. K., Drews, C., & Johnson, J. (2006, November 9–12). Factors impacting superintendent
turnover: Lessons from the field (ED493287). Paper presented at the annual meeting of
121
the University Council of Educational Administration, San Antonio, TX. ERIC. https://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED493287.pdf
Caldwell, W. E. (1970). The superintendent’s negotiation role. Journal of Educational Research,
64(2), 73–77.
California Department of Education. (2020a). California School Dashboard and system of
support. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/
California Department of Education. (2020b). Local Control Accountability Plan.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
California Department of Education. (2020c). Local Control Funding Formula.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards.
https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrdLeadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2018a). About CSBA. https://www.csba.org/About/
AboutCSBA
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Effective governance: Resources, training and
support. https://www.csba.org/en/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance
California School Boards Association. (2018c). Masters in Governance: Governance education
for school board members and superintendents.
https://www.csba.org/TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance.aspx
California School Boards Association. (2018d). What it takes to lead: The role and function of
California’s school boards. https://www.csba.org/-
122
/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/EffectiveGovernance/20180613_WhatItTakes
ToLead_Final.ashx?la=en&rev=b99adf0f20bb4e12aebf41edb468c4fb
California School Boards Association. (n.d.). Professional Governance Standards.
https://www.csba.org/en/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/Professi
onalGovStandards/CSBA_PGS_Brochure.ashx?la=en&rev=5fc78a303c5b45c4a6d89d51
9f991e56
Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools—a historical analysis (ED010410) ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED010410.pdf Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994).
Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan,
75(5), 391–395.
Callan, M., & Levinson, W. (2011). Achieving success for new and aspiring superintendents: A
practical guide. Corwin Press.
Campbell, C., & DeArmond, M. (2011). From the billboard to the school board: How many
leaders does it take to reform Fort Worth? Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership,
14(3), 51–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555458911426496
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 391–395.
Chase, S. E., & Bell, C. S. (1990). Ideology, discourse, and gender: How gatekeepers talk about
women school superintendents. Social Problems, 37(2), 163–177.
Canal, S. A. (2013). California school boards: Professional development and the Master’s in
Governance training (Publication No. 3563807) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
123
Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan,
M. D. (1986). School boards: Strengthening grass roots leadership. Institute for
Educational Leadership.
Coogan, N., Gates, G., & McDonald, T. (2015). Becoming a mindful superintendent in a “turn-
around” district. Open Journal of Leadership, 4, 102–115. https://file.scirp.org/pdf/OJL_
2015092313265322.pdf
Council of the Great City Schools. (2014, Fall). Urban school superintendents: Characteristics,
tenure, and salary (Eighth survey and report). Urban Indicator, 1–10. https://www.cgcs
.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/Urban%20Indicator_Superintendent%20Su
mmary%2011514.pdf
Cox, E. P., & Malone, B. G. (2001). Making the right choice: What board presidents say about
hiring a superintendent. American School Board Journal, 188(7), 40–41.
Crane, E. (2005). The effective school board: Do whatever it takes to get your board to under-
stand its role and to communicate civilly with each other. District Administration, 41(1)
60–64. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=128205128
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Criswell, L. & Mitchell, D. (1980). Episodic instability in school district elections. Urban Educa-
tion, 15(2), 189–213.
Cuban, L. (1976). The urban school superintendent: A century and a half of change. Phi Delta
Kappa Educational Foundation.
124
Danzberger, J. P. (1992). School boards: A troubled American institution. In J. P. Danzberger
(Ed.), Facing the challenge: The report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on
School Governance (pp. 19–24). Danforth Foundation.
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local school
boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 67–73.
Danzberger, J. P., Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan,
M. D. (1987). School boards: The forgotten players on the education team. Phi Delta
Kappan, 69(1), 53–59.
Davis, R. (1984). Policy changes in local schools: The dissatisfaction theory of democracy.
Urban Education, 19(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F004208598401900203
Dawson, L. J., & Quinn, R. (2000). Clarifying board and superintendent roles. School
Administrator, 57(3), 12–14.
Deckman, M. (2007). Gender differences in the decision to run for school board. American
Politics Research, 35(4), 541–563. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1532673X07299196
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership
in the improvement of student achievement. In T. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school
board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 1–8). Rowman & Littlefield Education.
DeMitchell, T., & Stipetic, J. (1995). The superintendent, the school board, and free speech: A
question of loyalty. The Clearing House, 68(6), 367–371.
Dervarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2015). Eight characteristics of effective school boards
(EJ1105469). Illinois School Board Journal, 83(4), 10–12. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED608840.pdf
125
Dillon, N. (2010). The importance of school board training. American School Board Journal,
197(7), 1–7.
Ehrensal, P. A., & First, P. F. (2008). Understanding school board politics: Balancing public
voice and professional power. In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds.),
Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 87-102). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887875
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., & Foleno, T. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the game:
Superintendents and principals talk about school leadership. Public Agenda.
FindLaw. (2020). Illinois Statutes Chapter 105, Schools §-16.5. Optional alternative evaluation
dismissal process for PERA evaluations. https://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-105-
schools/il-st-sect-105-5-24-16-5.html
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: Step by step guide. Sage Publications.
Finn, C. E. (1991). Does it still make sense? Reinventing local control. The Education Digest,
57(2), 25–28.
Fossey, R. (2011). A sacrificial lamb: A divided school board, a beleaguered superintendent, and
an urgent need to improve student achievement. Journal of Cases in Education
Leadership, 14(3), 11–29.
French, P. (2009). Assessing the impact of perceived school board effectiveness on financing K-
12 education in Tennessee. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial
Management, 21(1), 105–124.
Fusarelli, B. (2006). School board and superintendent relations: Issues of continuity, conflict,
and community. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9(1), 44–57.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458905285011
126
Gemberling, K. W., Smith, C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key work of school boards
guidebook. National School Boards Association.
Ghasemy, M., & Hussin, S. (2016). Review of theories of educational leadership and manage-
ment. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300048835_Theories_of_Educational_
Management_and_Leadership_A_Review
Glass, T. E. (2003, April 21–25). The superintendency: A managerial imperative? Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL.
Glass, T. E., Björk, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.
American Association of School Administrators.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Goldhammer, K. (1964). The school board. Center for Applied Research in Education.
Greene, K. R. (1992). Models of school board policy-making. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 28(2), 220–236.
Grissom, J. A. (2007). Who sits on school boards in California? Institute for Research on
Education Policy & Practice, Stanford University.
Grissom, J. A. (2009). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations:
The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 20, 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup043
Griswold, C. A. (1997). Mission: The primary board responsibility. Momentum, 28(2), 66–68.
127
Grogan, M. (2000). Laying the groundwork for a reconception of the superintendency from
feminist postmodern perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 117–
142. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X00361005
Hackmann, D. (2012). It’s a different world at the high school: A new superintendent discovers
competing cultures within the district. Journal of Cases in Education Leadership, 15(4),
22–31. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1555458912470661
Hanover Research. (2014). Effective board and superintendent collaboration.
http://bit.ly/2pXE5w1
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: From start to finish. Sage Publications.
Hatch, W. E. (1901). The superintendent. Journal of Education, 54(11), 183–184.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44053816?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Heinze, K., & Zdroik, J. (2018). School board decision-making and the elimination of sport
participation fees. Sport, Education & Society, 23(1), 53–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13573322.2016.1139562
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, n.v., 17–19.
Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., & Campbell, C. (2002). Big city school boards: Problems and
options. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/pub_crpe_bigcity_dec02_0.pdf
Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., Campbell, C., McElroy, M., & Monoz-Colon, I. (2002). Big-city
school boards: Problems and options. Annie E. Casey Foundation, Center on
Reinventing Public Education.
128
Hopkins, M., O’Neil, D., & Williams, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence and board governance:
Leadership lessons from the public sector. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(7),
683–700. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710820109
Hosman, C. M. (1990). Superintendent selection and dismissal: A changing community defines
its values. Urban Education, 25(3), 350–369.
Howlett, P. (1993). The politics of school leaders, past and future. Education Digest, 58(9), 18–
21.
Illinois Association of School Boards. (2019). Mandatory board member training.
https://www.iasb.com/training/mandatory.cfmJohnson, P. (2011). School board
governance: The times they are a-changin’. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership,
20(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458911413887
Justia. (2020). Local education agency (LEA).
https://www.justia.com/dictionary/local-educational-agency/
Jacobson, R., & Linkow, T. W. (2014). National affiliation or local representation: When TFA
alumni run for school board. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(69). https://doi.org/
10.14507/epaa.v22n69.2014
Johnson, P. A. (2012). School board governance: The times they are a-changin’. Journal of Cases
in Educational Leadership, 20(10), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1555458911 41388
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and
mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Katz, S. (2008). Just do it: Women superintendents speak to aspiring women (ED494791).
Advancing Women in Leadership Online Journal. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED494791.pdf
129
Kamler, E. (2009). Decade of difference (1995–2005): An examination of the superintendent
search consultants’ process on Long Island. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1),
115–144. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X08327547
Kelsey, C., Allen, K., Coke, K., & Ballard, G., (2014). Lean in and lift up: Female superinten-
dents share their career path choices (EJ1060633). Journal of Case Studies in Education,
7, 1–11. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1060633.pdf
Kirst, M. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 378–
381.
Kirst, F. M. (2008). The evolving role of school boards: Retrospect and prospect. In T. L.
Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 37-
59). Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Kirst, M. W., & Wirt, F. M. (2009). The political dynamics of American education (4th ed.).
McCutchan Publishing.
Korelich, K. & Maxwell, G. (2015). The Board of Trustees’ professional development and
effects on student achievement (EJ1056179). Research in Higher Education Journal.
ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1056179.pdf
Kowalski, T. J. (2004). School public relations: A new agenda. In T. J. Kowalski (Ed.), Public
relations in schools (3rd ed., pp. 3–29). Merrill, Prentice-Hall.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L. G. Björk &
T. J. Kowalski (Eds.). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and
development (pp. 1–18). Corwin Press.
Kremer, M., & Rickabaugh, J. (2000). 12 Secrets for working with your board. School Planning
& Management, 39(6), 38–41.
130
Lamkin, M. L. (2006). Challenges and changes faced by rural superintendents (EJ783868). The
Rural Educator, 28(1), 17–24. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ783868.pdf
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229–278.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543072002229
Le Doux, E., & Burlingame, M. (1973). The Iannaccone-Lutz model of school board change: A
replication in New Mexico. Educational Administration Quarterly, 9(3), 48–65.
Lee, D. E., & Eadens, D. W. (2012). The problem: Low-achieving districts and low-achieving
boards (EJ1045888). International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 9(3), 1– 13.
ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1045888.pdf
Legal Information Institute, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. (n.d.). § 34 CFR § 303.23—
Local educational agency. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/303.23
Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research for the social sciences. CA: Sage Publications.
Lutz, F. W., & Garberina, W. (1977). Demand-response and school board member incumbent
defeat. Journal of Educational Administration, 15(2), 279–289.
Lutz, F. W., & Iannoccone, L. (1978). Public participation in local school districts: The
dissatisfaction theory of democracy. Lexington Books.
Maeroff, G. I. (2010). School boards in America: A flawed exercise in democracy. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Maricle, C. (2014). Governing to achieve: A synthesis of research on school governance to
support student achievement. California School Boards Association.
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/CSBAGoverningAchieve2014.pdf
131
Marietti, M., & Stout, R. (1994). School boards that hire female superintendents. Urban Educa-
tion, 28(4), 375–385.
Mayer, R. (2011). How not to be a terrible school board member: lessons for school administra-
tors and board members. Corwin Press.
McCloud, B., & McKenzie, F. D. (1994). Urban education: School boards and superintendents in
urban districts. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 384–385.
McGonagill, G. (1987). Board/staff partnership: The key to the effectiveness of state and local
boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(1), 65–68.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merz, C. S. (1986). Conflict and frustration for school board members. Urban Education, 20(4),
397–418.
Mountford, M. (2004) Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school
board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 704–
741. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X04268843
Morehouse, W. R. (2001). Training for my board colleagues? You bet. School Administrator,
58(2), 68-70.
Natkin, G. L., Cooper, B. S., Alborano, J. A., Padilla, A., & Ghosh, S. (2002). Predicting and
modeling superintendent turnover (ED446036). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED466036.pdf
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: Findings and
recommendations. U.S. Department of Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
132
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Table 214.10. Number of public school districts
and public and private elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1869– 70
through 2015–16. Digest of Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_214.10.asp
National Association of School Boards. (2019). About us. https://www.nsba.org/About
National School Boards Association. (2019). Resolutions, beliefs and policies, constitution and
bylaws. https://www.nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/nsba-constitution-and-bylaws-adopted-
march-29-2019.pdf?la=en&hash=6F204B2F8EDD606495B1B50DA272D45DCADE627
0
National School Boards Association. (2015). Key work of school boards (3rd ed.). https://my
.nsba.org/Sales/Catalog/Detail.aspx?id=bf8f64a4-e406-46b0-88a6-afa10593f5f7
National School Boards Association. (2019). NSBA history. https://www.nsba.org/About/SBA-
history
New Jersey School Boards Association. (2019). Mandated training. https://www.njsba.org/
training/mandated-training/
New York State School Boards Association. (2019). State-mandated training. https://www
.nyssba.org/education-training/state-mandated-training/
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. 6301 et. seq. (West, 2003).
Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
Nowakowski, J., & First, P. F. (1989). A study of school board minutes: Records of reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(4), 389–404.
133
Oishi, L. (2012). The critical task of hiring a new chief: The ins and outs of this tiresome process
can be simple if you know these local and national options. District Administration,
48(5), 47–51.
Ornstein, A.C. (1992) School superintendents and school board members: Who they are. Con-
temporary Education, 63(2), 157–159.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Petersen, G. J., & Short, P. M. (2001). The school board president’s perception of the district
superintendent: Applying the lenses of social influence and social style. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 533–570. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001316101219
69415
Plough, B. (2014). School board governance and student achievement: School board members’
perceptions of their behaviors and beliefs (EJ102887). Educational Leadership and
Administration: Teaching and Professional Development, 25, 41–53. ERIC. http://files
.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1028871.pdf
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and tomorrow’s
promise. Education Commission of the States.
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Bruce, J., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2000, April 10–14). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/
superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student
achievement (ED453172). Paper presented Seattle at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED453172.pdf
134
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management,
25(7), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and
theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource
Development Review, 8(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1534484309332617
Rogers, T. (Ed.). (2006). Snapshot 2006: The 6th Triennial Study of the Superintendency in New
York. https://www.nyscoss.org/img/uploads/file/snapshot_6_final_with_fonts.pdf
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed). Sage
Publications.
Salmon, D. A. (1975). Supervision for better schools. NAASP Bulletin, 59(394), 119.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Doubleday/Currency.
Shober, A. F., & Hartney, M. T. (2014). Does school board leadership matter? Thomas B.
Fordham Institute.
Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining
school improvement. Harvard Education Press.
Tallerico, M., Burstyn, J., & Poole, W. (1993). Gender and politics at work: Why women leave
the superintendency. National Policy Board for Educational Administration.
Texas Educational Agency. (2018). News weekly. https://tea.texas.gov/
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The quest to
define effective leadership. Johns Hopkins University & Howard University, Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
135
Thomas, W., & Moran, K. (1992). Reconsidering the power of the superintendent in the
progressive period. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 22–50.
Thurlow Brenner, C., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. IPED Technical
Reports (Paper 15). http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/iped_techrep/15
Timar, T. B. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Peabody
Journal of Education, 78(4), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7804_09
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). https://www.ed.gov/
ESSA
Wagner, R., Jr. (1992). The case for local education policy boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(3),
228–229.
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Weiss, G., Templeton, N., Thompson, R., & Tremont, J. W. (2014). Superintendent and school
board relations: Impacting achievement through collaborative understanding of roles and
responsibilities. School Leadership Review, 9(2), Article 4.
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&context=slr
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. Free Press.
136
Weller, L. D., Brown, C. L., & Flynn, K. J. (1991). Superintendent turnover and school board
member defeat: A new perspective and interpretation. Journal of Educational
Administration, 29(2). 61–67.
Whitson, A. (1998). Are local school boards obsolete? Childhood Education, 74(3), 172–173.
Wilson, J. C. (1994). Urban education: A board member’s perspective. Phi Delta Kappan,
75(5). 382–386.
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Young, P. (1984). An examination of job satisfaction for female and male public school
superintendents. Planning and Changing, 15(2), 114–124.
137
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
138
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
139
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
140
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
As a result of the MIG training, I understand the
importance of aligning the decision-making
process with the district’s vision and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
The MIG training clarified the differences
between my roles and responsibilities as a school
board member and those of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
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
141
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data
consistently to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
Strongly Disagree
18
As a result of the MIG training, my ability to
accept the majority decision constructively, even
if I hold the minority view, has improved.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board
members could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
Attending MIG training has positively impacted
student achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
142
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
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
143
hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
School board members who are MIG trained
understand the importance of aligning the
decision-making process with the district’s vision
and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
School board members who are MIG trained
exhibit a clearer understanding of the difference
between their roles and responsibilities and those
of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
school board members.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
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
144
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data consistently
to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
The MIG training has improved school board
members’ ability to accept the majority decision,
even when they hold the minority view.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members
could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
MIG training has positively impacted student
achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
145
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?
146
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?
147
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: _______________________________________________________________________
148
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
When school district leadership teams align a vision around achievement, focus on performance standards, leverage student data, and create collaborative structures, student achievement has been shown to improve. This study examined the impact that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training program had on effective school board governance practices and behaviors. MIG is a voluntary training program that offers customized small-group, large-group, and online training and tools specifically designed for board members and superintendents in their role as governance team leaders. While California does not require that ascending board members complete training before taking office or as part of ongoing professional development, many state legislatures have established mandatory training requirements for new and returning school board members. California’s distinction as a voluntary state establishes the opportunity to examine districts whose school board members had undergone training with respect to their perceptions about the impact on governance and the performance of their school district. This was a qualitative study evaluating data collected through surveys and interviews with school board members and superintendents who had participated in the MIG training program. As a conceptual framework, the study utilized the professional governance standards provided by CSBA, Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s framework and definition of leadership, and the seminal school leadership examination of the Lighthouse Inquiry by the Iowa Association of School Boards. The purpose was to determine whether MIG had impacted school board members’ ability to adhere to best practices for effective governance. The participant pool was California public school districts. The research team used surveys, structured interviews of school board members and superintendents, and relevant research. Findings from this study should inform legislation on required training for school board members, especially when considering the perceived link between school board member training and effective governance and improved student achievement. The results of this study add to the canon by informing the effect of the MIG training on the leadership and governance of the school boards of local education agencies.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
PDF
K−12 school board training in California
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
PDF
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
PDF
School board governance training and student achievement
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
PDF
Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards
PDF
The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
Asset Metadata
Creator
Miles, Elias Anderson
(author)
Core Title
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/01/2021
Defense Date
01/29/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
CSBA,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board,school board member,school board trustee,superintendent,Training
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy (
committee member
), Cherniss, Alex (
committee member
), Franklin, Gregory (
committee member
)
Creator Email
eliasandersonmiles@gmail.com,eliasmil@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-435200
Unique identifier
UC11667810
Identifier
etd-MilesElias-9383.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-435200 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-MilesElias-9383.pdf
Dmrecord
435200
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Miles, Elias Anderson
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
CSBA
school board
school board member
school board trustee
Training