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
/
School board governance training and student achievement
(USC Thesis Other)
School board governance training and student achievement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
School Board Governance Training and Student Achievement
by
José Luis Montes
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 José Luis Montes
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for José Luis Montes certifies the approval of this Dissertation
David Cash
Michele Taney Doll
Richard Sheehan
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
This study examined the impact of professional development for school board members based on
best practices as stated in the literature and through interviews and surveys. The purpose of the
study was to determine whether school board training improved the relationship between school
boards and superintendents and affected performance indicators for school districts. The
researchers examined the benefits of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training and its
implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective
governance. Moreover, the study examined the school board members’ and superintendents’
perceptions of the MIG training and its impact on school governance and student achievement.
This qualitative study collected data via surveys and interviews. The findings indicated that the
MIG training program provided participants with a clear definition of roles and responsibilities.
The findings also indicated that the MIG training had an indirect impact on student achievement.
It is recommended that the MIG training be formatted in a way that increases access to board
members and districts. Mandating school board training in California was seen as a way to
increase effective governance in school districts.
v
Dedication
To those who have inspired me throughout this project. First and foremost, I thank my son and
daughter. Adan and Meztli have been my inspiration throughout my educational journey and
they were my motivation during this process. Adan’s consistent belief in my ability to complete
this dissertation and Meztli’s constant encouragement during every step of this journey fueled
my motivation to persevere. I thank them for their love and encouragement so that I can improve
the lives of others.
To my wife, Zitlali: I thank her for setting the example for me to complete my dissertation. Her
belief in my abilities and in my purpose propelled me to persevere. I thank her for demonstrating
to me that my goals can be reached.
To my parents, Jose and Ofelia: They instilled in me the importance of education to improve
lives. I thank my father and mother for showing me the true meaning of determination and hard
work and dedication to their children.
To the students of Marco Antonio Firebaugh High School: They have taught me about
determination and resiliency, especially during the difficult times that we have all endured. I
thank them for the opportunity to serve our community. I hope that they realize their dreams and
aspirations. They are truly an amazing group and they deserve only the best!
vi
Acknowledgments
It is with great pleasure that I thank the people who made this journey possible. First, I
thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Michael F. Escalante. His guidance and encouragement through
the dissertation process have been priceless. I also thank my dissertation committee members,
Dr. David Cash, Dr. Michele Doll, and Dr. Richard Sheehan, for their participation in this
project. Their leadership and knowledge have made this journey valuable and enlightening. I
thank all of my professors at the Rossier School of Education for collectively providing the
knowledge and skills to apply what I learned from them to improve the lives of others.
I acknowledge my dissertation cohort for the support and relentless work that was
invested in this project. Every member of our cohort provided a special ingredient to our
dynamic that enhanced our experience together. This was especially important, considering the
unprecedented circumstances that we faced during the completion of our dissertations.
I thank my friends and colleagues at the Lynwood Unified School District for their
constant encouragement through this journey. I acknowledge my mentors and educators who
supported me, especially during the most difficult times. I thank the friends who checked on me
and encouraged me to persevere. Their support through this journey means more than they will
ever know.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract iv
Dedication v
Acknowledgments vi
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Purpose of the Study 1
Research Questions 1
Importance of the Study 2
Limitations 2
Delimitations 2
Assumptions 3
Definition of Terms 3
Organization of the Study 6
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 7
History of School Boards 8
Roles and Responsibilities of School Boards 10
Leadership 13
Governance-Board Relationship 15
School Board Member Training and Purpose 16
Accountability 19
Theoretical Framework 20
School Board Training and Student Achievement 25
Chapter Summary 25
Chapter Three: Research Methods 26
Research Questions 26
Research Design 26
Methodology 27
Researchers 27
Study Participants 28
Instrumentation 28
Data Collection 29
Data Analysis 30
Ethical Considerations 31
Chapter Summary 31
Chapter Four: Findings 32
Participants and School Districts 32
Interviewed and Surveyed Participants 33
Results 35
Chapter Summary 60
viii
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations 62
Summary of Findings 62
Limitations 66
Delimitations 66
Implications for Practice 66
Recommendations for Future Study 67
Conclusion 69
References 70
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails 76
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey 78
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey 81
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol 84
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol 85
Appendix F: Informed Consent 86
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix 87
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participation 34
Table 2: Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to participate in
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training 37
Table 3: School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item “As a Result of the
MIG Training, I Understand the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making
Process With the District’s Vision and Goals 39
Table 4: Responses to the Survey Item “What Platform(s) of the MIG Training
Program Would Increase the Chances of Participation?” 41
Table 5: Responses to the Survey Item “What Platform(s) of the MIG Training
Program Would Increase the Chances of Participation?” 44
Table 6: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item “School Board Members
Who Are MIG Trained Understand the Importance of Aligning the
Decision-Making Process to the District’s Vision and Goals 46
Table 7: Responses to the Survey Item “The MIG Training Encourages School
Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of Our School
Board Meetings” 48
Table 8: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item “School Board Members
Who Are MIG Certified Actively Engage the Community and Utilize a
Variety of Communication Methods” 52
Table 9: Responses to the Survey Item “The MIG Training Encourages School
Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of Our School Board
Meetings” 53
Table 10: Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance (MIG) Modules
in Order of Importance to Their Role as a Member of the Governance Team 55
Table 11: Responses to the Survey Item “As a Result of the MIG Training, I Encourage
Governance Team Members to Consistently Use Data to Make Informed
Decisions Regarding Student Achievement” 58
Table 12: Responses to the Survey Item “Attending MIG Training Has Positively
Impacted Student Achievement in My District” 59
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Four Frames by Bolman and Deal 21
Figure 2: Alignment of Framework Sources 30
1
Chapter One: Introduction
The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of
informed decision making that influence the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on performance
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 guided this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
2
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Importance of the Study
The relationship between the school superintendent and the school board is crucial in
ensuring that a school district reaches its goals and meets the needs of the communities that it
serves. In a comprehensive survey of school board members, Hess (2002) discovered that “no
matter what kind of district they serve, today’s board members put a high priority on student
achievement” (p. 41). For this reason, school board members and superintendents must
collaborate in a manner that allows for effective governance and accomplishment of the goals of
the district.
Through the California School Board Association (CSBA), school boards have the option
to participate in the Masters in Governance (MIG) training, which assists board members to be
better equipped to address the needs of the communities that they serve. This study was designed
to measure the effectiveness of MIG training on the ability of school board members to influence
student achievement.
Limitations
This study was limited to participants who volunteered and met the criteria to participate
in the study. The study was also limited to the time allotted to complete the study. The study was
limited to school districts in California. The study was limited to responses to survey questions
regarding school board training.
Delimitations
Participants were chosen based on specific criteria. Participation was delimited to board
members or superintendents who had completed at least three of the five modules of the MIG
training. Participation was delimited to 62 districts in California.
3
Assumptions
Several assumptions were made for this study. It was assumed that the participant would
provide accurate and honest information in the surveys and the interviews. It was assumed that
information regarding completion of MIG training was accurate. It was assumed that school
boards and superintendents had an impact on the districts that they served. It was assumed that
the results of this study were valid.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
Accountability: The concept that schools and school districts will be held responsible for
performance or producing documents and records, creating and following plans, and reporting
student performance on assessments.
Assessment: The annual summative evaluation of student learning through state-
sanctioned multiple-choice tests.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): A group of
state tests, including the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments; the California Alternate
Assessments (CAAs), including the CAA for Science; the California Science Test (CAST); and
the California Spanish Assessment (CSA; CAAPP, n.d.; California Department of Education
[CDE], 2020b).
California School Boards Association (CSBA): An organization entrusted with the
responsibility to provide guidance, resources, and training for school board members throughout
California (CSBA, 2007).
DataQuest: The CDE’s (2020b)
4
web-based data reporting system for publicly reporting information about California
students, teachers, and schools. DataQuest provides access to a wide variety of reports,
including school performance, test results, student enrollment, English learners,
graduation and dropout, school staffing, course enrollment, and student misconduct data.
(para. 1)
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000).
Institutional Review Board (IRB): An administrative body established to protect the
rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in research activities
conducted under the auspices of the institution with which it is affiliated.
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP):
A 3-year plan that describes the goals, actions, services, and expenditures to support
positive student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The LCAP provides an
opportunity for local education agencies (LEAs) to share their stories of how, what, and
why programs and services are selected to meet their local needs. (California Department
of Education [CDE], 2020c, LCAP Overview section, para. 1)
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): The law enacted in 2013–2014 to simplify how
funding is provided to LEAs. Previously, funding included more than 50 categorical funding
lines designed to give targeted services based on student demographics (CDE, 2020d).
Local education agency (LEA):
A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a state for
either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public
5
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)
Mandate: An official order or commission to do something.
Masters in Governance (MIG): A training program sponsored by the CSBA consisting of
five modules designed to define roles and responsibilities, improve governance and leadership
through increased knowledge and skills to support an effective governance structure, and
maintain a focus on student learning.
National School Boards Association (NSBA): A federation of associations in 49 states
and the U.S. territory of the Virgin Islands, representing their more than 90,000 school board
officials.
Public school: A free tax-supported school controlled by a local governmental authority.
School board: A group of nonpartisan citizens, either elected or appointed within a school
district, to act as a single unit regarding various aspects of governance (CSBA, 2007).
School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding at public
meetings of school boards.
School district: Synonym for LEA; a public organization tasked with operating public
schools and serving students within a designated geographic area.
Student achievement: Performance by students on the annual summative assessment
given by the state of California.
6
Superintendent: The secretary and sole employee of the school board; a member of an
LEA’s governance team, tasked with operating the school district and carrying out the policies of
the school board.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is comprised of five chapters. Chapter One provides an overview of the
study and defines the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, research questions,
importance of the study, and definition of terms. Chapter Two presents a review of the literature
and is comprised of five parts: the history of school boards, roles and responsibilities of school
boards, leadership, school board member training, accountability, and theoretical framework.
Chapter Three describes the methodology used to conduct the study. This chapter includes the
research design, sampling and population, and data collection and analysis procedures. The
chapter also addresses ethical considerations for the study. Chapter Four reports the findings of
the research and analysis of data. Chapter Five presents a summary of the research study,
implications, and recommendations.
7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
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 to influence the quality of public education. In order to improve the public
perception of school districts and leverage external resources, superintendents and boards of
education should be allied and committed to ongoing training to enhance shared and distinct
responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in foundations of effective governance, policy
and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relations.
This chapter is organized into several sections, each examining varying components of
school board governance and the literature related to school board training. Through a review of
the literature, this chapter explores the extent to which school board training exerts an impact on
effective board governance. As calls for accountability have increased at the state and local
levels, so have expectations for school boards to play a role in improving student achievement.
Literature demonstrates that there is limited information on the impact of school boards in
governing the nation’s children (Hess, 2002; Hopkins et al., 2007).
The following section is a discussion of the theoretical frameworks that served as the
basis through which the concept of school board training was observed. As a result of
accountability measures such as the No Child Left Behind NCLB Act of 2002 (NCLB) and the
Common Core State Standards Initiative of 2012, school boards have the responsibility to ensure
student achievement. However, it must be determined whether school board training affects
student achievement.
8
History of School Boards
Historical Context
This section provides a history of public education and the evolution of school boards in
the United States. The first law that addressed education of children was developed in colonial
times. The Massachusetts School Law of 1642 required families to teach their children basic
education to be productive citizens (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Goldhammer, 1964; Land,
2002). Five years later, the Massachusetts School Law of 1647 required any town with 50
families or more to hire a teacher and any town with 100 families or more to open a grammar
school. This shifted the responsibility of education of children from the families to statesmen in
charge of running the grammar schools. The first school boards began because the statesmen
were elected officials (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Goldhammer, 1964).
As the colonies and populations grew, so did school districts. A decentralization of
education led to formation of school boards to govern school districts. Massachusetts created the
first state board of education and the first office of the superintendent in 1837 (Campbell &
Greene, 1990; Goldhammer, 1964; Land, 2002). As the needs of districts grew, the role of the
superintendent evolved from a clerical role to an educational role. The current demands on
public education require school board leaders and superintendents who are equipped to meet
these demands effectively.
School Board Governance
As development of the school board continued, governance encompassed various
responsibilities. Major areas of authority included policy reform, curriculum development, fiscal
resources, and the physical plant. Furthermore, school boards derive authority from five levels of
9
control: the state constitution, legislative enactments, rules and regulations from the state board
of education, decisions of the courts, and local community demands (Goldhammer, 1964).
School boards obtain power from legislative control because state legislatures determine
the level of control placed on districts. A decentralized form of governance is preferred by most
states, except for Alaska and Hawaii, where the state governs schools (Goldhammer, 1964; Wirt
& Kirst, 2005).
Educators started to focus on federal, state, and local governance as the central core of
the organization in the early 1900s. The federal government began to make policy and took
control of all schools with the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which
required local school districts to design and implement policies to end desegregation (Land,
2002). Involvement by the federal government continued to increase into the 1970s, with
creation of categorical funding not limited to special education and Title I funding for
socioeconomically disadvantaged students. The states also took a more active role during this
time as they set guidelines for testing, graduation, and teacher certification (Land, 2002).
Present School Boards
In the United States, there are more than 15,000 school districts with 95,000 school board
members (Hess, 2002). Most school boards are comprised of five or seven elected or appointed
members, with the smallest school board having three members and the largest having 13
members (Kolb & Strauss, 1999). In order to serve on a school board, a candidate must be at
least 18 years old, a registered voter, a resident of the district, and eligible to hold civil office.
Terms are generally 4 years and elections are usually held in November. Board members are
elected to serve in one of three ways, depending on the district: (a) “at large,” which means that
the member can live anywhere in the district and is elected by all voters in the district; (b) by
10
“trustee area,” which means that the board member must live in and be elected by members of
the geographic trustee area; or (c) “trustee area at large,” which means that the board member
must live within a certain geographic trustee area but is elected by all voters (CSBA, 2007).
Roles and Responsibilities of School Boards
School Board Roles
There are specific roles of board members as perceived by local communities
(Goldhammer, 1964). First, there is an expectation that school board members are promoters of
the public interest in education. Communities at large look to the guidance of school boards to
represent the needs of their students.
Second, there is an expectation that school board members will maintain the values of the
community. This is an important factor to consider because there may be a fear that schools and
teachers may expose students to beliefs that are in contrast with those of the community.
Third, there is the expectation that a school board will be aware and hear the
community’s concerns and complaints. If issues arise and are not handled to the satisfaction of
the community members at the school level, the school board becomes the next level to bring up
concerns.
Fourth, the community expects that the school board will be fiscally conservative. It
expects school board members to monitor expenditures closely and be “economically savvy.”
Fifth, it is expected that the school board will promote individual and special interests.
Counting a school board member as a close friend or contributing to the election of a school
board member often includes the assumption that, if the need should arose, said school member
would side with the individual or group. This is especially compounded now as unions have
become involved in school boards and elections (Danzberger, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). While
11
these expectations may not be a reality, they are unfortunately the perceptions of local
communities.
Functions of School Boards
Due to inherent flaws in the structure of school boards, in the early 1900s school boards
were modeled after corporations (Kirst, 1994). Today, school boards oversee all components of
school and district operations. Currently, school boards cover the three main functions of
government: legislative, executive, and judicial. School boards are asked to set policies, pass
regulations, and adopt budgets. School boards are also contacted by local citizens and
community members with concerns or complaints and with expectations that school board
members will handle them. School boards act in an executive capacity because they set and
implement policies. Most of the school and district expenditures and many human resources
issues must be approved by the school board. Decisions or actions taken by the board regarding
implementing board policies represent the school board’s executive authority (Kirst, 1994; Wirt
& Kirst, 2005). The school board also addresses serious discipline issues; a school site does not
make determination of expulsion. The school board acts in a judiciary capacity by holding
hearings and making decisions and determinations regarding the student’s outcome (Kirst, 1994;
Wirt & Kirst, 2005)
School Board Responsibilities
It is not easy to identify the roles of the school board members because they are
responsible for many parts of the school district. The CSBA identified five major responsibilities
of the school board. This list is meant to provide a guideline of the “core decision-making”
responsibilities of school boards (Campbell & Greene, 1994, p. 392). The first responsibility is to
set the direction of the district and identify a vision (Campbell & Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007).
12
The vision is the long-term guide for where the district needs to go and is reflective of the
superintendent, the cabinet, and the community. The second responsibility is to set and maintain
a structure for the district. Within this structure are the hiring of a superintendent, the
development and adoption of policies, curriculum, budget, collective bargaining agreements,
and, most important, promoting a climate of excellence. The superintendent and staff work to
carry out the vision of the school board and the board should make sure that they are making
decisions based on the agreed-upon goals and providing resources, as well as upholding district
policies (CSBA, 2007).
Increasing demands in recent legislation have placed accountability to the public as a
responsibility of the board. The school board is responsible to monitor progress toward reaching
the district’s vision. The board is also responsible to communicate that progress to the public.
Student achievement, as measured by state assessments, is closely monitored and shared with the
community, as well as accountability for fiscal resources, bargaining, and personnel (Campbell
& Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007).
Last on the list of responsibilities set forth by the CSBA is to advocate on behalf of the
children and the community. School board members are elected locally by residents of the
community, and they are there to serve the best interests of the children. They are the community
leaders of education, charged with communicating information regarding their programs and
policies to the community. School boards are teams and must work together to make sound
decisions for all parties involved. As elected officials, they should strive to ensure public
accountability as a board, not as individual persons.
13
Leadership
School Board Leadership
School boards are not authorized to act or govern as individuals. Instead, they are
considered a singular unit, and members must work together. They have also moved toward
fostering individual relationships with their constituents through a political agenda. When school
boards act as representatives instead of trustees, they struggle to act as a single unit (Land, 2002).
According to Land (2002), multiple research studies have indicated that school boards struggle to
work together cohesively as a body. They have described the areas of trust for the collective
board and communication among themselves to be challenging (Land, 2002). Working as
individuals creates tension and does not allow the school board to govern in an effective way.
Anderson (1992) explained that superintendents and school board presidents feel that school
board members do not understand their role and should move away from special interests and
toward a trustee role. Land (2002) stated that this shift from trustee to representative is due in
large part to elections and representation of minorities who strive to please their constituents.
Fusarelli (2006) asserted that the success of an educational leader depends heavily on the
relationship between the school board and the superintendent. There must be a solid foundation
and partnership between the superintendent and school board to reach targeted goals (Thomas,
2001). School board members have stated that their relationship between them and the
superintendent is fundamental for them to perform their duties adequately. Thomas (2001)
identified communication as a possible obstacle to fostering solid relations between school board
members and superintendents. Not clearly identifying the expectations of both school board
members and superintendents, as well as confusion regarding the authority of both parties,
complicates this relationship. Prior to the NSBA and CSBA identifying roles and responsibilities
14
for school board members, there was ambiguity in the roles of board members and
superintendents and there was significant overlap. Clarifying these duties did not necessarily
solve the problems because role negotiations were not addressed. Currently, superintendents tend
to make recommendations to their boards and, if the school boards are not properly trained or
lack a background in education, they may disagree with the superintendent (Thomas, 2001). This
dynamic adds to the tension as superintendents can be released from their contracts by the school
board.
Superintendent Leadership
Bainbridge and Thomas (2003) stated that strong leadership is needed for school
governance to hold school personnel accountable and yet not interfere with daily decisions.
Superintendents and school board members must understand their responsibilities and support
each other. Identifying characteristics of effective school boards helps both parties to achieve
success. Seven conditions created in effective districts by both superintendents and school board
members were identified: shared leadership, continuous improvement, sustained initiatives,
supportive workplace for staff, utilization of data, staff development, and community
involvement (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2002). Many school boards do not create these positive
environments but rather create conditions that hinder progress. This ineffectiveness can be
identified through a district’s high number of students failing skills tests, poor attendance, high
failure rates, high turnover in school administration, and few students in honors or advanced
classes (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2003). Clearly defining the roles of each party and providing
training for both parties would facilitate them working as a team (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2003;
Thomas, 2001). Board alignment and support of district goals are indicators of effective
leadership. This implies the need for school boards to work together in adopting and adhering to
15
the goals outlined by the district. By leading as a collective board, individual agendas do not get
in the way. School boards can contribute to the overall success of districts and their schools
when they focus on effective leadership responsibilities (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Governance–Board Relationship
The leadership of the school board and the superintendent are critical in the effective
governance of a school district. Specifically, school board governance is key in providing school
districts with the necessary support to help students to achieve. The relationship between the
school board members and the superintendent is an important aspect of effective school
governance, and the success of a school district is dependent on the strength of the relationship
(Brenner et al., 2002). A shared vision must be developed in order to focus on the priorities of
the district. This may include striving for student achievement, obtaining community support,
and focusing on what is best for stakeholders to help students to reach their educational goals
(Brenner et al., 2002).
The relationship between the school board and the superintendent can often be conflicted
and dysfunctional, even though the relationship is crucial for the success of the district.
Qualitative studies have shown that school board conflict can lead to negative outcomes for the
school district (Grissom, 2010). Board factionalism, the inability to manage differences among
members, poor communication, and micromanagement of superintendents hinder the ability of
school boards to be effective (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Grissom, 2007; Wallace Foundation,
2003).
Research demonstrates that lack of effective communication and confusion are the most
commonly cited reasons for strained relationships between school boards and superintendents.
16
The reason for the difficult relationship is sometimes due to a personal agenda that board
members may have regarding power (Grissom, 2010; Mountford, 2004). Ineffective boards of
education are identified by their school system results: large numbers of students failing basic
skills tests; high absenteeism of students and staff; extremely high failure rates, particularly at
Grade 9; a revolving door for school administration; and few students participating in rigorous,
high-level instructional programs (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2002). The ineffective communication
between school board members and superintendents creates conditions that create barriers to
effective governance.
There have been several obstacles identified as barriers in building a successful
relationship between school boards and superintendents, including poor communication, lack of
clarity, and the lack of knowledge of educational practices on the part of the board members
creating a barrier between the board and the superintendent. Negative relationships between the
superintendent and school board members do not allow the school team to make effective
decisions regarding quality instruction and allowing students to achieve. The lack of knowledge
is crucial because superintendents are educationally professional and board members are not
necessarily trained as educators or have even been through MIG training (Thomas, 2001).
School Board Member Training and Purpose
While California school board members must possess certain requirements to earn a
position on a school board, it is not required that board members earn any type of academic
certification or that they attend any professional development. It is important that school board
members be prepared to engage in multiple leadership approaches and behaviors that are
regulated by knowledge, skill, and circumstances (Elmore, 2000). Leading and guiding a school
district requires that board members be informed and familiar with educational best practices.
17
This knowledge can be attained through training and structured professional development.
School boards in high-achieving school districts make a commitment to continuous professional
development to ensure that they adequately set expectations, oversee progress, and build rapport
with the public.
Board members are held accountable for effective leadership more than before (Bianchi,
2003; Danzberger, 1994; Kolb & Strauss, 1999; Land, 2002; Loeb & Miller, 2007; Roberts &
Sampson, 2011; Ziebarth, 2002). School districts are facing greater pressure to maintain high
academic standards for all students, and board members must answer to the public regarding
these outcomes. Increasing accountability for academic achievement has included policy setting,
monitoring of academic achievement, and formulating the organization’s vision (CSBA, 2007).
Board members who are newly elected are not prepared to make effective decisions on school
finances, district facilities, academic standards, and compliance with state and federal mandates
(Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Providing school board members with appropriate training is key to
increasing and maintaining student achievement (Brenner et al., 2002).
A continued commitment to professional development by school board members is
crucial for increasing the effectiveness of school board governance. In past years, school board
members may have been able to participate and help students. However, now that the focus has
shifted to student achievement, school board members must be knowledgeable regarding
legislative procedures, fiscal budgets, and effective communication skills (Dahlkemper, 2005).
Resnick (1999) recommended that states provide support for school boards to seek development
in various areas of knowledge and provide school boards with a broad array of technical
assistance options to assist them in solving specific school district problems.
18
Adequate training for school boards is important to the success of the school district. The
fact that the policies and operations of school boards have a major impact on the effectiveness of
improving school district initiatives and the overall success of a school district is one reason that
school board training should be mandatory (Bianchi, 2003; McAdams, 2003; Petronis et al.,
1996). School board members are a key component of the success of a school district because of
their direct role in making decisions that affect students. Conversely, unprepared and untrained
school boards may cause the effectiveness of the school governance to decrease, which can cause
disruption to the main goal and focus of school districts, which is student achievement (Bianchi,
2003; Morehouse, 2001).
Research suggests that school board member training is crucial in assisting members in
attaining knowledge regarding effective governance. Developing written policies regarding
orientation and training, especially for new board members, can improve school board leadership
(Brenner et al., 2002). The ideal school board governance practices and actual board practices
may improve with training and professional development (Brenner et al., 2002). Even though
school board training may not guarantee a competent board member, the member will be better
equipped to address a multitude of issues than if they were not trained (Bianchi, 2003;
McAdams, 2003; Morehouse, 2001).
Only 24 states currently mandate that school boards attend training and professional
development (Alsbury, 2008). Most states require a number of training hours and topics that
must be covered; however, California does not currently mandate that school board members
attend school board training. Even though research demonstrates that training is required for
effective governance, many school board members opt out of attending trainings. A variety of
training programs is currently available in the United States to help school board members to
19
understand their roles in the school district (Petronis et al., 1996). The members who choose to
attend school board training are better prepared to serve the school district that they govern
(Morehouse, 2001).
Accountability
Accountability in education has increased significantly in the past 2 decades. In 1983 the
National Commission on Excellence in Education published a study titled A Nation at Risk. This
study identified flaws in the educational system and predicted the demise of the United States as
an industrial leader if major changes in education did not occur (Timar, 2003). This led to intense
school reforms, with accountability as the focus. In order to grasp the accountability system in
education, it is important to understand that at the center of accountability is a “contractual
relationship between two parties with one being the provider of a good or service and the other
being the director with the authority to reward, punish, or replace the provider” (Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004, p. 17). This is quite evident in schools and districts with multiple layers of
providers and directors. The first layer extends from the federal or state level as a director and
the individual districts as the providers. This then translates into the districts becoming the
director and the individual schools becoming the providers, after which the school administrators
or principals become the directors and delegate to the teachers, who become the providers
(Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004).
In California, this was manifested with the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) of
1999. This act contained three main components: (a) the Academic Performance Index (API),
which was originally meant to be based on multiple measures but was instead based only on
assessment results; (b) the Higher Performing/Improving Schools Program, which provided
financial bonuses for schools that met or exceeded API targets; and (c) the Immediate
20
Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program, which provided focused intervention for
schools that failed to meet API targets and did not show growth. The original intent was that this
combination of requirements, incentives, sanctions, and support would build capacity and
increase performance (Timar, 2003). In 2001, Congress passed NCLB, which stated that all
students would be proficient or advanced in Language Arts and Mathematics, as measured by
each state’s tests, by 2013-2014 (Bracey & Resnick, 1998; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004;
Land, 2002; Lashway, 2002; Timar, 2003). The act did not set clear expectations for the scores
indicating proficiency but delegated that determination to each individual state. NCLB did not
mandate that all states have a national set of standards. However, the act created an additional
layer of accountability for schools, districts, and individual states.
Theoretical Framework
Four theoretical frameworks explore the impact of school board training on effective
governance practices: Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal (2008), The Role and
Function of California School Boards by the CSBA (2007), the Iowa Association of School
Boards’ (IASB) Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000), and Leadership: Theory and Practice by
Northouse (2010).
Four Frames: Reframing Organizations
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four-frame model suggests that leaders approach organizations
through the following frames: political, human resources, structural, and symbolic. Leaders who
are able to approach organizations through various lenses have the most success at addressing the
needs of the organization. Bolman and Deal stated that leaders who approach organizational
leadership through the structural frame are likely to focus on strategy, implementation, and
adoption, while those who employ the human resource frame tend to possess a leadership style
21
reminiscent of a servant leader who supports, advocates, and empowers employees to solve
problems from within. Figure 1 describes each of the four frames as described by Bolman and
Deal.
Figure 1
Four Frames by Bolman and Deal
Frame Explanation
Structural Frame
The structural frame focuses on the obvious “how” of change. It is
mainly a task-orientated frame. It concentrates on strategy; setting
measurable goals; clarifying tasks, responsibilities and reporting lines;
agreeing metrics and deadlines; and creating systems and procedures.
Human Resource
The human resource frame discussed the ability of leaders to allocate and
utilize appropriate resources to accomplish the goals of the organizations.
The superintendent, as the educational leader of the school district must
ensure that the school board is informed and is aware of the best way to
distribute the limited resources available to the district. Specifically, the
governing body must be able to place the individuals with the knowledge
and skill set within the organization to accomplish the mission of the
district.
Political Frame
The political frame addresses the problem of individuals and interest
groups having sometimes conflicting agendas, especially at times when
budgets are limited and the organization has to make difficult choices. In
this frame you will see coalition building, conflict resolution work, and
power base building to support the leader’s initiatives.
Symbolic Frame
The symbolic frame addresses people’s needs for a sense of purpose and
meaning in their work. It focuses on inspiring people by making the
organization’s direction feel significant and distinctive. It includes
creating a motivating vision, and recognizing superb performance
through company celebrations.
Note. Based on Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (4th ed.), by L. G.
Bolman and T. E. Deal, 2008), Jossey-Bass.
22
CSBA’s Role and Function of California School Boards
The CSBA (2007) stated that the school board must be responsive to the beliefs, values,
and priorities of its community. The roles of school board members are interconnected with the
role of the superintendent. Hess and Meeks (2010) stated that, while school board members
continue to see the role as helping students to continue to meet their full potential, a majority
have acknowledged the need to influence student achievement and, to a slightly lesser degree,
close the achievement gap. Gemberling et al. (2000) wrote The Key Work of School Boards
Guidebook, which became the most used resource by school boards. The authors stated that the
primary agenda or key work of school boards is to raise student achievement through community
engagement, strategic collaboration, and co-leadership.
In recent years, debate regarding the relevance of school board members has increased.
The consensus resulting from the rigorous discussion supports the continued value and relevance
of school board members (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Hess, 2002; Usdan, 2010). However, the
ability of research-based best practices from which boards can glean insight regarding their role
in increasing student achievement through effective governance is limited at best (Hess &
Meeks, 2002).
As the governing body of the nation’s school boards, the NSBA not only serves as the
primary resource on school governance but also has become responsible for providing coherent
definitions regarding the governance of school boards (Gemberling et al., 2000). Campbell and
Greene (1994) reported that the NSBA commissioned a task force in the early 1990s in response
to confusion about school board members’ roles and responsibilities. The authors stated that the
definitions were developed from the belief that, within school governance, fundamental core
decision-making functions, which are linked to a school system’s accountability, must be
23
communicated. They summarized the task force’s definition of school board members’ roles and
responsibilities. The authors mentioned development of a long-term vision; establishment and
maintenance of organizational structure, including adopting of an annual budget; governance
policies; and employment of a superintendent; establishment of systems and processes to ensure
community accountability through the development of sound fiscal, staff, and collective
bargaining policies; and advocacy at the community, state, and national levels on behalf of
children and public education.
Campbell and Greene (1994) focused attention on the importance of establishing a long-
term, student-centered vision. The superintendent and the school board must create a cohesive
and shared vision to communicate to the community. However, the authors asserted that one of
the most poorly defined goals is fiscal monitoring and oversight.
The Lighthouse Inquiry
The Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000) was conducted between 1998 and 2000,
guided by the following three research questions (Delagardelle, 2008):
1. Are school boards different in high- and low-achieving districts?
2. How do school boards influence the conditions needed for success?
3. What do board members and superintendents currently believe about the role of
the board in improving student learning?
The original Lighthouse Inquiry, or Phase I, was designed to gather specific information
regarding practices in a southern state with uncharacteristically high levels of student
achievement (Delagardelle, 2008). The last two phases of the Lighthouse Inquiry ended in 2010
(Rice et al., 2000). Phase II identified how boards influenced conditions necessary for success.
Finally, a multistate national study was conducted in Phase III, with the purpose of identifying
24
best practices for leadership development on a large scale by contrasting the behaviors of board
members in high-performing and low-performing districts.
The study identified seven conditions for governance change: emphasis on building a
human organizational system, ability to create and sustain initiatives, supportive workplace for
staff, staff development, support for school sites through data and information, community
involvement, and integrated leadership (Rice et al., 2000). This framework confirms that school
boards must operate with the specific needs of their context in mind. School boards and district
superintendents must develop ways to meet the needs of their organization.
Leadership
This literature review also analyzes leadership work by Northouse (2010). Northouse
described the role of leadership in an organization and its purposes in meeting the needs of the
organization. Specifically, the author defined ways of conceptualizing leadership and described
the differences between leadership as a trait and leadership as a process. Northouse defined
leadership as trait versus process, assigned versus emergent, leadership and power, leadership
and coercion, and leadership and management. These definitions are important to analyze in
relation to the school board and superintendent as leaders of the organization. Northouse
discussed leadership approaches and described various leadership models. Specifically, the
author described transformational leadership as the process whereby a person engages with
others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader
and the follower. This type of leadership manifests through interactions between superintendents
and school board members as they collaborate to accomplish the goals of the district. The
effectiveness of this leadership is important to this study.
25
School Board Training and Student Achievement
This study is designed to understand the impact of school board training on student
achievement. Currently, there is limited literature demonstrating the impact of training on student
achievement. Plough (2014) stated that the limited literature indicates that governance training,
as opposed to sessions dedicated to specific information or topics, might have the greatest
impact. Furthermore, school board governance is often controversial, confusing, and
confounding, as school board members attempt to represent the community in a quest for high
student achievement that will prepare students.
Chapter Summary
In today’s educational climate, great demands are placed on school boards, as board
members attempt to make sound decisions (Brenner et al., 2002). A key factor in increasing
effective governance by school boards is to provide them tools to perform their job adequately.
The literature states that school boards should have a clear definition of their roles and
responsibilities (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). School board
training provides guidelines and parameters for effective governance to address the needs of the
communities that the board serves. There is not a clear connection between school board training
and student achievement. This study is designed to obtain more clarity on this topic.
26
Chapter Three: Research Methods
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefits of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
The study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Research Design
This study was completed as part of a thematic dissertation group at the University of
Southern California (USC) Rossier School of Education. The thematic group was comprised of
20 researchers who worked interdependently to design research questions, design the study, and
select the qualitative methodology. Each of the 62 school districts that were studied received an
informational letter and an invitation to participate in the study on the impact of MIG training on
effective governance and student achievement.
27
The study utilized a qualitative methodology to provide insight on the perceived impact
of MIG training on governance and student achievement in a way that quantitative analysis
would be limited (Patton, 2002). For this purpose, the researchers sought to obtain insight into
the factors that influence school board governance and the impact on student achievement. The
researchers carefully collected interview data, survey results, and document reviews.
Surveys were distributed via U.S. mail to superintendents and school board members in
62 districts in California. The chosen school districts had a majority of the board who had at least
three of the five modules of MIG training. The surveys were developed by the thematic
dissertation researchers under the guidance of the dissertation chair. After the surveys were
completed, the next phase included a semi structured interview protocol.
Methodology
The methodology utilized for this study was a qualitative approach. While it was
originally planned to collect the data through one-on-one interviews with superintendents and
board members of the participating districts, due to the current social distancing restrictions
related to the COVID-19 pandemic, all interviews were conducted via remote Zoom™ meetings.
The dissertation group utilized semi structured interview protocols for the interviews. The groups
also provided surveys to the participants. The surveys were comprised of 20 open-ended items.
The surveys were completed in two parts: one by the participating superintendents and the other
by the participating school board members. After the interviews and surveys were administered,
data were collected and coded for analysis.
Researchers
The researchers in this study consisted of 20 doctoral students in the USC Rossier School
of Education. The students held a variety of positions in public school settings, ranging from
28
classroom teachers to district-level administrators. The thematic dissertation researchers
possessed a breath of knowledge regarding public education in California. The lead researcher
for the study was Dr. Michael Escalante of USC. The team met bimonthly to review the
dissertation process and to analyze collection of data.
Study Participants
Several factors influenced the recruitment of study participants. The MIG program was
the focus of this study and for that reason the districts and school boards that were studied had to
meet established criteria. The school board had to have a majority of its members trained through
the MIG program. The participants must have completed three of the five modules to participate
in the study. The dissertation cohort maintained a spreadsheet with the information related to the
school districts with the majority of board members trained through MIG. The researchers used
the list on the spreadsheet to select the school districts to be studied.
The participants in this study were superintendents and board members from 62 school
districts in California. The criterion used to determine the school districts was that the majority
of school board members in the district had completed three of the five modules of the MIG
training through the CSBA. The school districts were distributed throughout 12 California
counties. The districts ranged in size from small to large, according to the CDE. The participants
were selected through professional networks within the researchers’ group. The districts were
chosen from a comprehensive list of districts from the CDE database on DataQuest.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation for the study included surveys and interviews. The study utilized two
surveys: one survey for board members and the other survey for superintendents. The survey
questions for board members were designed to obtain information related to the effectiveness of
29
the MIG training on governance. The survey items for superintendents were designed to obtain
information on how superintendents perceived the MIG training to affect collaboration between
the board members and superintendent and their ability to govern effectively as a whole. The
survey items for board members and superintendents were developed using frameworks by
Bolman and Deal, the CSBA, and the IASB Lighthouse Inquiry.
Each participating member received a paper copy of the survey in a packet. The packet
included a letter inviting the person to participate in the survey and to encourage board members
to participate. The interview procedure with open-ended questions allowed for analysis in the
qualitative study. The survey items and interview questions were aligned to the research
questions as shown in Figure 2.
Data Collection
This section describes the procedures used to collect data for the qualitative study.
Collection of data through surveys and interviews was conducted through a 12-month period.
Data were collected through a variety of methods. The first component of the data collection
process was the survey that was sent to participating superintendents and board members. The
next step was collecting data in one-on-one interviews with the participants. Independently, the
participants also completed a 19-question survey that consisted of open-ended items.
This study used an interview method in which participants were interviewed one-on-one
by one of the researchers. Notes were kept by the interviewer to capture the responses of the
participants. Independently, the participants also completed a 20-question survey that consisted
of open-ended items.
30
Figure 2
Alignment of Framework Sources
Bolman and Deal’s
Four-Frame Model for
Effective Leadership
CSBA’s Professional
Governance Standards
IASB’s Lighthouse
Inquiry (Delagardelle)
Structural frame Policies and procedures Policy development
Human resource frame Focus on student achievement Professional development
Political frame Collective responsibility Accountability
Symbolic frame Shared vision Community relations
Note. CSBA = California School Boards Association; IASB = Iowa Association of School
Boards. Based on Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (4th ed.), Jossey-
Bass; CSBA Professional Governance Standards for School Boards, by California School Boards
Association, 2019, https://www.csba.org/-/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/
ProfessionalGovernanceStandards/CSBA_PGS_Brochure.ashx?la=en&rev=5fc78a303c5b45c4a
6d89d519f991e56; and “The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of School Board
Leadership in the Improvement of Student Achievement,” by M. Delagardelle, 2008, in T. L.
Alsbury (Ed.), The Future of School Board Governance: Relevance and Revelation (pp. 191-
223), Rowman and Littlefield Education.
Data Analysis
The data collected by the researchers were compiled and the coded for analysis. The data
were initially collected as open coding. There were emergent themes identified in the interviews.
31
Patterns in the responses were also identified by the researchers. The researchers
proposed assertions and propositions based on the data collected from the study participants.
The data were triangulated to ensure validity and reliability. The data collected via the
surveys and interviews, along with the data in the review of the literature in Chapter Two, were
triangulated to ensure relevance and significance to the study. This assisted in identifying factors
that influenced school board members and superintendents in governance after participating in
MIG training.
Ethical Considerations
In order to ensure that ethical considerations were taken into account, the IRB process
was completed by the researchers. The Collaborative IRB Training Initiative (CITI) was utilized
to provide the researchers with information regarding possible ethical considerations during the
research.
Chapter Summary
This chapter described the methodology used in this study. The methodology included
the design of the study, the sample and population to be researched, the data collection and
analysis methods, and ethical considerations. The literature review and the research questions
guided the research for this study.
32
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training, specifically
the MIG training program provided by the CSBA, improved the relationship between school
boards and superintendents and exerted an impact on student 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 school board members’ and
superintendents’ perceptions of the MIG training and its impact on school governance and
student achievement.
This chapter reports the data collected by the individual researcher, as well as the data
collected by the research team. Each researcher identified and collected data from three
superintendents and nine school board members. Collectively, the research team identified and
collected data from 62 superintendents and 186 school board members. The 20-member research
team triangulated that data collected via interviews, surveys, and the literature review. The
research team developed three research questions that guided study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Participants and School Districts
Participants were superintendents and board members from 62 California school districts.
The criterion used to select the school districts was that most school board members in the
33
district had completed at least three of the five modules of the MIG training through the CSBA.
The school districts were located in Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Diego County,
Riverside County, Alameda County, Nevada County, San Bernardino County, Marin County,
Monterey County, Santa Barbara County, Santa Clara County, and Ventura County.
The districts ranged in size from small to large, according to the CDE. Participants were
selected through professional networks within the researchers’ group. The districts were chosen
from a comprehensive list of districts from the CDE database on DataQuest.
Using the criterion mentioned above, 186 school board members and 62 superintendents
were interviewed and surveyed. The researchers encountered significant difficulties in obtaining
responses to the surveys and in scheduling interviews due to the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic in March 2020. The pandemic made it impossible to meet for in-person interviews and
required the research team to schedule video interviews through Zoom and Google Meets
platforms. The surveys were distributed as links via the Qualtrics platform. Many board
members and superintendents found it difficult to schedule video interviews due to
responsibilities to respective school districts and development of their distance learning plans.
Interviewed and Surveyed Participants
The interviewees were three superintendents and nine board members from the larger
pool of 62 superintendents and 177 school board members who were interviewed. Surveys were
completed by 62 superintendents and 180 school board members. All participants and districts
were assigned pseudonyms to protect their identity (see Table 1). The board members and
superintendent for District A are hereafter referred to as Board Members A1, A2, and A3 and
Superintendent A. Likewise, the board members and superintendent for Districts B and C are
34
referred to as Board Member B1, B2, B3, and Superintendent B and Board Member C1, C2, C3,
and Superintendent C, respectively.
Table 1
Summary of Participation
Participants f %
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses 62 100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses 180 97
Interviews 177 95
35
District A was a mid-sized school district in southern California serving 11,000 students
in PreK to adult programs, with 15 schools. The district had a population of 81.6%
socioeconomically disadvantaged students, 18.3% English Learner students, and 0.9% foster
youth students. The district governance team was composed of five elected board members and
the superintendent. The superintendent was new to the school district.
District B was a small school district in southern California serving 1,200 students in
Kindergarten through middle school, with three schools. The district had a population of 95.5%
socioeconomically disadvantaged students, 28.6% English Learner students, and 1.8% foster
youth students. The district governance team was composed of five elected board members and
the superintendent.
District C was a large school district in southern California serving 36,450 students in
Pre-K to adult programs, with 40 schools. The district had a population of 18.5% of
socioeconomic disadvantaged students and 11.1% English Learner students. The district
governance team was composed of five elected board members and the superintendent.
Results
This section presents the research results related to each research question. The sources of
data were structured interviews, school board member and superintendent surveys, and a review
of the literature. The three sources of data were triangulated to articulate the major themes.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: What factors impact the decision of school
board members to participate in the MIG training program? Board members are aware of the
responsibility of their position and are influenced by their role to prepare for their duties. There
are specific roles of board members as perceived by local communities (Goldhammer, 1964).
36
There is an expectation that school board members will be promoters of the public interest in
education. Board members perceive that they are responsible for student achievement. Student
achievement, as measured by state assessments, is closely monitored and shared with the
community, as well as accountability for fiscal resources, bargaining, and personnel (Campbell
& Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007). Three themes emerged related to Research Question 1, regarding
obtaining the knowledge and skills needed to govern a school district effectively.
Roles and Responsibilities
The data indicated that board members believed that they could govern a school district
in a more effective manner if they had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities as
board members. Three questions on the interview protocol inquired about the factors that
influenced the interviewees to participate in the MIG training program. The questions were
designed to understand what factors made the MIG training accessible to participants.
Board Member 2C mentioned a combination of factors that highlighted roles and
responsibilities:
I don’t step into any endeavor without being prepared, and I felt as though when you join
a school board, you think you know a lot of things off the campaign trail, but it turns out
campaigning is very different than governing. You don’t want to only hear what your
board colleagues have to say. You don’t only want to hear what your superintendent and
her cabinet have to say. You want independent information and guidance. I felt that the
Masters in Governance would offer that to me.
Superintendent B reiterated the concept of roles and responsibilities as critical in governing the
school district:
37
They first need to understand that their role is one of governance setting policy and of
hiring the superintendent to do the day -to-day running of the district. And the
superintendent needs to be able to function in that role. And so they set the direction, they
set the vision, they set the policies to make that happen. So I think the governance
training, first and foremost, is important to helping them define their role and the role of
their employee, which is the superintendent.
Of the surveyed board members, 71% agreed that the primary factor that influenced their
decision to participate in the MIG training was a desire to increase effective governance (Table
2). A significant component of effective governance is the ability to recognize the roles and
responsibilities of the board members. Furthermore, 73% of the board members surveyed agreed
that their decision to participate in the MIG training was self-motivated. Board members were
aware of the importance of their role and wanted to be as prepared as possible; they sought to
increase their knowledge to avoid pitfalls in their role as board members.
Table 2
Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to participate in Masters in
Governance (MIG) Training
Factor Superintendents (N = 62) Board members (N = 180)
School board expectation 33 84
Self-motivation 37 133
Encouraged by board members 35 71
Increasing student achievement 9 53
Increasing effective governance 3 128
Unable to determine 0 0
Other 3 10
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
38
Capacity Building
Participants identified that a thorough understanding of the implications of their role in
governing their school district was an important factor in being effective. When school boards
act as representatives instead of trustees, they struggle to act as a single unit (Land, 2002).
According to Land (2002), multiple research studies have indicated that school boards struggle to
work together cohesively as a body. They have described the areas of trust for the collective
board and communication among themselves to be challenging (Land, 2002).
Board Member C1 identified capacity building through the cohesiveness of the team as a
governing body:
I prefer that because I feel like it encourages the entire governance team, including the
superintendent and even the student board member to be together in one place and then
kind of split up to go to the various interesting options that they use and then come back
together and discuss.
Board Member B1 said that board members should understand their role and that they
should be as prepared as possible to govern effectively. The board member suggested
implications for board members and their capacity to govern school districts:
So they were elected. The people thought they wanted them and they’re in place and they
don’t go to the schools. They don’t go to our local meet. They don’t participate, and you
read about them in the papers all the time, because they don’t understand their role.
Board members were aware of the importance of the decision-making process and its
alignment with the school district’s vision, 58% strongly agreed that, as a result of the MIG
training, they had a clearer understanding of the importance of aligning the decision-making
process with the district’s vision and goals (Table 3).
39
Table 3
School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item “As a Result of the MIG Training, I
Understand the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With the District’s Vision
and Goals (N = 180)
Response f %
Strongly Agree 104 58
Agree 62 34
Disagree 13 7
Strongly Disagree 1 1
Note. MIG = Masters in Governance.
Accessibility
The data indicated that geographic accessibility to the MIG training was a significant
factor in participants attending the training. Board members and superintendents indicated that
the current COVID-19 pandemic has significantly limited accessibility to the MIG training.
Board Member 2B indicated that travel and location were factors in accessibility to the
MIG training:
I know that they changed and added more locations so that you didn’t have to travel as
far. You know, I know they did that. That was very helpful. It used to be just, I think like
I know that they changed and added more locations so that you didn’t have to travel as
far. You know, I know they did that. That was very helpful. It used to be just, I think like
Sacramento and Orange County or something, but now I think they’ve added some
40
different locations. And I know that in our district or our county, they worked with them
and they actually had them at our county office, which was very helpful for our school,
our district, and our county, which is nice. That’s always a plus, but I think people will
travel if the information and the training is applicable and relevant.
Board Member C1 stated that accessibility was a concern, especially under the current
conditions due the COVID 19 pandemic:
We have a big state, so I can’t imagine the logistic nightmare. I just don’t know if it
would be as effective if it was online, but maybe it just needs to be a creative way to do
that. It’s not outrageously priced. I think that even in tight times, school board members
should be able to afford it. We’re a very small district and we were able to go. I’m not
sure if it could be offered more often. now. I think it could be offered more often. Perhaps
some, some school boards could talk to other school boards and encourage them go to,
try to get more interest.
It was agreed in the board member survey that chances of participation in the MIG
training would increase if it were offered locally, as 69% (n = 125) of board members and 72%
(n = 45) of superintendents agreed that a locally hosted platform would increase participation in
the MIG training (Table 4).
41
Table 4
Responses to the Survey Item “What Platform(s) of the MIG Training Program Would Increase
the Chances of Participation?”
Response Superintendents (N = 62) Board members (N = 180)
Online 14 54
Hybrid 29 105
Locally hosted 45 125
Other 2 4
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was developed to identify factors that influenced board members
and superintendents to participate in the MIG training. Through the interviews and surveys, three
themes were identified. Board members were seeking clarity in their roles and responsibilities to
govern a school district. They understood the importance of having the tools to make effective
decisions that affected the district. Building their capacity as a governing body was a critical
factor in their role as board members, helping to avoid pitfalls in their roles as elected officials.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: How does the MIG training program
encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school
governance? The participating board members recognized that the MIG training encouraged and
equipped them to fulfill their role as a governing body. It was important to refer to the
responsibilities held by the board members. The CSBA identified five major responsibilities of
42
the school board. This list is meant to provide a guideline of the “core decision-making”
responsibilities of school boards (Campbell & Greene, 1994, p. 392). The first responsibility is to
set the direction of the district and to identify a vision (Campbell & Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007).
The vision is the long-term guide for where the district needs to go and is reflective of the
superintendent, the cabinet, and the community. The second responsibility is to set and maintain
a structure for the district. Within this structure are the hiring of a superintendent, the
development and adoption of policies, curriculum, budget, collective bargaining agreements,
and, most important, promoting a climate of excellence. The superintendent and staff work to
carry out the vision of the school board and he board should ensure that they are making
decisions based on the agreed-upon goals and resources, as well as upholding district policies
(CSBA, 2007).
Goal Setting
Board members identified goal setting as a way in which the MIG training had equipped
them to govern the school district. Board member C1 stated that the MIG training provided
information in parts that allowed board members to apply the training to their districts:
The MIG training is broken into several different subject areas, starting with just the
general overall governance. It allows school board members to get information in chunks
in subject areas and then process that information and how they would apply it to their
own district.
Board Member C1 stated that the MIG training improved the relationship between the
board members and the superintendent, which allowed the governing board to know their role
and to work effectively with the superintendent:
43
We have our own board governance handbook and our own goals, and we do that very
effectively now. Our relationship with our superintendent is definitely stronger because
we all know our places. While sometimes we do push outside of the lines or push the
lines of the box a little bit, we do it respectfully.
Superintendent C identified goal setting as a way in which the MIG training equips
school board members govern a school district:
I think that CSBA really helps board members by outlining all of their goals and the roles
and responsibilities of the board, of the superintendent, that they give them some
parameters and almost like expectations and helps guide the work that they do so that
they can understand how working on a local level, in through the school districts, though,
they also can have that impact on the larger political landscape in a way that still allows
the school district to function effectively.
Of the board members surveyed, 92% agreed (n = 62) or strongly agreed (n = 104) that
they understood the importance of aligning the decision-making process with the district’s vision
and goals (Table 5).
44
Table 5
Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item “As a Result of the MIG Training, I Understand
the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With the District’s Vision and Goals
(N = 180)
Response f %
Strongly Agree 104 58
Agree 62 34
Disagree 13 7
Strongly Disagree 1 1
Note. MIG = Masters in Governance.
Shared Vision
Aligning to the vision of the school district emerged as a theme from the data collected
from participating superintendents and board members. Superintendent C mentioned that the
MIG training allowed board members to identify that they are working with the superintendent
as part of a unit and that no one member has ultimate control over the school district:
I think once that they understand the components of effective governance and they really
understand the roles or responsibilities and the governance idea of governing as a unit,
that no board member has single authority.
Board Member C3 stated the importance of the school board and superintendent working
collaboratively: “I just think that we’re all in agreement that we’re better informed about what’s
going on within our district, and we’re more collaborative as a governance team as a whole.”
45
Superintendent C mentioned that there is a learning curve for board members in their
roles and that the MIG would facilitate working under a shared vision:
The learning curve is definitely steep and I think a required training course or them being
required to attend these courses will help to at least narrow that curve and allow us to all
be on somewhat of a same page and knowing where the starting line is. And then what it
did do and help is when I would meet with them one-on-one or we would address issues,
I could then say, “Don’t you remember when we were in that class and they gave that
example or they talked about this, that’s what they meant.” To draw back on those
experiences or examples I think in that way it was helpful. And then when they would go
together collaboratively, I think it helped to build their relationship.
Superintendents identified that board members who are MIG trained understood the
importance of aligning the decision-making process to the district’s vision and goals, as 48%
(n = 30) of the superintendents agreed and 50% (n = 31) of the superintendents strongly agreed
that board members understood the importance of a shared vision for decision-making (Table 6).
46
Table 6
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item “School Board Members Who Are MIG Trained
Understand the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process to the District’s Vision and
Goals (N = 62)
Response f %
Strongly Agree 31 50
Agree 30 48
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Note. MIG = Masters in Governance.
Norms and Protocols
The data indicated the importance of how the MIG training provided clarity regarding
norms and protocols and their importance in governing a school district effectively. It was
evident that it was important for board members to maintain a level of professionalism with each
other and with the superintendent.
Board Member C1 mentioned that a norm that was important to follow is that the board
works as a team and that no one individual agenda is more important than the goals of the board
as a whole:
Understanding that the board acts as a minimum of three of us, deciding at a meeting
together and that is the will of the board. And even if they disagree they’re board
members, they can’t go off doing their own thing.
47
Board Member C2 provided insight on the importance of board member norms and
protocols by relating a situation in their school district, where they had issues with a previous
superintendent and board members with limited experience:
We had a corrupt superintendent that had to be fired, and we brought in a new
superintendent. We had relatively inexperienced board members, board members that had
been in there only 2 years. I was brand new at the time, and a new superintendent, which
resulted in a whole new cabinet after preliminary investigations showed that there were
cabinet members involved in that corruption as well. We had a lot of turnover, so there
was a lot of team building to do, and I was able to use the MIG guidance, board
handbook, goals, behaviors, things like board norms, those things that we were able to
bring in and build a stronger governance team, so it helped at that level.
The survey data indicated that the MIG training encourages school governance teams to
contribute to the effectiveness of school board meetings, based on norms and protocols, as 48.5%
(n = 30) of surveyed superintendents and 58% (n = 104) of surveyed board members strongly
agreed that MIG encourages school governance teams to contribute to the effectiveness of school
board meetings (Table 7).
48
Table 7
Responses to the Survey Item “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 48.5 104 58.0
Agree 30 48.5 72 40.0
Disagree 2 3.0 4 2.0
Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0
Note. MIG = Masters in Governance.
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
The purpose of Research Question 2 was to determine whether if the MIG training
program encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
school governance. The school board members in this study stated that the MIG training
equipped them to exhibit behavior of effective school governance. The board members valued
the professional relationships that were developed through the training. These relationships
fostered development of norms and protocols that supported a shared vision between board
members and the superintendent. Once the board members were trained, they understood their
role in goal setting and team building to accomplish the goals of a shared vision.
49
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked the following: Does MIG training have an impact on student
achievement/growth? The board members and superintendents in this study understood the
impact of their work on the school district. Board members realized that, as elected officials, they
should meet the needs of the community that they served. Furthermore, they were aware that the
MIG training delineated roles and responsibilities and focused their work on establishing policies
that would impact positively the school district that they governed.
As stated in the literature review, the list of responsibilities set forth by the CSBA is
focused on advocating on behalf of the children and the community. School board members are
elected locally by residents of the community, and they are there to serve the best interests of the
children. They are the community leaders of education, charged with communicating
information regarding their programs and policies to the community. School boards are teams
and must work together to make sound decisions for all parties involved. As elected officials,
they should strive to ensure public accountability as a board, not as individual persons.
School boards move toward fostering individual relationships with their constituents
through a political agenda. According to Land (2002), multiple research studies have indicated
that school boards struggle to work together cohesively as a body. They have described the areas
of trust for the collective board and communication among members to be challenging (Land,
2002). Working as individuals creates tension and does not allow the school board to govern in
an effective way. Anderson (1992) noted that superintendents and school board presidents
reported that school board members did not understand their role and should move away from
special interests toward a trustee role. Land (2002) stated that this shift from trustee to
50
representative is due in large part to elections and representation of minorities who strive to
please their constituents.
Accountability to the Community
Participants identified their role as elected officials as imposing a distinct responsibility
to their communities. They reported that the MIG training refocused them to work toward the
goal of improving a school district through effective governance.
Board Member C2 recognized that accountability to the community comes through
collaboration and through effective communication with the public:
I use it, specifically, more when I communicate with parents in the community. Because
there’s a lot of misconception out there of what is the role of a board member. People
think that a board member is like a city councilperson, that you have staff, that it’s a full-
time regular job, that you make independent decisions. No one board member has
ultimate authority over any decision. We’re a collective unit. I think that’s the concept
that many people in the community don’t understand. When I’m out there in the
community, in PTA meetings, giving updates about what’s going on in the school district,
I’m able to draw upon that to correct those misconceptions out in the public, which is
helpful.
Board Member C3 said that board members demonstrate accountability to the community
by providing support to their stakeholders:
I think that’s just due to it starting with our parents and our teachers and our students, and
then they feel supported and go beyond. So for us to be able to provide that support for
them to feel that they can do what they need to do, is wonderful. I do know that you guys
have the structure and the support to help us maintain focus.
51
Board Member A1 mentioned that clear communication eliminates surprises at board
meetings and enables the board to present a united front to stay accountable to the community:
So one thing that it did do was it opened up dialogue for how to ask questions properly,
who to go to get answers, how to make sure that the rest of the board is not caught off
guard. We have one rule that it’s first and foremost, after our norms and protocols, and
that’s no surprises. We don’t want to be hijacked at a board meeting because some board
member decides that it’s time to grandstand and/or they’ve got their own agenda that’s
contrary or different than the agenda that we have or the scope and sequence that we
developed, or the goals that we have for the year, et cetera.
Of the participating superintendents, 79% (n = 49) agreed or strongly agreed that board
members who are MIG certified actively engage the community and utilize a variety of
communication methods (Table 8). This demonstrates that board members find a variety of ways
to communicate effectively with each other and with the communities that they serve. This
communication can be realized through speaking directly with students, teachers, and family
members. It can also be realized through effective communication at board meetings, where
board members are in the presence of community members.
52
Table 8
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item “School Board Members Who Are MIG Certified
Actively Engage the Community and Utilize a Variety of Communication Methods (N = 62)
Response f %
Strongly Agree 15 24
Agree 34 55
Disagree 13 21
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Note. MIG = Masters in Governance.
Of the participating school board members, 98% (n = 176) agreed or strongly agreed that
MIG training encourages school governance teams to contribute to the effectiveness of school
board meetings (Table 9). This is important to note because school board meetings are
opportunities for governance teams to demonstrate unity of vision in processes to the
community.
53
Table 9
Responses to the Survey Item “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 48.5 104 58.0
Agree 30 48.5 72 40.0
Disagree 2 3.0 4 2.0
Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0
Note. MIG = Masters in Governance.
Focus on Policy
School board members who have been trained in MIG recognize that their roles as board
members include focusing on policy. They also understand that they are to avoid becoming
involved in the operations of the school district; they identify the superintendent as overseeing
those responsibilities.
Board Member A1 identified MIG Training Module 1, Foundations of Effective
Governance, as the most important of the five modules. The board member stated that the
module helps to identify roles and responsibilities as they relate to community relations:
Module Number 1, to me, was the most important because you have to know what your
role is before you start going into some of those other topics and you start to deal with
things like community relations. Everybody’s got this great idea, “Hey, we should have
fireside chats. We should have town hall meetings. We should do this and that.” When in
reality, maybe there’s stuff that’s already being done. It’s just not called that. But you
54
haven’t been on the board long enough to realize that there are many things that take
place without you knowing it.
Superintendent B stated that MIG-trained board members understand their role as
governing policy and that they should allow the superintendent to manage the logistics of the
school district:
They first need to understand that their role is one of governance, setting policy and of
hiring the superintendent to do the day-to-day running of the district. And the
superintendent needs to be able to function in that role. And so they set the direction, they
set the vision, they set the policies to make that happen. So I think the governance
training, first and foremost, is important to helping them define their role and the role of
their employee, which is the superintendent.
Board Member C2 also mentioned that Module 1 of the MIG training provided guidance
for school board members to focus on policy:
I think it was the first one. I think that fundamentally changed my perception of the role
of a board member. With the five main roles of a board member, understanding that
you’re not supposed to get into the weeds, understanding that any single board member
does not direct staff, that was very important to set expectations appropriately. Then
those principles were repeatedly enforced throughout all the subsequent modules.
Respondent school board members ranked Module 1, Foundation in Governance, as the
most important of the five modules of the MIG training, as 66% (n = 119) ranked it the most
important in their role as members of the governance team (Table 10). The data suggest that
board members are invested in developing the skills that are necessary to focus on the role of a
55
board member, which is to develop policies that will have a positive impact on the school
district.
Table 10
Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance (MIG) Modules in Order of
Importance to Their Role as a Member of the Governance Team (N = 180)
Ranking
Module #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Foundation in Governance 119 34 9 10 8
Policy and Judicial Review 21 63 48 27 21
School Finance 30 56 57 26 11
Human Resources 2 10 33 67 68
Community Relations 8 17 33 50 72
56
Indirect Impact on Student Achievement
Participants indicated that the training that they had received in the MIG program had an
influence on student achievement in their school districts. However, most felt that the impact was
indirect, since board members do not deal with the everyday monitoring of instruction at school
sites. They also indicated that they did not become involved in human resources issues in their
districts.
Board Member C2 stated that MIG training provided guidance on the focus of a board
member: to focus on policy. The board member acknowledged an indirect connection between
MIG training and positive student achievement:
As an equity piece, you can’t assume that everyone has the same environment to do
homework in. In that sense, looking at those board policies, our sexual harassment
policies, our digital media policies, we were able to update those. Part of that is because
when you take the Masters in Governance suite of classes, you now know the burden of
that responsibility is on the board members to make sure that policies are ours. We own
that. It’s that indirect connection, but I can’t say for sure that there’s a direct connection.
Board Member B1 stated that a board member’s visibility in the community and in the
schools of the district provides a sense of investment in the community that can translate to
improved student achievement:
We just want to be visible. We want the students not to shake our hands when they
graduate eighth grade and wonder who these old people are. We want them to know us.
After 2 years of doing that, this is the ending my ninth year on the board, after a couple of
years of doing that, whenever we were around, they’d go, “Oh, you guys are the school
board. They’re the school board.” Even the elementary kids will come up and ask us
57
questions or say what they want changed. Our students know who we are because you see
us often. We try to go to the awards assembly. I think that if children are in a happy
environment, they see that people care, they will work harder and it should improve their
achievement. Not only with the good strategies, but our staff is professionally doing it.
Superintendent B indicated that the MIG training educates board members on having the
right information to make decisions about policy that will have a positive impact on student
achievement. Superintendent B noted that all board members want positive student achievement
as an outcome. However, board members must have adequate information to develop a plan to
improve student achievement in their school district:
It’s about educating your board and making sure they have the right information, the right
amount of information, that you understand what your board needs in order to help
support. Because they may want student achievement as an outcome, but you have to
have discussions over what is that going to look like? You can’t just say everybody wants
student achievement. I don’t think there’s anybody that says, “I don’t want every child to
learn how to read,” but you have to have discussions of now what is that going to look
like? What is the plan going to look like? And then when we’re buying a new program or
something, it’s making sure that we go through all the steps and that we provide the
board with the information that they need to really feel like they’re making an informed
decision.
Of the superintendents who were surveyed, 95% (n = 59) agreed or strongly agreed that
they encourage governance teams to use data consistently to make informed decisions regarding
student achievement. Similarly, 87% (n = 157) of board members who were surveyed agreed that
they encourage governance teams to use data to make informed decisions (Table 11). These data
58
indicate that board members and superintendents who have been trained in the MIG are equipped
to make informed decisions that will affect student achievement in their school districts.
Table 11
Responses to the Survey Item “As a Result of the MIG Training, I Encourage Governance
Team Members to Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions Regarding Student
Achievement”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 31 50 69 38
Agree 28 45 88 49
Disagree 3 5 21 12
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1
59
One survey item asked respondents whether attending the MIG training had had a
positive impact on student achievement in their district. Responses indicated that most 87%
(n = 54) of superintendents and 71% (n = 128) of board members agreed or strongly agreed that
the MIG had had a positive impact on student achievement. However, the data also indicated that
13% (n = 8) of superintendents and 28% (n = 50) of board members disagreed with this item
(Table 12). This seems to indicate that some superintendents and board members did not
consider that the MIG training had equipped them adequately to have an impact on student
achievement. More research is needed conclude whether the survey results indicate that the
impact was indirect or absent in improving student achievement.
Table 12
Responses to the Survey Item “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
60
Summary of Results for Research Question 3
The purpose of Research Question 3 was to determine whether participants agreed that
MIG training had an impact on student achievement and growth. The survey and interview data
indicated that the MIG training had a positive impact on student achievement, although the
positive impact seemed to be indirect. Several themes emerged from the data. A positive impact
was made due to the board members being held accountable to the communities that they served.
Board members agreed that they had to be visible in the community and that they had to present
themselves in a professional manner in school board meetings in order to make a positive impact
in their communities.
The data also indicated that the positive impact by MIG-trained board members was
made through implementation of policy that affected students. Again, the concepts of roles and
responsibilities in the governance teams emerged as an important factor in making a positive
impact on student achievement. Board members stated that they needed to understand their role
and to work in collaboration with the superintendent to be able to make a positive impact on
student achievement.
The final theme that emerged was that of indirect impact on student achievement. The
data indicated that participants agreed that the impact on student achievement was made through
policy making and accountability to the community. However, they also agreed that they were
not directly responsible for raising test scores or hiring qualified teachers.
Chapter Summary
This chapter explored the impact of the MIG training through the lens of the research
questions. The data were collected through interviews and surveys of 186 board members and 62
superintendents from across California. The responses were triangulated against existing
61
research on school board governance and the interviews of three superintendents and nine school
board members. Analysis of the data revealed ways in which the MIG training encouraged and
equipped school board members to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance that were
identified by the CSBA (2007).
The analysis identified several important factors that influenced board members’
decisions to attend the MIG training. They agreed that it was important to understand their roles
and responsibilities and to build capacity in their roles. Accessibility to the MIG training was
also an important factor in the decision to attend the training. It was agreed that the MIG training
equipped governance teams to develop effective goal setting with a shared vision. This goal was
facilitated by establishing clear norms and protocols to ensure that the board members and the
superintendent worked collaboratively to meet the goals of the school district.
The data indicated that the participants agreed that the MIG training had an indirect
impact on student achievement. This indirect impact was influenced by a sense of accountability
to the communities that the board members served. The participants agreed that the positive
impact was made through development of policy, not through direct management of district
human resources or instructional practices.
62
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected performance indicators for
school districts. The researchers examined the benefit of the MIG training and its implications
for school board members’ ability to exhibit characteristics of effective governance. Moreover,
the purpose of this study was to examine the school board members’ and superintendents’
perceptions of the MIG training and its impact on school governance and student achievement.
The 20-member research team worked collaboratively to gather and analyze the data for
the study. The team collectively developed the statement of the problem and purpose of the
study. Surveys were emailed to 62 superintendents and 186 board members. Also, each
researcher in the cohort interviewed three superintendents and nine school board members. Three
research questions guided the study.
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement/growth?
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1
Analysis of the survey and interview data suggests that participants were motivated to
participate in the MIG training to enhance their ability to govern effectively as school board
members. Three themes emerged as factors that influenced participation in the MIG training.
63
First, school board members stated that they wanted clarity in their roles and
responsibilities as elected officials. They were aware of the importance of their role in the
community in which they served and wanted to avoid common pitfalls of the role. Second, they
identified capacity building as a key factor in participating in the MIG training. They identified
the importance of working as a unit as school board members. They agreed that building trust
among board members and working toward a collaborative goal was critical in effective
governance. Third, participants identified accessibility to the MIG training as a factor that
contributed to their participation. It was suggested that offering training sessions in the
geographic location of the school board members was optimal and an important factor in
increasing participation.
Data indicated that 73% of the board members surveyed stated that their decision to
participate in the MIG training was self-motivated. Board members were aware of the
importance of their role and wanted to be as prepared as possible and to avoid pitfalls in their
role as board members. Moreover, they stated that they were aware of the importance of the
decision-making process and its alignment with the school district’s vision. More than half
(58%) of the surveyed board members strongly agreed that, as a result of the MIG training, they
had a clearer understanding of the importance of aligning the decision-making process with the
district’s vision and goals.
Research Question 2
The CSBA identified five major responsibilities of the school board. This list was meant
to provide a guideline of “core decision-making” responsibilities of school boards (Campbell &
Greene, 1994, p. 392). Analysis of survey and interview data suggests that participants agreed
64
that the MIG training encourages and equips board members to exhibit behaviors of effective
school governance in a variety of ways. Three themes emerged from analysis of the data.
First, participants identified goal setting as a significant behavior in effective school
board governance. They agreed that the MIG training improved the relationship between the
board members and the superintendent, which allowed the governing board to know their role
and how best to work with the superintendent. Second, participants stated that the MIG training
encouraged them to work collaboratively toward a shared vision for the school district. They
mentioned that the MIG training allowed board members to identify that they were working with
the superintendent as part of a unit and that no one member had ultimate control over the school
district. Third, the data indicated that the MIG training provided clarity regarding norms and
protocols and their importance in governing a school district effectively. Analysis of the data
indicated that board members valued the professional relationships that were developed through
the training.
The data indicated that 92% of the school board members understood the importance of
the decision-making process being aligned with the district’s vision. These findings suggest that
school board members who are trained in MIG are equipped with skills to work collaboratively
with the superintendent to meet the goals of the district. The data suggest that board members
valued the professional relationships that were developed through the training. These
relationships fostered development of norms and protocols that supported a shared vision
between board members and the superintendent. Once the board members were MIG trained,
they understood their role in goal setting and team building to accomplish the goals of a shared
vision.
65
Research Question 3
School board members and superintendents are entrusted to work in the best interest of
the communities that they serve. Anderson (1992) explained that superintendents and school
board presidents feel that school board members do not understand their role and should move
away from special interests and toward a trustee role. Analysis of the survey and interview data
suggests that the MIG training has an impact on student achievement through three emerging
themes.
First, the data indicated that school board members considered themselves to be
accountable to the communities that they serve and should work in the interest of student
achievement. They mentioned that the MIG training had refocused them to work toward the goal
of improving the district through effective governance. Second, the data indicated that school
board members must focus on policy as their primary to improve student achievement. The data
indicated that MIG-trained board members understood their role in governing policy and agreed
that they should allow the superintendent to manage the logistics of the school district. Third, the
MIG training had an indirect impact on student achievement. The survey and interview data
indicated that most participants agreed that the impact on student achievement was indirect, since
board members do not deal with the everyday monitoring of instruction at school sites. They also
indicated that they did not become involved in human resources issues in their districts.
A significant finding was that 87% (n = 54) of the superintendents and 71% (n = 128) of
the board members agreed or strongly agreed that the MIG training had a positive impact on
student achievement. This suggests an indirect, yet significant, impact on student achievement by
MIG-trained board members. The MIG training seems to guide school board members to
develop strategic plans to develop policy as the most impactful strategy for improving student
66
achievement. The data also suggest that the collaborative teamwork that is developed in the MIG
training strengthens the effectiveness of school boards to work toward common goals with the
superintendent.
Limitations
This study was limited to participants who volunteered and met the criteria to participate.
The study was also limited to the time allotted to complete it. The study was limited to school
districts in California. The study was limited to responses to survey questions regarding school
board training. All interviews were conducted via video calls due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
which limited access to participants. The study took place during the height of the pandemic,
which involved logistical difficulties because many districts were closed due to statewide stay-at-
home orders. Superintendents and board members were accessible on a limited basis and
scheduling of virtual meetings posed some challenges.
Delimitations
Participants were chosen based on specific criteria. Participation was delimited to board
members or superintendents who had completed at least three of the five modules of the MIG
training. Participation was delimited to districts in Los Angeles County, Orange County, San
Diego County, Riverside County, Alameda County, Nevada County, San Bernardino County,
Marin County, Santa Barbara County, Santa Clara County and Ventura County. Participation
was delimited to school board members and superintendents who were able to schedule a virtual
interview via Zoom or Google Meet and who completed the online survey through Qualtrics.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study have implications for school board members in several important
areas. MIG-trained school board members reported that they were more equipped to govern
67
effectively through clear identification of roles and responsibilities. The data also suggest that the
MIG training builds capacity in board members in several areas. Essentially, board members are
more focused on their specific roles and are equipped with tools to govern effectively.
School board members who are MIG trained seem to exhibit goal-setting behaviors that
allow them to work more effectively and collaboratively with district superintendents.
Participants suggested that understanding the importance of aligning their roles to the goals of
the school district was imperative in governing effectively. The data suggest that the MIG
training equips participants with perspectives and skills to work collaboratively with school
board members and the superintendent. This implication is important to address in view of often
conflicting agendas of school board members as elected officials in their communities. The MIG
training seems to equip school board members with skills to focus on the unit instead of on
individual board members.
The data suggest that MIG-trained school board members exert an impact on student
achievement and growth in an indirect manner. However, it was agreed that the MIG training
equips school board members to focus on district policy that will improve student achievement.
This implication is important, as it aligns the efforts of the school board to improve student
achievement through goal setting and board policy implementation.
Recommendations for Future Study
This collaborative study identified several findings that support implementation of MIG
training for school board members in California. However, some areas of study should be
explored in more detail to develop a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the MIG training
on effective governance of school districts. Based on the findings of this study, the researcher
makes the following recommendations for future study.
68
First, future research could include participants who have not attended any MIG training
modules. This could allow for better understanding of the perspectives of participants who are
willing to serve their communities but do not have formal training on the characteristics of
effective school board governance. Participants who have not received MIG training may be able
to provide a comprehensive perspective on the perceived roles of school board governance.
Second, additional research could include school boards across the country. This study
was limited to California. The literature suggests that other states have school board training
programs that may yield positive results for school districts. Expanding the participating states
could provide perspective on school board training programs other than the MIG training offered
by the CSBA. Further research would benefit from exploring other successful school board
training programs.
Third, research could focus on specific components of the MIG training that were
identified as impactful for school board members. Specifically, the modules focusing on roles
and responsibilities were identified as important to most participants. It could be beneficial to
identify the specific roles and responsibilities that were the focus of that training. It could also be
important to identify specific behaviors that were exhibited by school board members after the
training. Future research on the module on policy and judicial review could benefit the body of
work by providing insight into the skills that are gained in developing policy in school districts.
The data suggest that development of school board policy has the most significant impact on
student achievement.
Fourth, future research could include inquiry on the motivation for school board members
to seek public office. This could provide insight into the disposition of board members to work
collaboratively with the superintendent. There seems to be evidence of conflicts in school boards
69
due to conflicting agendas presented by board members. Future research could focus on the
training that school board member candidates have as they prepare to seek office.
Conclusion
The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of
informed decision making that influence the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and committed to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. As the study
results suggest, school board members who are MIG trained have a clearer understanding of their
roles and responsibilities as elected officials. MIG-trained board members are also better
equipped to set goals and work collaboratively with school superintendents. The MIG training
offered by the CSBA equips school board members with skills that are necessary to improve
student achievement through development of policies that are aligned with the instructional
needs of the school district in which they serve. It is imperative to continue to provide
professional learning opportunities for school board members to ensure continued student growth
and success.
70
References
Alsbury, T. L. (2008). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 7(2), 202-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701748428
Anderson, C. G. (1992). Behaviors of most effective and least effective school board members.
ERS Spectrum, 10(3), 15-18.
Bainbridge, W., & Thomas, M. D. (2002). Boards of education: The need for effective
leadership. Journal of the Agency for Instructional Technology, 11(4), 1–3.
Bianchi, B. A. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast, 1(3), 1–4.
http://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/forecast%20pdf/forecast1003.pdf
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bracey, G. W., & Resnick, M. A. (1998). Raising the bar: A school board primer on student
achievement. National School Boards Association.
Brenner, C. T., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school boards:
Linking local governance with student academic success. University of Texas at El Paso,
Institute for Policy and Economic Development.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. (n.d.). California testing overview.
http://www.caaspp.org/administration/about/testing/index.html
California Department of Education. (2020a). About DataQuest. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/
cb/dataquest.asp
California Department of Education. (2020b). California Assessment of Student Performance
and Progress (CAASPP). http://www.caaspp.org/administration/about/testing/index.html
71
California Department of Education. (2020c). Local Control Accountability Plan.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
California Department of Education. (2020d). 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. (2019). CSBA professional governance standards for
school boards.
https://www.csba.org//media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/ProfessionalGovernance
Standards/CSBA_PGS_Brochure.ashx?la=en&rev=5fc78a303c5b45c4a6d89d519f991e5
6
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 391–395.
Dahlkemper, L. (2005). Making the grade: School board members navigate education
challenges. SEDL Letter, 17(2).
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v17n02/school-board.html
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local school
boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 67–73.
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership
in the improvement of student achievement. In T. L. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school
board governance: Relevance and revelation (pp. 191–223). Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
72
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.
Fusarelli, B. C. (2006). School board and superintendent relations: Issues of continuity, conflict,
and community. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9(1), 44–57.
Gemberling, K. W., Smith, C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key work of school boards
guidebook. National School Boards Association.
Goldhammer, K. (1964). The school board. Center for Applied Research in Education.
Grissom, J. A. (2007). Who sits on school boards in California? Institute for Research on
Education Policy & Practice.
Grissom, J. A. (2010). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations:
The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 20(3), 601–627. 10.1093/jopart/mup043
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. Urban
Education, n.v., 17–19.
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of
district governance. National School Boards Association.
Hess, F. M., & Meeks, O. (2010). School boards circa 2010: Governance in the accountability
era. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Hopkins, M., O’Neil, D., & Williams, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence and board governance:
Leadership lessons from the public sector. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 683–
700.
Kirst, M. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 378-
381.
73
Kolb, R. F., & Strauss, R. P. (1999). State laws governing school board ethics.
ftp://amusing.mit.edu/afs/andrew/supa/wpapers/1999-8.pdf
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72, 229–278.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543072002229
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
Loeb, S., & Miller, L. (2007). A review of state teacher policies: What are they, what are their
effects, and what are their implications for school finance?
http://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Loeb_Miller.pdf
McAdams, D. R. (2003). Training your board to lead. School Administrator, 60(10), 7–9.
Morehouse, W. (2001). Training for my board colleagues? You bet. School Administrator, 58(2),
68-70.
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 34–70. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X0426884
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform.
https://www.edreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/A_Nation_At_Risk_1983.pdf
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Petronis, J., Hall, R. F., & Pierson, M. E. (1996). Mandatory school board training. An idea
whose time has come. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED400625.pdf
74
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. (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 at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453172.pdf
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management,
25(7), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
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.
Timar, T. B. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Peabody
Journal of Education, 78(4), 177-200. http://www.mikemcmahon.info/AccountabilityCA
.pdf
Usdan, M. D. (2010). School boards: A neglected institution in an era of school reform. Phi
Delta Kappan, 91(6), 8-10.
75
Wallace Foundation. (2003). Effective superintendents, effective boards: Finding the right fit.
https://www.ewa.org/reporter-guide/effective-superintendents-effective-boards
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement (Working Paper).
http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/leadershiporganizationdevelopment/4005RR_Superintendent_l
eadership.pdf
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan Publishing.
Zeibarth, T. (2002). The roles and responsibilities of school boards and superintendents: A state
policy framework. Education Commission of the States.
76
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 also be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom™
interview at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded with your
permission and 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
77
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 also be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute
virtual Zoom™ interview at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio
recorded with your permission and 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
78
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your chances of participation?
(check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced my
participation in the MIG training was . . . ( check
all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Unable to determine
❏ Other
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
As a result of MIG training, my focus is on
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
8
As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek
community input through a variety of methods
(email, town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
79
❏ 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
80
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data
consistently to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
As a result of the MIG training, my ability to
accept the majority decision constructively, even
if I hold the minority view, has improved.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board
members could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
Attending MIG training has positively impacted
student achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
81
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
82
8
School board members who are MIG certified
actively engage the community and utilize a
variety of communication methods (email, town
hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
School board members who are MIG trained
understand the importance of aligning the
decision-making process with the district’s vision
and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
School board members who are MIG trained
exhibit a clearer understanding of the difference
between their roles and responsibilities and those
of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
school board members.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
83
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the school governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data consistently
to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
The MIG training has improved school board
members’ ability to accept the majority decision,
even when they hold the minority view.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members
could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
MIG training has positively impacted student
achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
84
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?
85
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?
86
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: _______________________________________________________________________
87
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument RQ 1
What factors impact
the decision of school
board members to
participate in the MIG
training program?
RQ 2
How does the MIG
training program
encourage and equip
school board
members to exhibit
the behaviors of
effective school
governance?
RQ 3
Does MIG training
have an impact on
student achievement
and growth?
School Board
Member Survey
1-6 7-16,18-19 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
Superintendent
Survey
1-6 7-14 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
School Board
Member Interview
Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Superintendent
Interview Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study examined the impact of professional development for school board members based on best practices as stated in the literature and through interviews and surveys. The purpose of the study was to determine whether school board training improved the relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected performance indicators for school districts. The researchers examined the benefits of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance. Moreover, the study examined the school board members’ and superintendents’ perceptions of the MIG training and its impact on school governance and student achievement. This qualitative study collected data via surveys and interviews. The findings indicated that the MIG training program provided participants with a clear definition of roles and responsibilities. The findings also indicated that the MIG training had an indirect impact on student achievement. It is recommended that the MIG training be formatted in a way that increases access to board members and districts. Mandating school board training in California was seen as a way to increase effective governance in school districts.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
PDF
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
PDF
Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards
PDF
Impact of the Masters in governance training program on effective school board leadership and governance
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California school board governance
PDF
K−12 school board training in California
Asset Metadata
Creator
Montes, José Luis
(author)
Core Title
School board governance training and student achievement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/06/2021
Defense Date
01/29/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
board member,Education,Masters in governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board,Training
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy (
committee member
), Doll, Michelle (
committee member
)
Creator Email
monte_ja@hotmail.com,tbonepep@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-439410
Unique identifier
UC11668575
Identifier
etd-MontesJose-9405.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-439410 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-MontesJose-9405.pdf
Dmrecord
439410
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Montes, José Luis
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
board member
Masters in governance
school board
Training