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
/
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
(USC Thesis Other)
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
The Impact of Masters in Governance Training on School Boards
in California
by
Stephanie Ann Kearns
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 Stephanie Ann Kearns 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Stephanie Ann Kearns certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Rudy M. Castruita
Michele Taney Doll
Michael F. Escalante
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the perception of school board members concerning
the impact and benefit of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training offered by the California
School Boards Association (CSBA). This study applied 3 theoretical frameworks—Lee Bolman
and Terrence Deal’s 4 frames of leadership, the Lighthouse Inquiry study conducted by the Iowa
Association of School Boards, and the CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards—to examine
the perceptions of superintendents and school board members regarding the MIG training
program and school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance,
including its impact on student achievement. This research included data collected, both individu-
ally and collectively, by the research team. Each researcher identified 3 school districts and then
interviewed and surveyed at least 2 board members and their corresponding superintendent from
the total participant pool of 62 districts, including 186 board members and 62 superintendents.
The data discussed and analyzed answer 3 research questions: (a) what factors impacted the
decision of school board members to participate in the MIG training program, (b) how the MIG
training program encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective school governance, and (c) whether MIG training had an impact on student achievement
and growth. The findings demonstrated the importance of the participants’ professional develop-
ment through the MIG program and suggested an added value to the governance team’s service.
Motivating factors for participation in training focused on participants’ eagerness to impact their
district, the supportive culture of service, and developing as a school leader based on a desire to
learn and understand board members’ roles and duties. Participants expressed the importance that
the MIG training had had on maintaining effective board function, which primarily supported
increased student achievement.
iv
Dedication
To my husband Matt, whose unwavering support, unconditional love, and encouragement have
enabled me to follow my dreams.
To my children, my pride and joy: Cody and Justin. May they choose a path of excellence,
lifelong learning, and continue to challenge themselves to be the very best that they can be.
To my parents, Russ and Lavonne, for their support and encouragement and for teaching me the
value of hard work and perseverance.
v
Acknowledgments
I want to acknowledge the professional expertise and academic and personal support of
those who aided me throughout USC’s doctoral program. I thank Dr. Richard Sheehan, Dr. Eliz-
abeth Eminhizer, Dr. Jonathan Blackmore, Dr. Michele Doll, Dr. Andrea Katanic, Dr. Roy
Umana, and Dr. Matt Dalton for their ongoing assistance and encouragement throughout my
doctoral journey.
I thank Dr. Michael Escalante, my dissertation chair, for his invaluable advice, encourage-
ment, and support. He provided the guidance necessary to navigate the dissertation experience
and process, and for this I am very appreciative. Additionally, I thank him for his leadership and
mentorship and for sharing his wealth of knowledge and expertise. It was an honor to work with
him on this endeavor.
I want to express my most profound appreciation to my dissertation committee—Dr.
David Cash, Dr. Richard Sheehan, and Dr. Michele Doll—for their invaluable insights, advice,
encouragement, and support. I also thank the members of the Rossier School of Education; my
goal would not have been achievable without their dedication, commitment, and passion to and
for the field of education.
Thank you to my dissertation editor, Phyllis Parmet, for her assistance and advice.
I acknowledge and thank my Executive Cohort members; their professional and wise
counsel motivated and inspired me during this 3-year journey. An extra thank you goes to my
cohort colleagues from Covina-Valley—Ryan Parry, Julie Harrison, and Benson Kwok—for
being trusted friends and for motivating me to continue throughout this adventure. Many thanks
for always being there for me. I am grateful to have gone through this process together with a
vi
long-time friend, Ryan Parry. Without his support, perspective, advice, and friendship, I could not
have done this.
I would like to thank my extended family and friends. Their support has provided me with
love and strength, which have been instrumental in helping me to accomplish my goals.
This dissertation would not have been possible without my family’s patience and support.
They have made myriad sacrifices, great and small, to help me to achieve this goal; and for this I
am incredibly thankful.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract iv
Dedication vi
Acknowledgments vii
List of Tables xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 4
Research Questions 5
Importance of the Study 5
Limitations of the Study 6
Delimitations of the Study 6
Assumptions 7
Definitions of Terms 7
Organization of the Study 8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 10
History of School Boards 10
Roles and Responsibilities of School Board Members 12
Setting the Direction for the Community’s Schools 13
Establishing an Effective and Efficient Structure for the School District 13
Creating a Supportive Environment 14
Demonstrating Community Leadership 15
History of the Superintendency 15
Teacher-Scholar 17
Manager 17
Democratic Leader 18
Applied Social Scientist 18
Effective Communicator 19
Roles and Responsibilities of Superintendents 19
Board of Education Liaison 20
Establishing Vision and Goals 20
Managing Finances 21
Instructional Leader 21
Managing Daily Operations 21
Lobbying for the District 22
School Board–Superintendent Relationships 22
Key Principles For Positive Board–Superintendent Relations 23
Elements of Positive Working Relationships 25
Accountability 26
School Board’s Accountability to Community 27
School Board’s Accountability to Superintendents and Teachers 28
School Board’s Accountability to Federal and State Mandates 28
viii
Student Achievement 29
School Board Training 31
CSBA’s MIG Training 32
Importance of Training School Board Members 33
Impact of MIG Training 34
Results of MIG Training 34
Theoretical Frameworks 35
The Lighthouse Inquiry 35
Bolman and Deal: Four Frames 37
CSBA 39
Chapter Summary 39
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 41
Research Questions 41
Research Design 42
Sample Population and Participants 43
Instrumentation 44
Data Collection 46
Data Analysis 47
Ethical Considerations 48
Chapter Summary 48
Chapter Four: Results 58
Participants and School Districts 51
District A 52
District B 53
District C 54
Results Reported by Research Question 55
Research Question 1 66
Research Question 2 70
Research Question 3 84
Chapter Summary 92
Chapter Five: Discussion 94
Purpose of the Study Restated 94
Summary of Findings 96
Research Question 1 96
Research Question 2 97
Research Question 3 98
Implications 99
Recommendations for Future Study 100
Recommendations for Future Policy 101
Conclusion 101
References 101
ix
Appendices
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails 112
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey 114
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey 116
Appendix D: Interview Guide: School Board Members 118
Appendix E: Interview Guide: Superintendents 119
Appendix F: Informed Consent 120
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix 122
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participants 51
Table 2: Summary of Pseudonyms Used in Study 53
Table 3: Participants’ Responses Regarding Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School
Board Members to Participate in the Masters in Governance Training 58
Table 4: Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the Masters in
Governance Program Would Increase Chances of Participation 58
Table 5: Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Their School Board
Culture Encouraged Participation in Masters in Governance Training 61
Table 6: Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Masters in
Governance Training Should Be Encouraged for School Governance Teams by
the Local District Policy 65
Table 7: Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Masters in
Governance Training Should Be Encouraged for School Governance Teams by
the Local District Policy 65
Table 8: Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Should Be
Mandated in California 66
Table 9: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Were
Masters in Governance Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the
Difference Between Their Roles and Responsibilities and Those of Their
Superintendent (N = 62) 70
Table 10: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance
Training Clarified the Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of
a School Board Member and Those of the Superintendent (N = 180) 70
Table 11: Superintendents’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in Order
of Importance to Their Roles as a Member of the Governance Team (N = 62) 71
Table 12: School Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules
in Oder of Importance to Their Role as a Member of the Governance Team (N
= 180) 71
Table 13: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training
Impacted Their Ability to Govern Effectively 75
xi
Table 14: Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Members Who
Were Masters in Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning
the Decision-Making Process With the District’s Vision and Goals (N = 62) 75
Table 15: School Board Members’ Responses Regarding Whether Board Members Who
Were Masters in Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning
the Decision-Making Process With the District’s Vision and Goals (N = 180) 76
Table 16: Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Helped
School Board Members to Differentiate Among Policy, Leadership, and
Management 77
Table 17: Participants’ Responses Regarding Recommending Masters in Governance
Training to School Governance Teams 81
Table 18: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether It Was Important to Attend
Masters in Governance Training With Their Superintendent (N = 180) 81
Table 19: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether It Is Important to Attend Masters in
Governance Training With Their School Board Members (N = 62) 82
Table 20: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training
Had Improved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the
Majority Decision, Even When They Held the Minority View (N = 62) 82
Table 21: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance
Training Had Improved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept
the Majority Decision, Even When They Held the Minority View (N = 180) 83
Table 22: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether, as a Result of Masters in
Governance Training, They Encouraged Governance Team Members to
Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions Regarding Student
Achievement 90
Table 23: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in Governance
Training Had Positively Impacted Student Achievement in Their District 90
Table 24: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Had
Earned Masters in Governance Certification Demonstrated an Increased Focus
on Student Achievement (N = 62) 90
Table 25: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in
Governance Training, Their Focus Was on Student Achievement (N = 180) 90
xii
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
School board members are elected officials, and with this position comes great power and
great responsibility as well. In the era of school accountability, school boards deal with more
complex issues regarding student achievement, school improvement, and allocation of resources
towards closing the achievement gap (California School Boards Association [CSBA], 2007).
Providing training for school board members builds their capacity to understand education and
their role as board members and to increase the efficacy of individual members and districts. The
CSBA (2018c) has developed an optional training program for school board members to address
the need for school board training: the Masters in Governance program (MIG).
This study looked specifically at school board members in California, for whom training
is offered but not mandated (CSBA, 2007). The study explored the importance of school board
professional development or training through a qualitative approach that examined the percep-
tions of school board members, and superintendents about the MIG training program and its
impact on school governance and student achievement in California school districts.
From 1998 to 2000, the Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB) researched the pos-
sible effect of school boards on student achievement (Rice et al., 2001). By examining districts
that were similar demographically but with different student achievement data, a link was found
between school board leadership and district achievement. The IASB followed this initial work
with Lighthouse II, 2002–2007. Delagardelle (2008) demonstrated strong links between student
success and the following board practices: clear expectations; commitment to improvement,
accountability, and use of data; collective will; and professional development of the school board.
In the human resources framework, according to Bolman and Deal (2017), companies
invest in the professional development consisting of both academic and on-the-job training to
2
increase the efficacy of the organization through the empowerment of individual employees.
Since the era of No Child Left Behind (2002) and from the start of the accountability era, districts
have been held accountable to show continuous improvement in student achievement as
measured by standardized tests. Professional development training in districts commonly includes
teachers, superintendents, administrators, and many other professionals within school districts.
One important group that typically receives less professional development is the school board,
despite the critical role it plays in the governance of public schools. School board training that is
geared toward helping board members understand their role in increasing student achievement
and helps develop the skills necessary to examine student achievement more closely is considered
vital (Delagardelle, 2008).
Background of the Problem
There has been little change to the fundamental purpose of the school board from its
beginnings. However, increased responsibilities in finance, student achievement, and mandates
from state and national levels are impacting school governance more than ever before. Higher
standards and greater accountability are prominent issues in education policy today. With the
changing educational landscape, there is a continued need to train board members on new stan-
dards, assessments, regulations, and legislation that can affect their work. Trained and informed
board members can more effectively make decisions and manage the challenges and opportuni-
ties faced by public schools and supporting public education for all children (Dillon, 2010;
Plough, 2014; Rice et al., 2000; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). School board members make
decisions that have a long-term impact on their students, schools, and communities. Board
members have a variety of responsibilities during their terms of governance. They set budgets,
establish school policies, make long-range plans, and assess data to determine school
3
performance (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). In order for school board members to have the neces-
sary knowledge to successfully and effectively serve their communities, board members should
undergo training and development.
While some states require school board members to receive training, most do not.
Twenty-four states have acknowledged the significance of board members and are mandating
school board training (Alsbury, 2008b). While California board members do have access to
training through the CSBA (2007, 2018c) and its MIG program, it is not a state mandate. School
boards may also implement a policy requiring board members to meet specific criteria for train-
ing, but this is not carried out in every district. Many districts find themselves in a position where
school board training is not required by either state legislation or school board policy; however,
Morehouse (2001) has argued that training should be mandatory for all school board members.
The literature suggests that training is vital in influencing a board member’s ability to serve the
needs of all students adequately and that training is critical to the progress and success of the
school board and the community (Canal, 2013; Dillon, 2010; Gomez, 2013; Roberts & Sampson,
2011). The 2006 Michigan Association of School Boards survey (as cited in Dillon, 2010) found
that 76% of school board members felt that school board development is necessary and that there
is more confidence in boards whose members receive training. A majority of participants
believed that formal professional development instruction for board members was essential.
Board member training is about providing school board members with the information
and support needed to serve their district best. Researchers (Plough, 2014; Roberts & Sampson,
2011) have concluded from their studies that while most states do not have a mandatory profes-
sional development program for school board members, professional development is essential if
school districts are to improve their effectiveness and student performance. The decisions made
4
by school board members are long term and have a significant impact. Education is a field that is
complex, challenging, and ever changing. School board member training and development keep
board members abreast of issues while developing members’ skills to contribute to the progress
and success of the school district (Dillon, 2010). Without school board member training, board
members may not be equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively and suc-
cessfully govern their school districts. In the absence of school board training, the acquisition of
crucial leadership skills, capabilities, and practices to best serve the public and effectively affect
education and student outcomes is left to chance.
Statement of the Problem
The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of the
informed decision making that influences the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance,
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relationships.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
5
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?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Importance of the Study
A school board has an integral influence on learning and student achievement through its
governance. This is a mighty responsibility and, unfortunately, educational research on school
boards is limited. Narrowly focused work related to school boards has been done on such topics
as the role of school boards and their perceptions of the impact of their relationship with the
superintendent. However, these types of studies fail to address the perceptions and impact of
school board members—specifically, those related to their practice and efforts toward student
achievement and growth because of members’ MIG training. The study relied on the perceptions
of school board members and superintendents regarding their training and ongoing professional
development and the impact on governance and student achievement.
A school board is tasked with ensuring that school children in the community succeed.
While many studies have examined the motivations of service for school board members, few
have considered the training needs of board members; thus, this study might help to fill a gap in
the research literature. Traditionally, the effectiveness of a school board is measured by its
6
internal and public interactions or by its relationship with the superintendent. However, in the age
of accountability, there is a greater emphasis on gauging the effectiveness of school districts and
boards by increasing students’ levels of success on standardized testing (Delagardelle, 2008).
Limitations
The data collected were self-reported by participants; thus, the survey and interview
responses were subjective and reflected personal perceptions and viewpoints. The accuracy of
data collected from school board members was contingent upon their honesty and limited to the
recollections of their experiences during training. The results of the study were limited to the
number of participants in the study, including the number of board members and superintendents
who returned the survey and agreed to participate in the interview process. Although recruitment
efforts were made to increase participation rates, not all of the targeted population participated in
the study. Further, the short time frame of the study also limited participation rates.
In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, schools and districts were forced to close; social
distancing guidelines were put in place; and stay-at-home orders created limits to collecting data,
conducting interviews, and having access to complete the team’s research. Due to this crisis, the
research team conducted virtual interviews via Zoom Video Communications.
Delimitations
The ability of this study to be generalized to other populations was limited by factors
imposed by the research team. Only public elementary, secondary, and unified school districts
were be considered for this study. Only school board members who had participated in MIG
training courses provided by the CSBA were considered; other training was not considered for
this study. Individuals in nonmajority, CSBA-trained school districts were not interviewed. Also,
before the study, no consideration was given to a district’s academic achievement. Because the
7
MIG program is offered solely in California, the findings of this study cannot be generalized
throughout the country.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made regarding the findings of the study:
1. That a qualitative approach was appropriate for the study,
2. That the instruments were valid and reliable,
3. That the participants would be honest in their responses in both the surveys and the
interviews,
4. That school boards have a direct governance impact on their districts,
5. That training for board members would positively influence board governance,
6. That training for board members would improve the effectiveness of the board, and
7. That training for board members would improve school board–superintendent relation-
ships.
Definitions of Terms
For this study, the following terms are defined:
CSBA: An organization entrusted with the responsibility to provide guidance, resources,
and training for school board members throughout California (CSBA, 2007)
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through the
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000).
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
8
opportunity for LEAs [local education agencies] to share their stories of how, what, and
why programs and services are selected to meet their local needs. (California Department
of Education [CDE], 2020b, LCAP Overview section, para. 1)
Mandate: An official order or commission to do something.
MIG: A training program sponsored by the CSBA (2018c) 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 to maintain a
focus on student learning.
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 district: Synonym for LEA; a public organization tasked with operating public
schools and serving students within a designated geographic area.
Student achievement: The performance by student on the annual summative assessment
given by the state of California.
Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district with
oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter One has provided an introduction
to the study through an overview of the problem. It also contains the statement of the problem,
the purpose of the study, research questions, the study’s importance, limitations and delimitations
of the study, the assumptions, and definitions of the study’s key terms. Relevant literature to the
purpose of the study is discussed in Chapter Two. The methods used in the study are then
described in Chapter Three. The results are presented and discussed in Chapter Four. Finally,
9
Chapter Five outlines the main conclusions and identifies both limitations to the study and
recommendations for further research.
10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
There has been substantial research on school board training, identifying characteristics of
effective boards, and the impact of training on improving the overall effectiveness of school
boards. While these previous studies offer valuable insight, they provide only a partial under-
standing of the influence of school board training. A limited body of research exists regarding the
correlation of school board training and its impact on student achievement. The goal of this liter-
ature review is to summarize the history of school boards and the superintendency, the roles and
responsibilities of school board members and superintendents, school board–superintendent
relationships, accountability, school board training, and theoretical frameworks; Bolman and
Deal’s four-frame model for effective leadership; the CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance
Standards; and the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000).
History of School Boards
The American board of education originated in 1647, with the formation of the first
American public school system. The Massachusetts Law of 1647 established that every town of at
least 50 families could hire a schoolmaster who would teach the town’s children and that all
towns of at least 100 families should have a Latin grammar schoolmaster who would prepare
students to attend Harvard College. Massachusetts ordered each town in the state to create its
organization of governance that supervised public education (Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). A
committee of Massachusetts townspeople organized to oversee its public schools, and subse-
quently a governance board was created (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). School boards were established to
make educational decisions in the school system while maintaining local control of schools.
The U.S. Constitution reserves educational authority to the hands of the states, according to the
Tenth Amendment (1789), and most states passed this authority to local school boards. As the
11
population continued to grow, local taxes were utilized to fund and establish new schools and
school districts (Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). By the late 1800s, members of local school
boards were being elected by their wards or communities and became involved in the politics of
those communities (Land, 2002). Although governance structures varied, the initial members of
these early local school boards maintained the majority of control over their schools (Land,
2002). Disparities, however, in community demographics led to inequities in educational oppor-
tunities for students. The response in the late 1800s was the election of elite professionals and
businessmen to improve and sustain equitable local educational governance systems (Land, 2002;
Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Progressive reformers of the 20th century wanted to make school systems more efficient.
Educational governance went through a major change in the 1900s specific to school board
composition and roles. The reform centered around creating smaller local school boards, elec-
tions, and separating from general governance and political influence (Alsbury, 2008a; Danz-
berger, 1994; Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). During this era, school boards were
reduced in size, thus eliminating the power of ward bosses. The members of the school board
were now elected at large, consequently reducing the influence of interest groups and political
parties. This shift centralized local educational governance by providing a central board for
individual districts with a professional superintendent as the chief executive officer (Kirst, 1994;
Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). This structure of separate education governance set the frame-
work for the current structure of governance of public schools by local school boards today
(Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002).
School boards were created to give communities and towns oversight and power for the
educational direction of a community. When they were created, the position was considered low
12
conflict and low profile (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Today, locally elected or appointed citizens con-
tinue to define the demographic composition of local school boards (CSBA, 2007; Land, 2002;
Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Boards have evolved into small political systems comprised of members of
the community that balance the needs of the constituents and the requirements of public educa-
tion dictated by the state within which they reside. Board members hold uncertain positions that
can change based upon the desires of the citizens of their voting districts (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
In California, there are close to 1,000 school districts and county offices of education that
are governed by more than 5,000 school board members (CSBA, 2018a). School board candi-
dates may be either elected or appointed to a governing board of a school district by meeting the
minimal mandated eligibility requirements (CSBA, 2007). The majority of school board members
are selected by the public through city or district-wide elections to serve a 4-year term
(Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). Depending on the school district, school boards may have three,
five, or seven members (CSBA, 2007). It is not uncommon for suburban school districts with
smaller student populations to have three board members and for larger suburban school districts
to have seven or more members (CSBA, 2007; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002).
Roles and Responsibilities of School Board Members
A school board functions locally under the state’s delegation of power and the geograph-
ical boundaries of the district. A school board is a legal agency of the state and derives its power
from the state’s constitution, laws, and judicial decisions (Briffault, 2005). By state legislative
law, school boards are delegated authority to develop policies, rules, and regulations to control
the operation of the schools (Briffault, 2005). The main responsibilities of the board are to set a
direction for the district, provide a structure by establishing policies, ensure accountability, and
provide community leadership on behalf of the district and public education. School boards are
13
either appointed or elected to guide school systems as a team, not as individuals (Carol et al.,
1986; Danzberger, 1992). Over time, effective school board members build a consensus and are
better able to work together to make reliable decisions, which are essential for them to exercise
their authority (Land, 2002). State laws and local policies make it clear that the board members
should focus on leadership and governance that creates the foundation for students’ academic
achievement (Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002). To fulfill these responsibilities, there are several
specific jobs that effective boards must carry out (CSBA, 2018b).
Setting the Direction for the Community’s Schools
The school board represents the community, parents, and students when developing a
shared vision for the district. Vision means having a clear ability to see and create a future educa-
tion system and taking the necessary governance steps to get there. The entire school board along
with the superintendent discuss district priorities and focus areas for both short-term and long-
term success. The board works with the superintendent in setting a direction for the district,
ensuring accountability, and providing community leadership and advocacy on behalf of students
and public education at the local, state, and federal levels. Communicating the vision to the entire
community is essential. The board supports the superintendent so that the vision, goals, and
policies of the district can be implemented (CSBA, 2018d; Land, 2002; Senge, 1990; Supovitz,
2006; Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002). Effective boards make sure that these goals remain the
district’s top priorities.
Establishing an Effective and Efficient Structure for the School District
School boards can play a critical role in fostering a coherent school district and initiatives
in order to stay focused on their essential goals and vision for student achievement (Rice et al.,
2000). School boards are not responsible for managing but embrace the responsibility to govern.
14
One of the primary duties of the board of education is to hire a superintendent for the district and
to set the policy for hiring other personnel (CSBA, 2018d). School boards conduct regular eval-
uations of the superintendent based on the vision, goals, and performance of the district and
ensure that the superintendent holds district personnel accountable for student learning and
achievement.
School boards adopt, evaluate, and update policies consistent with the law and the
district’s vision and goals (Campbell & Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Danzberger et al.,1987;
Ehrensal & First, 2008; Grissom, 2009; Hill et al., 2002; Hopkins et al., 2007; Johnson, 2011;
Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999). Policy is how a board exercises its power to serve students. Through
policy, school boards establish a set of guidelines to transform vision into reality. Powerful policy
aims to move the district forward on a steady path toward action by the administration, staff, and
the board itself.
Effective school boards are data savvy (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2019); they monitor data
and use it to drive continuous improvement (Rice et al., 2000). The Lighthouse I study (Rice et
al., 2000) showed that board members in high-achieving districts identified specific student needs
through data and justified their decisions based on that data. Effective use of data and a culture of
continuous improvement starts with board support in setting direction and investing resources
(Waters et al., 2003).
Creating a Supportive Environment
After establishing the structure, boards have a responsibility to support the superintendent
and staff as they carry out the direction of the board. All students and staff need a safe and sup-
portive school environment in order to succeed. No one, including the board, can dictate the
district’s culture; but school boards are in a unique position to identify, prioritize, and support
15
practices that can enhance a supportive environment. This position includes being professional
and modeling the district’s beliefs and vision, making decisions and providing resources that
support the district’s priorities and goals, upholding district policies, ensuring a positive climate,
and being knowledgeable enough about district initiatives to communicate them to the public
(CSBA, 2018d).
Demonstrating Community Leadership
Each school board is responsible to its community for governing and leading effectively
to provide for equitable education in an effort to raise student achievement. The school board
provides community leadership on educational issues and advocates on behalf of students and
public education at the local, state, and federal levels. Through community engagement, school
boards share their concerns and actions with the public. In a deliberate, ongoing way, effective
boards seek community involvement and commitment to public schools. Community leadership
that builds public support is vital to implement the board’s vision. Effective school boards have a
collaborative relationship with staff and the community and maintain effective communication to
remain aware of attitudes, opinions, desires, and ideas (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
History of the Superintendency
Throughout history, the superintendency has evolved in response to different expecta-
tions, constraints, and a heightened level of responsibility in a climate of accountability. Early
superintendents worked to prepare future school leaders who would be able to provide civic lead-
ership and scientific management and to establish business practices for the schools. Superinten-
dents needed to be current in their knowledge and skills in curriculum and instruction, teacher
preparation, staff training, and attending to the business of the school (Glass et al., 2000; Björk et
al., 2014). Establishing professional superintendents did not separate operational authority from
16
the board of education quickly (Glass et al., 2000). The role was first created during the late
1830s; by 1850, 13 large city school systems had employed a superintendent. The first district
superintendents were appointed in Buffalo, New York, and Louisville, Kentucky (Kowalski &
Brunner, 2011). By 1900, most city school districts had appointed a district administrator due to
the consolidation of rural school districts into larger ones, the creation of a state-mandated cur-
riculum, compulsory education laws, demands for financial accountability, and demands for
efficiency (Björk et al., 2014).
The immense social tension of the challenging 1960s and 1970s brought about significant
changes to American public schools. Policymakers had a stronger focus on the training and selec-
tion of superintendents, and community groups changed their expectations with respect to the role
of the superintendent. Superintendents came under fire, and many parents and board members
challenged the traditional role of “expert” because schools were not meeting community expecta-
tions (Glass et al., 2000). The superintendent became the most visible school figure and the target
of criticism.
During the reform era of the 1980s and 1990s, the policymaking duties of the district
switched back and forth between the superintendent and school board. During the standards
movement, the role of the superintendency shifted even further away from the district manager.
Bureaucracy, mandates, state and federal initiatives, and legislation created a different role for
superintendents (Glass et al., 2000). The “choice” movements across the United States, as well as
advocacy for more control at the local level, brought additional challenges to a superintendent’s
authority and policymaking (Glass et al., 2000).
Each era has been influential in the evolution of the superintendency. With each era has
come additional roles, and the superintendency has become more demanding and complex. Thus,
17
superintendents in the 21st century are required to be experts in the areas of leadership, pedagogy,
policymaking, school reform, federal and state accountability measures, finances, and politics.
Twenty-first-century superintendents also develop partnerships that can contribute financially and
politically toward the development of an educational system that supports student achievement
(Glass, 2010).
Teacher-Scholar
The original role of superintendent was that of a schoolmaster, head teacher, and clerk— a
role that evolved into master teacher and educator (Glass et al., 2000). This period was dominant
from approximately 1865 to 1910, when the earliest superintendents were master teachers (Calla-
han, 1966). The recognized duties were to train teachers and inspire them with high ideals
(Cuban, 1976). During the earliest development of the school system, teacher-scholars provided
the visionary leadership and planning necessary to produce academic gains at the school district
level (Björk et al., 2014). These early superintendents were master teachers, serving as educa-
tional and instructional leaders.
Manager
During the latter part of the 19th century, the role of the superintendent was characterized
by an infusion of industrial concepts of scientific management and efficiency into public educa-
tion (Björk et al., 2014). Debates centered on whether or not schools operated efficiently, at least
not in comparison to successful businesses. Adoption of scientific management begun in public
schools during the 1890s, and so did the role of superintendents as district business managers.
Business- dominated school boards assigned superintendents several management responsibilities
(e.g., budget development and administration, standardization of operation, personnel manage-
ment, facility management), thereby reconfiguring the role of superintendents as district business
18
managers (Björk et al., 2014). Several decades later, educators and policymakers compromised,
noting that effective administrators had to be both managers and instructional leaders. The effi-
ciency movement changed school supervision from the level of occupation to that of a profession.
Many superintendents were now planners and thinkers who designed programs for burgeoning
urban school systems and then evaluated the outcomes as a guide for their subsequent decision
making (Thomas & Moran, 1992).
Democratic Leader
During the depression of the 1930s, limited fiscal resources forced district superintendents
to engage more directly in political activity, especially concerning lobbying state legislatures to
secure financial support and engage communities and parents (Björk & Lindle, 2001; Björk et al.,
2014). The superintendent, as a “statesman,” obtained the position as a spokesman for education
(Kowalski & Brunner, 2011). Superintendents, in this era, needed knowledge and skills for com-
munity relations, collaborative decision making, and politics (Kowalski & Björk, 2005). Superin-
tendents were urged to work with the board to motivate policymakers, employees, and the
community to support their districts’ initiatives.
Applied Social Scientist
Starting in the 1950s, during the time of social activism, superintendents were portrayed
as applied social scientists and leaders in the field. They pushed to make school administration an
established academic discipline, and courses shifted away from the practical aspects of school
administration to those that reflected social science research and theory. As school districts grew,
school districts centralized control of all management with hierarchical bureaucracy and scientific
management (Glass et al., 2000). During this era, school superintendents were expected to be
aware of contextual issues and to apply scientific inquiry to identify and solve problems of
19
practice to ensure that schools were socially just, democratic, and productive (Björk et al., 2014).
Superintendents were expected to have the expertise necessary to deal with social and institu-
tional ills (Glass et al., 2000).
Effective Communicator
Superintendents’ communicator role was shaped by two conditions: the need to restruc-
ture school cultures and the need to access and use information promptly to identify and solve
problems of practice (Björk et al., 2014). The emergence of an information-based society during
the technology revolution of the 1970s heightened expectations for superintendents to master the
art of communication and to support the use of technology in learning, teaching, and administra-
tion (Glass et al., 2000). In the case of district superintendents, the role of the effective communi-
cator is framed by relatively new expectations that have become apparent since the early 1980s
(Kowalski, 2005). Examples include
engaging others in open political dialogue, facilitating the creation of shared visions,
building a positive school district image, gaining community support for change, provid-
ing an essential framework for information management, providing marketing programs,
and keeping the public informed about education. (Kowalski, 2004, p. 13)
Roles and Responsibilities of Superintendents
The superintendent position was introduced during the middle of the 19th century. Since
then, demographic, economic, social, political, and technological changes have accelerated in
America that influence how superintendents’ work is defined (Björk et al., 2014). The work of
superintendents has been historically characterized in the literature as consisting of five primary
roles: (a) teacher-scholar, (b) manager, (c) democratic leader, (d) applied social scientist, and (e)
communicator (Björk et al., 2014; Callahan, 1966; Kowalski & Björk, 2005; Kowalski &
20
Brunner, 2011). To be effective in their roles, superintendents need pertinent knowledge and the
skills of organizational change and development; ethics and morality; diversity and multicultural-
ism; educational pedagogy; staff development; educational philosophy; educational law; finance
and budgeting; facility development and maintenance; collective bargaining; public, community,
and human relations; politics; research; technology; communication; listening; public speaking;
and motivation (Björk et al., 2014; Callahan, 1966; Kowalski & Björk, 2005; Kowalski &
Brunner, 2011). With such heightened expectations for superintendents comes the acknowledg-
ment of how important the leadership role of the superintendent is to the success of a school
district (Björk et al., 2014; Kowalski & Björk, 2005). A superintendent serves as a multifaceted
chief executive officer (CEO) of the district and manages its day-to-day affairs. The role of a
school superintendent is broad and the responsibilities great (Edwards, 2007).
Board of Education Liaison
The superintendent is responsible for keeping the school board informed as well as
advising the board on education and policy matters (Weiss et al., 2014). Superintendents are
responsible for preparing the agendas for all school board meetings; and while they attend all
board meetings to make recommendations, they are not allowed to vote (Weiss et al., 2014).
Effective superintendents open lines of communication with board members concerning
programs, practices, and even problems of schools.
Establishing Vision and Goals
According to Waters and Marzano (2006), superintendents should involve all stake-
holders (including the school board) in the process of developing and setting goals and a shared
vision for the district. The superintendent sets goals that are rigorous and attainable and aligns
these goals with the district’s existing plans and initiatives. Effective superintendents maintain
21
high expectations for performance while committing the district to continuous improvement with
clear and non-negotiable priorities for all participants involved in this achievement.
Managing Finances
A primary role of any superintendent is to develop and maintain a healthy school budget,
which includes preparing district budgets for board review and adoption as well as leading long-
range planning activities. Superintendents assume responsibility for the overall financial planning
of the district by establishing and maintaining efficient procedures and adequate controls for all
expenditures of school funds under the adopted budget, subject to the direction and approval of
the board.
Instructional Leader
Effective superintendents accept leadership responsibility and accountability for imple-
menting the vision, goals, and policies of the district. Practices used by skillful superintendents to
fulfill key leadership responsibilities to support district goals for achievement and instruction
include providing oversight of instructional programs and student performance. Waters and
Marzano (2006) stressed the responsibility of the superintendent to monitor and evaluate the
implementation of the district instructional program, the impact of instruction on achievement,
and the impact of implementation. It is the responsibility of the superintendent to ensure that all
goals reflect the district’s core values, which support achievement rather than maintenance of the
status quo.
Managing Daily Operations
Superintendents supervise the administration and compliance with all federal, state, and
local constitutional and statutory laws, state regulations, and board policies. They determine the
internal organizational structure of the district and make daily decisions that impact the district.
22
Lobbying for the District
The superintendent represents the school district before the public and maintains public
relations to keep the community informed about the activities, needs, and successes of the district
(Kowalski, 2004). An effective superintendent builds relationships with all members of the com-
munity, including the parents of students, the business community, and those who live in the
community (Waters & Marzano, 2006). A superintendent also has to lobby on the district’s behalf
with respect to crucial political issues that will positively or negatively affect the district (Björk &
Lindle, 2001).
The traditional role of the superintendent has evolved in response to different expecta-
tions, constraints, and a heightened level of responsibility in today’s climate of accountability.
The evolution of the superintendency has affected the skill set necessary to be a highly successful
school leader (Kowalski, 2005).
School Board–Superintendent Relationships
The commitment to collective leadership, trust, and collaboration plays a role in how
superintendents and board members empower, serve, and inspire (Weiss et al., 2014). The height-
ened interest in school district leadership comes at a time when demands on local school leaders,
including superintendents and school boards, have never been higher (Webner et al., 2017). The
relationship between a school board and superintendent establishes a tone for the district environ-
ment. The school board and superintendent must work together to limit significant barriers that
impede team success in improving student achievement (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2019; Fusarelli,
2006; Weiss et al., 2014).
Working relationships can be difficult to foster and grow, especially when superinten-
dents and school boards do not agree on their primary functions, vision, and goals for student
23
achievement (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2019; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Boards and superintendents
must plan for a successful, positive relationship because these relationships require great dili-
gence and preparation. According to Hanover Research (2014), several studies have examined the
rapport between superintendents and school boards, and most conclude that a positive working
relationship ultimately drives the successful governance of a district.
It is essential for every school leader, including school board leaders, to possess the skills
to effect positive change, raise achievement levels, and foster a positive school climate. Through
transforming people, organizations can transform as well. Weiss et al. (2014) stressed that trans-
formational leadership is a framework that can establish empowerment, shared leadership, and
organizational learning that can lead to effective school superintendent–board relations. Collec-
tive leadership, trust, and collaboration are critical elements of this reform. Superintendents and
school board members must support one another and maintain productive relationships to work
together to address shared goals for student and district success (Webner et al., 2017; Weiss et al.,
2014). To transform local school boards into real education policy boards that can focus on
development, implementation, and oversight of policies to improve the academic achievement of
all students, boards should commit themselves to an ongoing process of learning and develop-
ment (Danzberger, 1994).
Key Principles For Positive Board–Superintendent Relations
School board members and superintendents have an incredible responsibility to many
stakeholder groups and find themselves challenged by their complex group dynamics (Moody,
2011). According to Hanover Research (2014), the studies on superintendent–board relationships
have concluded that a productive relationship is based on (a) clear definitions of duties and
24
responsibilities, (b) collaboration based on frequent communications, (c) continuous professional
development, and (d) shared vision and goals.
Establishing Clear Roles
Moody (2011) suggested that when roles and responsibilities are not clearly understood
and respected by each party, negative relationships develop. Petersen and Fusarelli (2001) con-
cluded that along with role and responsibility confusion, growing accountability, changes in
school governance models, and training or work experiences, influence or alter relations between
superintendents and school boards. To resolve role confusion, districts must lay out clear respon-
sibilities for governance bodies.
Building Communication Channels
Successful district governance requires effective collaboration, which starts with strong
communication skills (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2019). With agreement on the importance of com-
munication, school boards and superintendents can carry out actions to maintain a healthy level of
dialogue. One way that districts prioritize collaboration is to have communication guidelines
within their district or board policy (Hanover Research, 2014).
Professional Development
Board members often enter their terms with limited knowledge of the exact nature of their
position as well as how to effectively work with a superintendent. Webner et al. (2017) recom-
mended professional development for superintendents and boards to gain insight, clarity, and
skills for working together to lead their districts. Tension between boards and superintendents can
result from a number of factors, which can be addressed by professional learning or training.
25
Shared Vision and Goals
A shared vision and goals of a school district is essential to the working relationship
between the superintendent and the school board (Webner et al., 2017). When a board and super-
intendent work together to establish and maintain common goals, productive relationships are
established (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2019; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Webner et al., 2017; Weiss et
al., 2014). Supporting each other while addressing shared goals can lead to district success and
student achievement (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2019; Hanover Research, 2014; Waters & Marzano,
2006; Webner et al., 2017).
Elements of Positive Working Relationships
A considerable amount of literature has detailed critical elements to establish positive
working relationships between the superintendent–board team; these elements include founda-
tional leadership practices of trust, communication, respect, and professionalism (Fusarelli, 2006;
Kowalski, 2006; Petersen & Fusarelli, 2001).
Trust
Fusarelli (2006), Kowalski (2006), and Petersen and Fusarelli (2001) noted that trust is
the essential characteristic of building relationships and trust is built through consistent behavior
over time. These authors agreed that trust in others reduces uncertainty and builds confidence in
others’ abilities to reach goals.
Communication
Maintaining open and honest lines of communication among superintendents, school
board members, and the greater community is key to establishing and maintaining a positive
working relationship (Waters & Marzano, 2006; Weiss et al., 2014). Communication in the
superintendent–board team should always be open, ongoing, and free from secrets or surprises.
26
Respect
The principle of respect translates to valuing an individual. When superintendents and
boards respect each other’s position and authority, they can genuinely and willingly work together
for the greater good of the school district (Webner et al., 2017).
Professionalism
Superintendents and board members are expected to maintain professionalism at all times
to preserve the appropriate environment necessary to achieve the educational mission and vision
of the school district. Appropriate behaviors and actions are significant in developing and main-
taining a positive partnership between the superintendent and the board (Fusarelli, 2006; Petersen
& Fusarelli, 2001).
According to Northouse (2015), transformational leadership is the process of engaging
with others to create a connection or relationship that is supportive and concerned with emotions,
values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals. Such leadership embraces teamwork and consen-
sus building. Transformational leadership builds a relationship based on community rather than
competition between the superintendent and the school board to achieve a vision, growth, prog-
ress, and achievement.
Accountability
Higher standards and greater accountability are part and parcel of education. For board
members, the ultimate accountability is the vote of the community. Accountability means differ-
ent things to different people. In education, most agree that the goal of accountability is ensuring
that students achieve at the highest levels. Educators and related personnel currently live in an
accountability era, with a specific bottom line for student results. Ultimately, though, final
accountability rests with the school board. As the legal district representatives and as leaders who
27
establish the vision and policies, the school board members are responsible for the outcomes.
Effective school boards are accountability driven and spend most of their time focused on poli-
cies to improve student achievement.
School Board’s Accountability to Community
Public accountability requires that the board must provide oversight, adopt standards, and
assess progress toward the accomplishment of crucial district objectives. The school board rep-
resents the community at large (Kirst, 1994) and is accountable to the public for transparency
about student achievement and the performance of the schools in the community (Hochschild,
2005; Ravitch, 2010). Political accountability, according to Darling-Hammond (2004), is when
school board members, for example, must regularly stand for election and answer for their deci-
sions. Lutz and Iannaccone’s (2008) dissatisfaction theory of American governance proposes that
American voters respond to the unsatisfactory performance of public institutions by voting out
incumbent policymakers. In applying that theory, if a district underperforms, board members will
be voted out, a new superintendent will be hired, and the policy direction of the district will
change (Ford & Ihrke, 2015). Alsbury (2008a) also found a link between the political turnover of
school board members and academic achievement.
According to the CSBA (2018d), school boards establish systems and processes to
monitor results, to evaluate the school system’s progress toward accomplishing the district’s
vision, and then communicates that progress to the local community. In order to ensure personnel,
program, and fiscal accountability, the board is responsible for evaluating the superintendent and
setting policy for the evaluation of other personnel; monitoring, reviewing and revising policies;
serving as a judicial and appeals body; monitoring student achievement and program effective-
ness and requiring program changes as indicated; monitoring and adjusting district finances;
28
monitoring the collective bargaining process; and evaluating effectiveness through board
self-evaluation.
School Board’s Accountability to Superintendents and Teachers
While local boards are discouraged from becoming involved in the day-to-day operation
and administration of schools, demands for accountability dictate some level of involvement in
the administration of the school system. In 2019, the National School Boards Association
(NSBA) urged school boards to concentrate on raising student achievement by focusing on eight
key areas: vision, standards, assessment, accountability, alignment, climate, collaborative rela-
tionships, and continuous improvement (also see Dervarics & O’Brien, 2019). The board has an
obligation to the superintendent and teachers to promote accountability, conform to standards of
ethical behavior, provide a framework for setting goals, and develop strategic plans for the
accomplishment of those goals (CSBA, 2018d). In regard to accountability, according to Gem-
berling et al. (2000), it is the role of the school board to recognize and reward teachers who
produce above-average student improvement gains and support the superintendent’s recommen-
dation for dismissal when warranted.
School Board’s Accountability to Federal and State Mandates
School boards initiate educational policies at the local level and have a responsibility for
implementing an increasing variety of state and federal policies and mandates (McGuinn, 2006).
More recently, school boards have to play a central role in establishing systems and processes to
ensure the school system’s fiscal, programmatic, and outcome accountability for federal and state
mandates (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). There has also been a recent debate over the role and
effectiveness of democratically elected school boards in performing an accountability function
(Ford & Ihrke, 2015).
29
The reform movement in education has strengthened the power of the states concerning
the historic discretionary power that had been exercised by local school boards. The state increas-
ingly prescribes policies that were previously left to the discretion of local school boards. Boards
are responsible for overseeing the Every Student Succeeds Act (see U.S. Department of Educa-
tion, n.d.), the California Dashboard (CDE, 2020a), the LCAP (CDE, 2020b), the English Lan-
guage Proficiency Assessment for California, and other grants and services. The Local Control
Funding Formula directs school boards to involve parents, teachers, administrators, and students
in the development of local plans—a process that starts the discussion of the quality of education
experienced by students and encourages parents and the public to demand accountability of their
elected board members (Warren & Carrillo, 2015). In California, for example, the CDE (2020b)
outlined 10 state priority areas that are used to measure school district achievement. These 10
areas are captured in the LEA’s LCAP plan for achievement, spending, and providing goods and
services. School boards are accountable for the oversight of these state and federal policies and
programs that they are mandated to institute (McGuinn, 2006).
Student Achievement
School board members have a variety of responsibilities during their terms of governance.
According to Plough (2014), school board members attempt to represent the community in a
quest for high student achievement that will prepare the nation’s children in the 21st century. The
NSBA (2019) has urged school boards to concentrate on raising student achievement. The
NSBA’s position reinforced Roberts and Sampson’s (2011) findings that there is a need for
adequate school board training on issues of student expectations, achievement, testing, assess-
ment, and accountability. Effective school board members who receive successful professional
development exhibit a greater awareness of their roles and responsibilities, increased focus on
30
student achievement, and alignment of their decision-making processes to the district’s vision
and goals (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Training programs provide school board members with a
governance framework from which to operate that focuses on the central works of school boards:
working as a unified team through clearly defined roles and responsibilities with an unwavering
focus on student achievement (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Board member training is important in order to understand the role of governance, and
lack of board training may limit a school board’s ability to work as an effective governance team
focused on student achievement (Plough, 2014). According to Plough’s (2014) mixed-methods
study, this fact is true, especially for low-performing school districts where school board govern-
ance must contribute to effective leadership efforts toward raising student academic performance.
Professional development for school board members is vital in all areas of public schooling so
that quality decisions can be made for student achievement (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Roberts
and Sampson (2011) found that professional development is necessary to increase the level of
competency and performance demanded of professionals and to provide board members with the
skills and information and behavior needed to run a school district effectively. Twenty-six out of
50 state school boards association directors responded to Roberts and Sampson’s (2011) study.
When asked if professional development laws for board members affected student achievement,
all 26 directors believed that there was a link to increased student achievement.
Training advances learning, and effective school boards focus on student achievement
first and foremost (Dillon 2010). Plough’s (2014) study on the effectiveness of boards at imple-
menting and sustaining local initiatives found that a focus on governance training could have the
most significant impact on student achievement: “Training school boards to function as a team
31
focused on student achievement with an ability to leverage community resources for the benefit
of all students will support and sustain effective school board governance” (Plough, 2014, p. 51).
School Board Training
As a board member, guiding and leading change requires board members to be aware of
educational innovations, best practices, and breakthroughs occurring in other districts and set-
tings. This knowledge can be gained through a wide array of training, networking, and profes-
sional development opportunities (Dillon, 2010). Nearly all state school board associations have
developed board training programs for board members and superintendents designed to meet the
minimum requirements set by state legislatures or state boards of education. These programs are
designed to clarify the legal responsibilities of local boards, compliance with state ethics codes,
state education law, sunshine laws, and other guidance related to a broad range of state-specific
requirements for school boards (CSBA, 2018b). Twenty-four states have set minimum expecta-
tions for training board members (Alsbury, 2008b).
School board members are responsible for a variety of responsibilities during their terms
of governance. They must set budgets, establish school policies, make long-range plans, and
assess data to determine school performance. This governing board further decides how school
districts will operate and recommends strategies that will increase student achievement. Support
through policy and planning and a human resource framework for hiring, developing, and build-
ing people’s capacity to deliver on the system’s core values and expectations all need to be
transparent, real, and authentic.
The educational background of school board members varies widely; some members have
high school degrees or diplomas, and others have doctorates. California requires a minimum level
of education and no accompanying formal training (CSBA, 2007). Formal education by itself
32
does not adequately prepare school board members for their specific functions. Some argue that
school board training and education should be mandatory for all school board members (More-
house, 2001) to reduce the length of time to acclimate into the position (Roberts & Sampson,
2011) and to influence a board member’s ability to adequately serve the needs of all students
(Canal, 2013; Dillon, 2010; Gomez, 2013; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
CSBA’s MIG Training
The CSBA MIG training provides new and veteran school board members with best prac-
tices for effective governance, including foundations for governance, policy and judicial review,
school finance, human resources, and community relations and advocacy (CSBA, 2018b). The
CSBA provides MIG professional learning seminars in California for school board members, and
superintendents who choose to opt in.
More than 2,000 board members and superintendents have participated in CSBA’s highly
acclaimed Masters in Governance program. Ninety percent of graduates strongly recom-
mend this program for governance teams; and more than 80 percent reported that the
overall program gave them the knowledge base needed to perform their governance
responsibilities. (CSBA, 2018c, para. 5)
The MIG program creates a learning opportunity that will help deepen board members’
understanding of their roles and responsibilities and the environment in which they operate and,
in turn, will increase their effectiveness (CSBA, 2018c). These modules are as follows:
1. Foundation of Governance. This course covers three areas of focus: trusteeship, gover-
nance, and vision setting.
2. Policy and Judicial Review. This course addresses student learning, use and develop-
ment of policy, and judicial appeals.
33
3. School Finance. This course consists of the balance of achievement and budget, the
process for budget development, and the monitoring and auditing of finances.
4. Human Resources. This course covers collective bargaining, employing a superinten-
dent and personnel responsibilities, and a culture of accountability.
5. Community Relations and Advocacy. This course consists of community relations and
advocacy and addresses community leadership, crisis management and media involve-
ment, and building community support.
Importance of Training School Board Members
School districts must ensure that board members receive training in order to understand
the role of governance. Training programs offer a comprehensive governance model that equips
school board members with a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities, thereby
enabling them to govern effectively (Canal, 2013; Dillon, 2010; Gomez, 2013; Richter, 2013).
Professional development for governance teams is vital in all areas of public schooling so that
quality decisions can be made for student achievement. Roberts and Sampson (2011) found that
professional development is necessary to increase the level of competency and performance
demanded of professionals and provides board members with the skills, information, and behav-
ior needed to run a school district effectively. Training advances learning, and effective school
boards focus on student achievement first and foremost (Dillon, 2010). Leading change in the
district as a board member requires a level of awareness of educational reform and effective
practices (Dillon, 2010). According to Maricle (2014), school districts with high levels of student
achievement have school board members who have placed a focus on providing ongoing support
for professional development as a means and willingness to learn.
34
Impact of MIG Training
The MIG training program equips school board members with a governance framework
from which to operate that focuses on the central works of school boards: working as a unified
team through clearly defined roles and responsibilities with an unwavering focus on student
achievement (Richter, 2013). School board members have reported that the MIG training is
needed so they can effectively lead and understand the operations of a school district (Sampson,
2011). According to Gomez (2013), the MIG training program creates a partnership, roles, and
access, all of which enable school board members to lead and govern effectively:
1. Partnership—the connection formed between the superintendent and board members
after completion of 60 hours of training within five modules of learning.
2. Roles—a deeper understanding of their roles and responsibilities while keeping a
student-centered approach to serving.
3. Access—multiple pieces of training offered multiple times per year ($400 each), to be
completed within 2 years. However, adding an online component could increase the total
number of participants. Funding for the MIG program is a significant issue as well.
Results of MIG Training
The MIG training provides school board members with best practices for effective gov-
ernance. According to Canal (2013), school board members who received MIG training exhibited
greater awareness of their roles and responsibilities, an increased focus on student achievement,
and alignment of decision-making processes to the district’s vision and goals. The MIG program
helps school board members to develop a more collaborative relationship with their fellow board
members—which is significant when accepting the majority decision of the school board even if
they hold the minority view (Canal, 2013). Being a school board member requires balancing the
35
issues of structure such as board–superintendent relations and education law with national and
state agenda issues of student achievement and accountability. The MIG program equips board
members and superintendents with the knowledge and skills needed to build and support an
effective governance structure (CSBA, 2018a, 2018c).
Theoretical Framework
The Lighthouse Inquiry
The IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry, Phase I (Rice et al., 2000) examined the role of school
board leadership in the improvement of student achievement. The inquiry indicated that “school
boards in high-achieving districts are significantly different in their knowledge and beliefs than
school boards in low-achieving districts” (p. 4). The focus of the first phase of the Lighthouse
Inquiry were the characteristics, behaviors, and beliefs of board members, superintendents,
principals, and teachers in high-performing districts compared to those in similar districts that
were low performing. The findings were that high-achieving districts often expressed a positive
belief in students’ potential and in the district staffs’ ability to improve achievement. Interviews
revealed seven conditions that were present in the higher achieving districts and were associated
with productive school boards (Delagardelle, 2008):
1. Shared decision making, information, and engagement in improvement efforts;
2. Understanding what it takes to improve achievement;
3. Comprehensive and varied support focused on helping staff improve student learning;
4. Embedded and ongoing professional development, consistent with research about how
to improve classroom practice;
5. A balance between districtwide direction and site-level autonomy;
6. Strong community connections; and
36
7. Leadership at all levels of the system to provide direction and focus for the improve-
ment work.
The Lighthouse Inquiry, Phase II, continued to investigate the role of school board lead-
ership in the improvement of student achievement. Phase II questioned whether focused technical
assistance for governance teams on the seven conditions associated with higher achieving dis-
tricts (uncovered in Phase I of the study) improved those conditions and led to better student
outcomes (Delagardelle, 2008). The findings indicated that after 3 years, there were positive
changes in governance team beliefs, conditions, and student achievement. Superintendents and
board members demonstrated changes in the beliefs that had been associated with higher student
achievement, including the fact that boards can impact student achievement; that adults in the
school can have an effect on student learning; and that professional learning, frequently monitor-
ing student learning, allocating resources for the earliest school experiences, and partnering with
the community are all important. Increases in some of the conditions associated with higher
student achievement included distributed leadership, small-group collaboration time, a sense of
urgency for improvement created by district leaders, and the board’s increased reliance on multi-
ple sources of information when making decisions (Delagardelle, 2008).
According to the Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000), superintendent and board
members’ beliefs about the key roles of the board are the following:
1. To set clear expectations for outcomes of improvement work,
2. To hold themselves and district staff accountable,
3. To support the conditions for success in the system,
4. To build the collective will of the staff and community to improve student learning, and
37
5. To create time to learn together as a board and engage in extensive dialogue with one
another to establish consensus about vision and strategies.
Bolman and Deal: Four Frames
If school board members and superintendents are not consistent in their goals and expec-
tations for the district as a whole, problems will exist. Bolman and Deal (2017) suggested that
effective leaders understand how to respond to challenges and problems through structural,
human resource, political, and symbolic frames. No one leadership approach is appropriate for all
situations. The ability to view matters from a variety of perspectives is vital to the success of an
organization, and the four frames are foundational to reframe situations. The way that superinten-
dents and school board members work together to frame challenging decisions impacts people
and, ultimately, outcomes. If superintendents and school board members are to advance students’
achievement and school districts’ success, they must have a positive working relationship and be
adept at reading the landscape of their organizations and taking action based on providing the best
outcomes for all stakeholders.
Structural Frame
The structural frame emphasizes rationality and formal roles and relationships. School
boards exist primarily to accomplish established goals. The school board’s essential function,
according to the structural frame, is to provide direction and vision and to develop strategic goals
that would allow staff members to strive toward creating individual goals that support the collec-
tive goal. Organizations such as school boards work most effectively when “environmental
turbulence” and personal preferences are constrained by norms of rationality (Bolman & Deal,
2017). According to Bolman and Deal (2017), problems typically originate from inappropriate
structures or inadequate systems and can be resolved through restructuring or developing new
38
systems. School board members must be provided with enough information to form a “big
picture” of the school district’s needs, resources, and potential solutions.
Human Resource Frame
Through the human resource frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017), organizations exist to serve
human needs. School districts must have both school boards and superintendents; but when the fit
is poor, the organization (i.e., school district) will suffer. However, when a good fit benefits both,
the school board members and superintendents find meaningful and satisfying work while the
school district gets the human talent and energy that required to be successful.
Political Frame
In the political frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017), politics is the process of making decisions
and allocating resources in a context of changing interests. School districts are coalitions of
various individuals and interest groups. There are underlying differences among coalition
members with respect to values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality. Goals
and decisions made by school boards emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for
position among different stakeholders.
Symbolic Frame
Through the symbolic frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017), the focus is on addressing people’s
needs for a sense of purpose and meaning. High levels of ambiguity and uncertainty undercut
rational analysis, problem solving, and decision making. In the face of uncertainty and ambiguity,
people create symbols to resolve confusion, increase predictability, provide direction, and anchor
hope and faith. Symbols embody and express the school district’s culture, including beliefs,
values, and practices that define for stakeholders who they are and how they are to do things.
39
Bolman and Deal (2017) stressed that school leaders have a significant role in shaping school
culture, even when times are tough.
CSBA
According to the CSBA (2018c), training and professional learning can help board
members to better understand their roles and responsibilities and to foster a more positive rela-
tionship with the staff at all levels. When a board uses effective governance strategies, it focuses
on the factors that support better student outcomes, improving student achievement, engaging the
community, and setting a collaborative relationship with the superintendent and other district
staff (Plough, 2014).
With the changing education landscape in California, there will be a continued need to
train board members on new standards, assessments, regulations, and legislation that can affect
their work. Trained and informed board members can more effectively make decisions and
manage challenges and opportunities faced by public schools and support public education for all
children. The CSBA (n.d., 2007), through its Professional Governance Standards, is committed to
providing quality professional development and information on essential topics to ensure that
board members continue to advocate for equity and closing achievement gaps. California is one
of the 26 states where board training is not mandated (Alsbury, 2008b). However, the CSBA con-
tinues to fill the critical role of providing board members with optional training so that school
boards can be the most effective supporters of public education in their county offices of educa-
tion, school districts, communities, and the state.
Chapter Summary
More research is needed to further understand whether school board training affects the
impact on performance indicators for school districts. Researchers have largely focused on the
40
benefit of school board training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit
the characteristics of effective governance. The topics covered in the literature review addressed
the history of school boards and the superintendency, the roles and responsibilities of school
board members and superintendents, school board–superintendent relationships, accountability,
school board training, and theoretical frameworks pertaining to the role of school board leader-
ship in district improvement and effective governance. The study was an opportunity to fill the
knowledge gap that exists today regarding the impact of school board training on student achieve-
ment. The goal of this study was to examine the benefit of the MIG training and its implications
for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance and to
improve student achievement. An overview of the qualitative approach using grounded theory is
provided in Chapter Three.
41
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the research methodology for the qualitative
study regarding 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. The applicability of
theory for the study is discussed in this chapter, including Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four-frame
model for effective leadership the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000), and the CSBA’s
(2007) Professional Governance Standards. Moreover, these conceptual frameworks provide the
lens to examine the perceptions of the superintendent and school board members regarding MIG
training and the impact on school governance and perceived student achievement. The research,
including the methodology, design, study participants, instrumentation, data collection, analysis
methods, and ethical considerations, are also primary components of this chapter.
Research Questions
This study was created with the following guiding research questions that shaped the
purpose:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG
training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
42
Research Design
The intent of this qualitative study was to answer the stated research questions and to
determine whether school board training improved the relationship between school boards and
superintendents and affected the impact on performance indicators for school districts. According
to Creswell and Creswell (2018), it is appropriate to use a qualitative approach when a researcher
seeks to understand relationships between variables. Because the purpose of this study was to
examine the perceptions of the MIG training and the impact on school governance and perceived
student achievement, a qualitative approach was the most appropriate choice. More specifically, a
grounded-theory research design approach was used. The researcher was the primary instrument
of data collection and analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). According to Merriam and Tisdell
(2016), grounded theory separates itself from other types of qualitative research because it builds
on theory and addresses questions about the process. Data are collected through theoretical
sampling and are analyzed through constant comparative methods (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The goal is to look for patterns, and this study examined patterns in superintendent and school
board members’ perceptions of MIG training and its impact on school governance and student
achievement.
The research team for this study consisted of 20 doctoral candidates from the Rossier
School of Education of the University of Southern California (USC), under the direction of Dr.
Michael Escalante. Dr. Escalante was the lead researcher and supervisor of this research team that
developed, designed, and conducted this study in collaboration with one another.
The study involved the collection of qualitative data from two research instruments: (a)
school board and superintendent surveys and (b) interview guides. These instruments were
designed collaboratively by the research team, aligned with the three research questions, and
43
directly correlated to frameworks discussed in Chapter Two. The dissertation group approached
the purpose of the study through three theoretical frameworks: (a) the four-frame model for
effective leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2017), (b) the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al.,
2000), and (c) the CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards (2007). To increase the
credibility and trustworthiness of the study, survey data, interview data, and the literature were
triangulated with the intent to provide rich data to analyze. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) empha-
sized that trustworthiness is required and implies rigor in the research process.
Sample Population and Participants
A critical consideration when sampling is the success of the study and the ability to collect
rich data aligned with the research questions (Maxwell, 2013). The research team sought to
obtain information from specific groups of people to gain a purposeful understanding. The
sample for this study was drawn from a voluntary population of superintendents and school board
members from California school districts. Participants were recruited by the research team based
on those districts that met the study’s criteria for participation. A purposeful participant sample
was used that limited the participant pool to those solicited for the research, as defined in this
study. The research team emailed contacts meeting the study’s criteria using the recruitment and
information letter in Appendix A.
For this study, participants were selected based on criterion-sampling strategies developed
and utilized by the research team to ensure that participating districts met predetermined criteria:
(a) that the district was a public school district, (b) that the district was in California, and (c) that
three out of five school board members had received MIG training. This sampling was used with
the intent to yield participants who were “information rich” (Patton, 2002). The research team
44
used Patton’s (2002) research sampling methods to recruit specific participants to provide insight,
to gain a purposeful understanding, and to answer the research questions.
Instrumentation
The research team worked collaboratively during cohort meetings to develop and revise
the instrumentation for this study: (a) a recruitment and information letter (Appendix A), (b) a
school board member survey (Appendix B), (c) a superintendent survey (Appendix C), (d) a
school board member interview guide (Appendix D), and (e) a superintendent interview guide
(Appendix E). The recruitment/information letters and surveys were emailed to district superin-
tendents and the school board members of those districts deemed effective according to the
research team’s parameters. Detailed information and instructions were included in the
recruitment/education letters that provided a clear explanation that the team was asking for
voluntary participation. Potential participants were allowed to show a willingness to participate in
the study, including the survey and interviews, by documenting consent (Appendix F). The
survey and interview instruments were aligned with the research questions, as shown on the
question alignment matrix in Appendix G.
Surveys for board members (Appendix B) and superintendents (Appendix C) were devel-
oped by the research team to include 20 open-ended and/or scaled-response questions with four
choices ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Questions were aligned with frame-
works and research questions and were similar in nature. Through the administration of the
school board member survey, the research team was seeking input about training and how it had
impacted school board members and student achievement, if at all. Survey questions for the
superintendents, although identical in design, were constructed to obtain the superintendents’
perspectives of the impact of MIG training on school board members’ ability to exhibit the
45
characteristics of effective governance. These surveys were designed to identify the benefits, if
any, of the MIG training and its implications for improving the relationship between school
boards and superintendents, as well as the impact on performance indicators for school districts.
The research team also developed interview guides for board members (Appendix D) and
superintendents (Appendix E). According to Patton (2002), a researcher’s interview protocol is
an instrument of inquiry used for asking questions on specific information related to the purpose
of a study. The interview guides for this study were semistructured. Moreover, the aim of this
structure was to gather purposeful information related to the theoretical framework from the
literature. The superintendent interview guide consisted of 13 open-ended questions; the board
member interview guide had 13 open-ended questions. Questions were written in language that
was accessible and familiar to the participants and included probes that wee likely to elicit rich
responses. Each guide contained intensive questions to probe participants’ perspectives, thoughts,
perceptions, and beliefs regarding the impact of the MIG training program on effective gover-
nance and student achievement. As indicated by Patton (2002), interviewing has a specific
purpose and allows the researcher the opportunity to access the individual’s perspective and per-
ceptions. Both interview guides were aligned with the theoretical frameworks and research
questions and were identical in content and format. The structure of the interview guides was
created so that each interview took approximately 20–45 minutes. Each research team member
identified three districts, for a total of three district superintendents and at least six board
members for interviews. Both interview guides were aligned with the theoretical frameworks and
the research questions (see Appendix G).
46
Data Collection
Data collection methods and structure were aligned with and supported the research
questions and frameworks discussed in Chapter Two. This study used both surveying and inter-
viewing methods as instruments for data collection. Upon approval from the USC Institutional
Review Board (IRB), the researcher team emailed potential participants based on the team’s
participant parameters, after which data collection commenced.
The research team compiled a list of California school districts. This list was cross-
referenced with other study criteria, and each team member chose three districts for data collec-
tion. The survey was distributed to school district superintendents and their corresponding board
members with MIG training beginning in the spring and summer of 2020. Each board member
and superintendent received a recruitment email including (a) a recruitment and information letter
(Appendix A), (b) a consent to participate (Appendix F), and (d) the digital survey (Appendices B
and C).
Interviews were conducted to provide further inquiry to determine whether school board
training improves the relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the
impact on performance indicators for school districts. Interviews began in the spring and summer
of 2020 and were scheduled at the convenience of the school superintendents and board
members. Each research team member conducted semistructured interviews using the refined
interview guides (Appendices D and E). The interviews included (a) an introduction and over-
view of the purpose of the study that provided participants with a sense of what the study was
about and/or reminded the participant about the focus of the study, (b) a review of the informed
consent, (c) questions and probes, and (d) a closing that kept the door open for follow-up if
needed.
47
Each research team member conducted three superintendent interviews and at least six
interviews with school board members. Interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom Video
Communications, and researcher noted were used to capture any thoughts during and after each
interview. No interview was conducted without a written and verbal informed consent of the
participants. The interviews were recorded and transcribed electronically using the audio record-
ing and transcription service Rev.com.
The research team made every effort to maintain confidentiality and to protect participant
privacy. Information and data will be kept for 3 years, and audio data were destroyed immediately
after transcription.
Data Analysis
All data collected were compiled, coded, and examined in reference to the study’s three
research questions by the collective research team and individually. Once the data had been col-
lected, the analysis of survey data, interview data, and the three theoretical frameworks found in
the literature allowed the research team to triangulate the data for increased accuracy and validity
(Patton, 2002). All survey and interview data were coded in cycles, first creating several subcate-
gories; subsequent cycles were concerned with classifying, integrating, and conceptualizing data.
The coding of interview transcripts was completed in the order of the interviews conducted,
thereby allowing the researcher to reflect and edit the interview questions as theories began to
emerge from the data. Based on the data, codes were created during the process of analysis to find
patterns and themes identified concerning their correlation to the study’s three research questions.
Coding was used to aid the researcher in understanding the perspectives of the participants and in
analyzing their combined experiences. To assist the research team, computer-assisted qualitative
data analysis software was employed.
48
Coding the transcriptions was a critical part of the data analysis. Each transcribed inter-
view text was coded line by line, focusing in depth on every interview. This step was instrumen-
tal in focusing the interview analysis on the experience of the participants in a structured way.
Coding, as a means of data analysis, helped to prevent the research team from overemphasizing
the importance of any one characteristic and also helped to ensure a thorough analysis of all data.
Some codes emerged during analysis, and some others became a prominent theme. The process
of analyzing, reanalyzing, and comparing continued while reviewing the data in all phases of
analysis so that connections could be made until saturation occurred.
Ethical Considerations
The lead researcher, Dr. Michael Escalante, and the research team sought approval from
the USC IRB. All team members had individually completed the IRB Collaborative Institutional
Training Initiative (CITI) program course entitled Human Research (Curriculum Group) for
Social-Behavioral Human Subjects. The course includes elective modules from which each
researcher completed six, with an average score of 80%. These modules provided an introduction
to social-behavioral-educational research with a focus on the protection of human subjects. The
program offers historical and current information on regulatory and ethical issues relevant to
conducting research involving human subjects.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has outlined the research methods used by the research team to answer the
research questions. A discussion of the research, including the methodology, design, study par-
ticipants and sampling, instrumentation, data collection, analysis methods, and ethical consider-
ations, were discussed. A grounded-theory methodology was used to develop findings on whether
49
school board training (i.e., MIG training program) improved the relationship between school
boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance indicators for school districts.
50
Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examine the benefit of the Masters in
Governance (MIG) training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the
characteristics of effective governance. Moreover, this study aimed to examine the school board
members and superintendent perceptions of the MIG training and the impact on school gover-
nance and student achievement.
This chapter includes an analysis of data collected both individually and collectively by
the research team. Each researcher identified three school districts and then interviewed and
surveyed at least two board members and their corresponding superintendent from the total
participant pool of 62 districts, including 186 board members and 62 superintendents (see Table
1). The survey and interview questions for superintendent and board member participants in this
study are in Appendices B through E. Following the completion of the interviews and preparation
of transcripts through Rev.com, the transcript for each interview was uploaded to the Atlas.ti
cloud for coding. Initial coding included a line-by-line analysis, and secondary coding involved
examining the data to identify broad concepts emerging from the research. Triangulation of data
gathered from the literature, digital surveys, and Zoom interviews eventually led to the emergence
of themes within the data set.
The research team collaboratively developed the following three research questions to
serve as the lens by which the data would be individually discussed and analyzed:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG
training program?
51
Table 1
Summary of Participants
Districts (N = 62)
Participants n %
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses 62 100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses 180 97
Interviewees 177 95
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?
Participants and School Districts
Participants were initially chosen from districts in southern California that met the
following criteria: (a) a public school district; (b) from a California county (Los Angeles, Orange,
San Bernardino, San Diego, Riverside, and Ventura); and (c) three out of five school board
members had received MIG training. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the criteria were expanded
to include districts in counties within the entire state of California. The expansion yielded the
identification of additional districts to replace southern California districts that opted out. The
districts that participated spanned across 12 counties in the state of California (Alameda, Los
Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa
Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura). One hundred eighty board members and 62 corresponding
52
superintendents participated in the study. Of the surveys digitally distributed, 100% of
superintendent surveys and 97% of board member surveys were completed, thereby increasing
the validity of the data collected. The interviewees included at least two board members from
each district and their corresponding superintendents identified and chosen by the research team.
Upon completing the data collection phase, 100% of superintendents and 95% of school board
members participated in the interview process. Table 1 summarizes invited participants and those
who participated.
For this study, districts were assigned pseudonyms to anonymize participants, as summa-
rized in Table 2. The board members and superintendent for District A are hereafter be referred to
as Board Members A1, A2, and A3 and Superintendent A. Likewise, the board members and
superintendent for Districts B and C will be referred to as Board Members B1-B3 and Superinten-
dent B and Board Members C1-C3, and Superintendent C.
District A
District A was a small, five-member school board district in the San Gabriel Valley of Los
Angeles County. With nine campuses serving just over 4,500 students, District A served students
in preschool through adult education at the time of this study. According to the California School
Dashboard (2019), District A students were in the green performance level,
1
meeting grade-level
standards on the English Language Arts (ELA) assessment. This measure was based on student
performance on the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment or the California Alternate Assess-
ment, which is taken annually by students in Grades 3–8 and 11. In mathematics, however,
District A students did not meet grade-level standards on the Mathematics assessment,
1
As depicted in the California School Dashboard (CDE, 2020a), schools and districts
receive one of five color-coded performance levels on the state indicators. The highest per-
formance level is blue, followed by green, yellow, and orange (lowest level).
53
Table 2
Summary of Pseudonyms Used in Study
District Participants’
pseudonyms pseudonyms
District A Superintendent A
Board Member A1
Board Member A2
Board Member A3
District B Superintendent B
Board Member B1
Board Member B2
Board Member B3
District C Superintendent C
Board Member C1
Board Member C2
Board Member C3
performing in the yellow level. On the College and Career indicator, District A was in the orange
performance level based on the percentage of high school graduates placed in the “prepared”
level. According to the Dashboard, District A reported that over 50% of students were socioeco-
nomically disadvantaged, meaning that they were eligible for free or reduced-price meals or had
parents or guardians who did not receive a high school diploma. Slightly over 10% of students
were English learners (ELs), who were learning to communicate effectively in English.
District B
District B was a five-board-member unified district in Riverside County, with over 50
campuses serving just under 42,000 students in preschool to adult education at the time of this
study. According to the California School Dashboard (CDE, 2020a), District B students met
54
grade-level standards on the ELA assessment, performing at the green level; however, students
were performing below grade level or in the orange performance level on the Mathematics
assessment. The Smarter Balanced Consortium has identified Standard Met
2
as demonstrating the
knowledge and skills imperative for students to be on track for college and career readiness at
their grade level (CDE, 2020a). According to District B’s Dashboard data, just over 65% of
students were socioeconomically disadvantaged, only 40% of current EL students were making
progress toward English language proficiency or maintaining the highest level, and nearly 45% of
high school graduates were “prepared” on the College/Career Indicator.
District C
District C’s 20 campuses were located in Santa Barbara County, with nearly 17,000
students in preschool through eighth grade and were served by a five-member school board at the
time of this study. According to the California School Dashboard (CDE, 2020a), District C was
scoring below standard in ELA and Mathematics, according to the assessment performance under
California’s Accountability System. In District C, 90% of students were socioeconomically dis-
advantaged and over 23% were homeless. With nearly 50% of ELs requiring instruction in both
the English language and in their academic courses, 50% were making progress toward English
language proficiency. According to its website, District C was committed to a school climate
conducive to learning while “maintaining a safe, secure, healthy, and positive learning environ-
ment for all students and staff.”
2
On the California School Dashboard (CDE, 2020a), districts receive one of three per-
formance levels for the local indicators: Met, Not Met, and Not Met for Two or More Years.
55
Results Reported by Research Question
This section presents the research results by each of the three research questions. Three
data sources—literature, survey data, and interview data—were triangulated to discover signifi-
cant research themes. The themes that emerged from these data showed that the participants’
responses centered primarily on objectives associated with participation opportunities, relation-
ships, the acquisition of board-specific knowledge, and the commitment to serve the community
and make decisions in students’ best interest.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 dealt with the factors that impact the decision of school board
members to participate in the MIG training program. School board governance is complex and
brings with it considerable responsibility; however, the criteria for becoming a school board are
typically minimal. Individuals without knowledge or experience in education may be elected and
empowered (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). School governance requires a mix of technical, interper-
sonal, and political skills. California school boards are offered training through the CSBA, most
notably through the MIG program. Participants of this study were asked to identify factors regard-
ing their initial motivation for deciding to participate in a board training program, specifically
MIG. Analysis of the survey and interview questions led to findings concerning this research
question. The significant findings from this work are presented below, along with three main
themes that were centered on (a) eagerness to be effective, (b) the district’s culture of participa-
tion, and (c) individuals’ desire to learn.
Eagerness to Be Effective
According to the theoretical framework of Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000), the role
of school board leadership in district improvement and effective governance is shared decision
56
making, information, and engagement in improvement efforts. The MIG program creates a
learning opportunity that helps to deepen board members’ understanding of their roles and
responsibilities through the foundation of governance, focusing on trusteeship, governance, and
vision setting (CSBA, 2018c). The MIG program equips board members and superintendents
with the proficiency and know-how needed to build and support an effective governance structure
(CSBA, 2018a, 2018c). According to Roberts and Sampson (2011), professional development is
necessary to increase governance teams’ competency and performance and to provide board
members with the critical skills, information, and behavior needed to effectively run a school
district.
A deeper understanding of effective school board governance was a motivating factor for
completing the MIG, as cited by Board Member A3: “I needed to know [how] to do my job and
how to do it effectively.” Developing a deeper understanding of what board members should be
doing in their governance role is critical for effective decision making and improved educational
outcomes. According to Board Member A2,
if you don’t have a clue about what’s going on, you’re going to be ineffective, and the
decisions you’re going to make are going to be based on your personal preferences instead
of what is really the need for the students and the teachers and the administrators and for
the school district in total.
Trained and informed board members can more effectively make decisions and manage
challenges and opportunities. Superintendent C stressed that “only through having more informed
trustees can you have a more effective board.”
There is necessary knowledge that school board members must have to serve their com-
munities effectively. Board members from Districts C and B wanted to gain the background and
57
confidence to perform their duties effectively by “learn[ing] everything about how to be an
effective board member” (Board Member C3) and “see[ing] what constitutes good governance in
education” (Board Member B2). According to Superintendent B,
becoming more in tune with the broader scope of what being a trustee really means versus
“I’ve got a passion or interest in” fill in the blank. Which generally draws people to be
interested. They [board members] have something they’re interested in, and so to be able
to broaden that perspective makes, I think, better trustees. And only through having more
informed trustees can you have a more effective board.
Board Member C3 was direct and to the point: “Training provides school board members with
the resources they need to be good at their job.”
Survey data collected by the research team and the individual researcher supported this
theme. The individual researcher’s data found that 67% of superintendents and 38% of school
board members participated in the MIG training to increase effective governance. Likewise,
survey data collected from all participants agreed that increasing effective governance was a
primary factor for undergoing training and development through the MIG program. Thirty-one of
62 superintendents and 128 of 180 school board members claimed that increasing effective gov-
ernance as an influencing factor for participation in the MIG program. Table 3 summarizes the
factors that influenced participants’ participation in the MIG program.
When asked what platforms would increase the chances of participation in the MIG
program, 67% of superintendents and 50% of school board members in the individual research-
er’s data, as well as 45 of 62 superintendents and 125 of 180 board members of the total partici-
pant pool, indicated that if the MIG courses were locally hosted, chances of participation would
increase (see Table 4). The survey data validated the responses given during the interview process
58
Table 3
Participants’ Responses Regarding Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to
Participate in the Masters in Governance Training
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Participants f f
School board expectation 33 84
Self-motivation 37 133
Encouraged by board members 35 71
Increasing student achievement 9 53
Increasing effective governance 31 128
Unable to determine 0 0
Other 3 10
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
Table 4
Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the Masters in Governance Program
Would Increase Chances of Participation
Superintendents Board members
Response (N = 62) (N =180)
Online 14 54
Hybrid 29 105
Locally hosted 45 125
Other 2 4
Note. Some participants contributed more than one response.
59
—namely, that an eagerness to be effective was a motivating factor for districts and school board
members to participate in the MIG training and to understand the intricacies of school board
governance.
The CSBA standards for governance and MIG training provide board members with
information on essential topics to ensure that governance teams can effectively support public
education and their communities (CSBA, n.d., 2007). As evidenced in the literature, effective
school boards take part in training to build shared knowledge, values, and commitments for their
improvement efforts (Rice et al., 2000), and this study’s surveys and interviews supported the
theme that board members were influenced to participate in the MIG to become more effective
governance members.
Culture or Expectation of Participation
The next theme that emerged for Research Question 1 is that board members and superin-
tendents were motivated for training and encouraged to obtain it because of the existing culture of
professional development. The capacity for professional development is dependent on the culture
of the board and the district for growth. Information in the literature review and from the theoreti-
cal framework of Bolman and Deal (2017) described the symbolic frame as a foundational
precept for all organizations that address people’s needs for a sense of purpose and meaning in
their work. This culture creates a ritual—repetitive, or routinized activities that give structure and
meaning.
A majority of participants from Districts A, B, and C agreed that a culture of learning had
had a significant influence on their school board and the district for critical training and develop-
ment. The superintendent from District C explained that “all board members had participated in
the Masters in Governance program. And so when I was named superintendent, obviously, that’s
60
an expectation of the board. So as superintendent, I immediately began the program.” Board
Member C1 shared that “everyone serving had completed that course [MIG], and it was very
highly recommended.” Participants from each district articulated a culture of completing MIG
training to improve outcomes. Board members and superintendents alike stated that their districts
expected participation and therefore supported governance team members’ commitment to MIG
training. According to Board Member A1, “I was new to the board, and everyone who was at that
time serving had completed that course [MIG], and it was very highly recommended.” Board
Member A3 simply stated that “the superintendent strongly recommended I take the MIG, so I
did.” Board members went on to share the rationale of the superintendent’s recommendation. For
example, Board Member A3 noted:
My superintendent said to me, “As soon as we get all this worked out, it would probably
be good if you took a Masters in Governance course to find out what your job really is—
what is expected of you as a school board member.
From the results evidenced in the board member and superintendent surveys, it was clear
that the culture in participating districts encouraged and expected completion of the MIG
program. According to the individual researcher’s data, 100% of superintendents’ responses and
76% of board members’ responses indicated that they had a board culture that encouraged board
training. Based on the research team’s results, 62 of 62 superintendents strongly agreed or agreed,
while 167 of 180 board member responses indicated that their school board culture encouraged
participation in MIG training. That being said, the numbers in Table 5 suggest confirmation of
superintendents and board members encouraging each other to seek training and participate in the
MIG.
61
Table 5
Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Their School Board Culture Encour-
aged Participation in Masters in Governance Training
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly agree 34 55 107 59
Agree 28 45 60 33
Disagree 0 0 12 7
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1
The theoretical framework of the Lighthouse Inquiry indicated that a crucial role of the
governance team is to create time to learn together and engage in dialogue to establish consensus
about vision and strategies (Devarics & O’Brien, 2019). As indicated in the surveys and inter-
views, board members and superintendents believed in the importance of professional develop-
ment and culture by encouraging members to be trained. This factor, too, was supported by the
literature. According to Roberts and Sampson (2011), school board training has a vital role in
providing the information and support needed for leadership; serving constituents; providing
input relevant to public education; and instilling the beliefs, behaviors, and symbolic representa-
tions that define the organizational culture of the school system.
Learning and Understanding
School board members have a significant responsibility to their constituents and the
school community; thus, they must be prepared to meet those obligations through education or
training. The theoretical framework of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) structural frame describes the
62
need for appropriate structures and systems. By investing in professional development consisting
of academic and on-the-job training, organizations can increase the efficacy of the organization
(Bolman & Deal, 2017). The CSBA’s MIG program provides learning through governance
teams’ professional development on topics such as the Foundations of Governance, Policy and
Judicial Review, School Finance, Human Resources, and Community Relations and Advocacy
(CSBA, 2018c).
The board has considerable influence over educational decisions. Fundamentally, each
study participant acknowledged that they attended the MIG training to build competency, includ-
ing increasing their knowledge to make critical decisions. According to Superintendent C, it was
important for participants to “become more in tune with the broader scope of what being a trustee
really means.”
The most significant factor that impacted Board Member C3’s decision to go to the MIG
training came from “not being able to learn enough on the job.” The documented motivation for
training was a necessity for participants wanting to raise their capacity for governance. Board
Member A3 shared, “I realized I didn’t have any idea what it was I needed to know to actually do
my job as a school board member.” Board Member A2 elaborated on the need for training on the
Foundations in order to “fully understand” the job so that board members could serve the com-
munity “the best they can.”
School board training is offered to school board members in California but not mandated.
However, training is considered fundamental to building confidence and capacity in school board
members in order to be effective in their duties. The MIG program provided support and ongoing
professional development for school board members. Simply stated by Board Member B3,
“what’s foundational is trying to understand how you should operate as a school board. It is
63
important.” Board Member C2 agreed that to understand a board member’s job well, governance
members need to make time for training or havoc will ensue:
If you’re not willing to put in a little time and energy and find out what the role is and the
job is—because there’s a lot of people who don’t understand the completeness of what
you as a board member need to do—then don’t take the time to become a school board
member. You’re just going to create this havoc and maybe a singular agenda for yourself
because that’s why you wanted to become a member, for your purpose only. It can’t work
that way.
Some board members were drawn to the MIG training to fully understand their responsi-
bility to their community—duties such as working as a team to set high standards for student
learning and student achievement and how to hold the superintendent accountable for district
goals and initiatives. Superintendent A verified that board members’ role was to hold him ac-
countable and that training helps with that understanding:
Training comes in, and it helps them [board members] understand . . . what their role is as
a board of five people. And it’s not about them; it’s not about what they think it’s about.
How do they represent the people to do what’s right? I mean, I totally appreciate the fact
they hold me accountable for things, but hold me accountable and let me do my job.
Training advances learning, and governance training for Board Member B3 was essential
as members “put pressure on [themselves] to get better because it is not an easy job with the
accountability that educators get these days.” According to Board Member C3, the MIG training
equipped members with the necessary knowledge to successfully fulfill their responsibilities, and
“knowing the expectations of governance and how to fulfill these expectations are important as
we as board members continue to face new and increasingly difficult challenges.”
64
Some states require school board members to receive training, and some school boards
may implement a policy regarding school board training and development. Table 6 confirms that
nearly all represented superintendents and school board members strongly agreed or agreed that
MIG training should be encouraged by local district policy. Likewise, 100% of the individual
researcher’s survey results of superintendents and board members indicated agreement that local
district policy should encourage MIG training. The data presented in Table 7 illustrates that the
overwhelming majority of those surveyed felt that all California school board members could
benefit from MIG training. All 62 superintendents and all but eight board members strongly
agreed or agreed; likewise, all superintendents and all but one board member from the individual
researcher’s data strongly agreed or agreed board members could benefit from MIG. These
figures constituted essential data related to Table 8, which presents a strong case for mandating
training in the state of California. All superintendents and 169 of 180 board members strongly
agreed or agreed that MIG training should be mandated in California. The individual researcher’s
data paralleled the larger group’s findings, with 100% of superintendents and 63% of board
members strongly agreeing or agreeing to a mandate for MIG.
While California is one of the 26 states where board training is not mandated (Alsbury,
2008b), school board members have reported that training is needed to lead and understand how
to operate the school district (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). According to Danzberger (1994),
boards should commit themselves to an ongoing learning and development process. The partici-
pants in this study showed a desire to develop their skills to succeed, learn, and understand their
job and duties as board members despite no mandate, as discussed in the literature.
65
Table 6
Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Masters in Governance Training
Should Be Encouraged for School Governance Teams by the Local District Policy
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 46 74.0 116 64.5
Agree 16 26.0 53 29.5
Disagree 0 0.0 11 6.0
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0
Table 7
Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Masters in Governance Training
Should Be Encouraged for School Governance Teams by the Local District Policy
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 46 74.0 116 64.5
Agree 16 26.0 53 29.5
Disagree 0 0.0 11 6.0
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0
66
Table 8
Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Should Be Mandated in California
S u p e r i n t e ndents B o a r d m embers’
( N = 62) ( N = 180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly agree 40 65.0 73 40.5
Agree 17 27.0 65 36.0
Disagree 5 8.0 37 20.5
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 5 3.0
Summary for Research Question 1
Due to governance teams’ high-stakes obligations, it is logical that board members would
obtain training, such as the MIG, to conduct intricate school business. Motivating factors for
participation in training focused on participants’ eagerness to effectively impact their districts’
supportive culture of service and developing as a school leader and their desire to learn and
understand board members’ roles and duties.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 dealt with how the MIG training program encouraged and equipped
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance. MIG provides
board members with a conceptual framework to understand and conduct school governance
functions. Roberts and Sampson (2011) found that professional development is necessary to
increase the level of competency and performance demanded of professionals and to provide
board members with the skills, information, and behavior needed to effectively run a school
district. Participants were asked whether the MIG program encouraged and equipped them to be
67
effective. The significant findings from this work are presented below, along with three main
themes that emerged for this research question.
Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities
School board members are given tremendous responsibilities, and the literature shows that
professional associations are the primary educators of school board members on their roles and
responsibilities (Glass et al., 2000; Hess & Meeks, 2010). The board’s primary responsibilities
are to set a direction for the district, provide a structure by establishing policies, ensure account-
ability, and provide community leadership. The school board supports the superintendent to
implement the district’s vision, goals, and policies (CSBA, 2018d; Land, 2002; Senge, 1990;
Supovitz, 2006; Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002). The board’s primary duty is to hire a superinten-
dent and set the policy to hire other personnel (CSBA, 2018d).
School board members are responsible for a variety of responsibilities during their terms
of governance. Simply stated by Board Member B3, “you just need to understand the importance
of your role.” Superintendent C noted that
to become a board member, there isn’t really much required. You have to be 18, a resi-
dent, and a registered voter. Thus, it [MIG] really gives a common set of expectations and
some background for the board on how to function as a governance team.
The school board’s responsibilities include hiring and evaluating the superintendent and
final approval on all personnel, fiscal, facility, collective bargaining, and administrative decisions
made by the district. Board Member C3 stressed the importance of knowing one’s purpose, role,
and responsibility to the district:
Course one, Foundations, is the most important [MIG course], in my opinion. A clear
understanding of the purpose, role, and appropriate functions of school boards—on the
68
part of both board members and superintendent. Confusion about these roles can cause
problems and have a negative effect on the operation of a school district.
Board Member C3 went on to say that since the MIG training, “I am focused on doing my job and
staying in my lane as a board member.” Board Member A3 went further to say,
I think it [MIG] helped me to realize that it wasn’t my job to do the daily running of the
school district. That is the superintendent’s job. We hire the superintendent, and if we hire
the correct superintendent with the many points that you need in order to do your job.
According to the data, the MIG offered by CSBA leads to a greater understanding of
school board members’ roles. Superintendent A spoke to the global understanding of roles and
responsibilities from training, allowing board members to exhibit effective governance behaviors:
“They [MIG courses] kind of keep everybody in their lane, knowing what their responsibilities
are. Therefore, I think that helps the superintendent remind the team, if you will, of expectations
and responsibilities.” Board Member B1 also commented on the MIG equipping board members
to stay in their lane, “It’s [MIG training is] all practical information that we could use on a day to
day basis. A lot of it is geared to putting school board members in their lane, and that’s important.
They went on to add, “It’s [MIG training is] trying to really identify your role, purpose, and
mission, which is critical. I think new board members would really benefit from that.” District
A’s Superintendent expressed, “From a superintendent standpoint, it’s really important when
you’ve got your five board members or seven-member board, depending on the district’s size,
where everyone knows what their expectations are and what their roles are.” There is a great
responsibility assigned to school boards, and by attending training, board members can find
clarity about their roles and responsibilities to exhibit the behaviors of effective school gover-
nance. Board Member C3 felt firm that “there’s a significant amount of responsibility on board
69
members, making it vitally important to be aware of our governance roles and responsibilities.
MIG trained me on that role as a board member.”
The survey data aligned with the interview data. When asked whether MIG trained school
board members exhibited a clearer understanding of the difference between their roles and
responsibilities and those of the superintendent, an overwhelming majority of superintendents
and board members strongly agreed or agreed (see Tables 9 and 10). In like manner, the research-
er’s data showed that 100% of all superintendents and board members surveyed strongly agreed
or agreed that the roles of board members and superintendent were clarified and understood
through MIG training and exhibited by such board members.
Tables 11 and 12 define Foundation in Governance/Setting Direction as the top-ranked
MIG module of importance to the roles of the governance team, according to both superinten-
dents and board members. In this course, participants “develop insight into the roles and responsi-
bilities of the governance team. . . . [They also] “learn how to create a vision that best describes
the district’s direction, focus, commitment, and beliefs; engages stakeholders into the vision-
setting process; and focuses all efforts on student learning” (CSBA, 2018c, para. 2). As illustrated
in the individual researcher’s participant interviews and survey data, MIG’s first course was
ranked highest for the importance of its content in clarifying roles and responsibilities. To gain
insight, clarity, and skills for working together to lead their districts, Webner et al. (2017) recom-
mended professional development for superintendents and boards.
Effective Governance
Training provides new board members with a conceptual framework to understand and
conduct school governance functions. According to Waters and Marzano (2006), successful
school districts have school boards aligned with and supporting the district’s goals and vision.
70
Table 9
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Were Masters in Gover-
nance Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and
Responsibilities and Those of Their Superintendent (N = 62)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly disagree 1 2
Table 10
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Clarified the
Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent (N = 180)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 117 65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly disagree 1 1
71
Table 11
Superintendents’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in Order of Importance to
Their Roles as a Member of the Governance Team (N = 62)
Ranking
Module #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Foundation in Governance 54 3 2 1 1
Policy and Judicial Review 2 19 22 9 9
School Finance 2 25 16 16 2
Human Resources 2 6 6 23 24
Community Relations 1 8 15 12 25
Table 12
School Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in Order of Impor-
tance 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
72
Effective school boards provide leadership on educational issues and advocate on behalf of
students and public education. Ultimately an effective school board ensures fairness and accessi-
bility, provides accountability, acts transparently, and gives all stakeholders a voice (Hess &
Meeks, 2010).
Participants shared that it was helpful to discuss and learn various strategies to fulfill their
governance role and obtain content knowledge and skills necessary to effectively and successfully
govern their school districts. According to Superintendent B, “the board sets the vision and the
direction and helps identify district priorities.” The board must make informed decisions and
evaluate the results of those decisions. The MIG training can improve school board decision
making; and, according to Board Member A2,
it [the MIG program] opened my eyes regarding—hey, this is some serious stuff. It’s just
not a little title. You actually are making decisions based on the student population, and
you’re making the best decisions for the greater good.
Board Member C3 remarked:
I use what I learned and the resources from MIG to guide me. I’m a better board member
because of the training. It [the MIG program] covered leadership, establishing a clear and
focused mission, and creating policies for a safe and orderly environment.
An effective governance team is comprised of members with a range of responsibilities. If
school board members are not aware of what it takes to be n effective governance team, it can
cause conflict and other issues. Board Member A3 summed up the association between acquiring
skills and understanding roles to perform job duties effectively:
I think actually it [MIG training] makes it easier to do your job because you’ve been given
the skills that you need to make the job flow, and I don’t know that I would have noticed
73
that before, but with you and I talking about it, I do see it’s much harder for them [non-
MIG trained board members] to be school board members because they don’t understand
what their role is.
According to Board Member B2, the MIG program “clearly laid out expectations and authorities
and norms of behavior, which I think is very helpful. . . . I think those things help obviate dys-
function among the board members.”
Learning about effective governance through MIG allows board members to reflect and
apply what they have learned. Board Member C1 stressed that the MIG training encouraged and
equipped school board members with the knowledge to exhibit effective governance behaviors
through acquiring crucial leadership skills and capabilities:
All of us have a clear understanding of what confidential means and having trust. I think
participating in Masters in Governance really emphasizes how important that is. . . . Our
comments are guided by the understanding that it’s not just about what I think or you
think; it’s thinking collectively about what is going to be the best in our district and for
our district. So I think having that training really gets everybody’s head focused on what
your purpose is.
School board member training and professional development allow board members to use
the resources available to them and then implement those practices to serve the public best effec-
tively. District B was using such resources, as described by Superintendent B:
We use protocols—protocols for the governance team operating together or in public.
Those [protocols] are from MIG, a lot of them. Now we tweaked them and made some of
our own, but even those are laminated and sit on the dais in front of us, as guiding
74
principles. . . . So it [the MIG training] really has helped us understand what it truly means
to be the governance team.
As a result of the MIG training, School District C established a governance handbook for effec-
tive behaviors. According to Superintendent C,
we put that handbook in place, and there were our guiding principles. We adopted our
norms, and right out of the gate. Any time we’re in a conversation about an issue that gets
a little cloudy or sticky, we go back to those norms.
Superintendent C summed up the impact of the MIG training on effectiveness by saying, “Foun-
dations of Effective Governance have become the talisman or the cornerstone of the work that we
do.”
A school board’s responsibilities affect practically every aspect of the district; and be-
cause of school boards’ commitment to serving their community effectively, training becomes an
instrument for knowledge and skills. Table 13 shows that most superintendents and slightly fewer
board members strongly agreed or agreed that the MIG training impacted their ability to govern
effectively. To that same end, 100% of superintendents and 88% of board members surveyed by
the individual researcher strongly agreed or agreed that the MIG training impacted effective
governance.
When questioned about the importance of aligning the decision-making process to the
district’s vision and goals, 61 of 62 superintendents and 166 of 180 board members strongly
agreed or agreed that those who were MIG-trained understood the importance of alignment (see
Tables 14 and 15). According to the individual researcher’s data, 100% of superintendents and
board members strongly agreed or agreed that school board members who are MIG-trained
understand the importance of aligning the district’s vision’s decision-making process goals. MIG
75
Table 13
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Impacted Their
Ability to Govern Effectively
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly agree 20 32 72 40
Agree 36 58 82 46
Disagree 6 10 20 11
Strongly disagree 0 0 6 3
Table 14
Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With
the District’s Vision and Goals (N = 62)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 31 50
Agree 30 48
Disagree 1 2
Strongly disagree 0 0
76
Table 15
School Board Members’ Responses Regarding Whether Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With
the District’s Vision and Goals (N = 180)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 104 58
Agree 62 34
Disagree 13 7
Strongly disagree 1 1
training helps school board members to among policy, leadership, and management, according to
the data in Table 16. Sixty-two of 62 superintendents and 175 of 180 board members strongly
agreed or agreed, and this individual researcher had similar results with all superintendents and
board members strongly agreeing or agreeing. These data suggested that preparation and profes-
sional development, such as MIG training, help school board members to improve their leader-
ship, policy, and practice, as echoed in the interview process and the literature.
Building and Sustaining Relationships
The working relationship between a school board and superintendent establishes a tone
for the district environment. When governance teams can effectively collaborate, they can affect
positive change and portray unity publicly. According to the literature, trust, communication,
respect, and professionalism are critical when establishing positive working relationships among
the governance team members, including the superintendent and school board members (Fusa-
relli, 2006; Kowalski, 2006; Petersen & Fusarelli, 2001). According to the CSBA (2018c),
77
Table 16
Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Helped School Board
Members to Differentiate Among Policy, Leadership, and Management
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 26 42 100 55
Agree 35 56 75 42
Disagree 1 2 5 3
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0
training and professional learning can help board members to foster more positive relationships.
To maintain positive and productive working relationships between superintendents and school
board members, the governance team must support one another and work together to achieve
their shared vision and goals for district success (Webner et al., 2017; Weiss et al., 2014).
Professional and respectful exchanges and interactions help to build consensus, to reach
mutually agreed-upon goals, and to sustain positive working relationships. As Board Member C1
explained,
it [MIG training] has really helped us build those interpersonal relationships to the point
where no one is offended or gets their feelings hurt. If somebody says something that isn’t
the same as what you think. And I mean, I know it’s a small group of people—we have
five people on our board—but I would say that each one of us feels comfortable express-
ing our opinion on any variety of topics and asking questions without number one, think-
ing, “Oh, he or she’ll go out and repeat that and/or hold it against anybody.” There’s that
78
professionalism that you need to have to be able to really tackle the tough things. . . .
Everyone is very, very respectful within our group and with our superintendent and other
administrators that we have interaction with.
This comment not only illustrated professionalism but reinforced the need for trust, open commu-
nication, and respect in collaborative decision making and when developing, improving, and
sustaining positive working relationships. According to Board Member A3,
in Masters in Governance, it teaches you how to be a professional, how to be PC [politi-
cally correct] about what you’re doing. You can still get your point across, and you can
still say what needs to be said without ruffling everybody’s feathers and being rude and
disrespectful. There is no need to be rude and disrespectful.
Board Member B3 noted that “you need to act with dignity because you represent what I believe
is one of the most important aspects of any community.”
Participants in the study noted the importance of training received in encouraging addi-
tional collaboration. Board Member C3 shared that
through MIG, you learn to appreciate the district-wide benefits of becoming a collabora-
tive member of the education team. . . . You got to understand, you’re part of a
collaborative . . . An effective board works in collaboration with the larger community,
with whom they hold a vital interest in public education.
Board Member B1 summed up the power of training and its impact on cooperative relationships:
With training comes understanding and more cooperative behavior, and the more cooper-
atively your school district works together, the better you’re going to be for everything,
including student achievement. . . . It all comes down to cooperation, and that’s always a
good thing, and it always makes school districts run better.
79
The collaborative relationship between superintendents and school board members as a gover-
nance team can ultimately determine the district’s success.
Solid teamwork is the foundation for an effective school governance team. According to
Superintendent B, MIG training had been an essential component that had the ability “to help
unify the team, first off, and to help us understand our role better as a governance team—a six-
member governance team with five on the board.” According to Board Member C1,
I really feel like it’s [MIG is] a really important piece when you’re joining the board
because you are one individual; but when you come together with five or seven or more
board members, you act as a unit.
Board Member C3 shared that “if we operate as individuals rather than as a team, that is both
divisive and disruptive.” Superintendent C elaborated on this concept, explaining,
I’ve been doing this a long time, and I’ve been in districts where the board didn’t function
as teams and survived, and sometimes didn’t survive those settings. However, having a
board committed to those principles, you can always use the concepts in Masters in
Governance.
A greater understanding of the governance team’s functions can significantly enhance the
building and sustain positive working relationships between the board and the superintendent and
the board. Superintendent B was proud to say that “we finally got the governance team we’ve
wanted. To not work in silos, but together, to disagree and press each other hard, but preserve the
relationship.” Likewise, Board Member B2 shared what a team player on the board means being
“you’re part of a shared governance team, and you’re essentially operating as one unit. Knowing
that you have the functionality of your board members together allows you to move forward.
80
The survey data summarized in Tables 17–19 supported the interview data and the notion
that governance teams who had attended the MIG program exhibited effective school governance
behaviors and found it valuable. Only six board members who participated in the survey would
not recommend the MIG training to school governance teams, while all others strongly agreed or
agreed that they would recommend it. According to the individual researcher’s data, 100% of
superintendents and 88% of school board members surveyed would recommend the MIG training
program to other governance teams. The data in Tables 18 and 19 speaks explicitly to the\
question of the importance of superintendents and board members attending MIG training with
one another other or as a team. While 57 of 62 superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that it
was important to attend MIG with their school board members, only 120 of 180 board members
strongly agreed or agreed. The individual researcher’s survey data showed an even more signifi-
cant disparity, with 100% of superintendents strongly agreeing or agreeing on the importance of
attending training alongside their board members but only 38% of board members in agreement
of its importance.
Local school boards are entrusted with setting the policies and standards that govern a
school district. School boards can only take action items through a majority vote at a public
school board meeting. Tables 20 and 21 encapsulate how MIG training had enhanced school
board members’ ability to accept the majority decision, even when they held the minority view.
Fifty-nine of 62 superintendents and 153 of 180 board members strongly agreed or agreed that the
MIG training had improved school board members’ ability to accept the majority decision.
Similarly, the individual researcher’s data showed that 100% of superintendents and 88% of
school board members strongly agreed or agreed that MIG training improved school board
81
Table 17
Participants’ Responses Regarding Recommending Masters in Governance Training to School
Governance Teams
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 48 77 128 71
Agree 14 23 46 26
Disagree 0 0 6 3
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0
Table 18
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether It Was Important to Attend Masters in Gover-
nance Training With Their Superintendent (N = 180)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 53 29.5
Agree 67 37.0
Disagree 53 29.4
Strongly disagree 7 4.0
82
Table 19
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether It Is Important to Attend Masters in Governance Train-
ing With Their School Board Members (N = 62)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 38 61
Agree 19 31
Disagree 5 8
Strongly disagree 0 0
Table 20
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training Had Improved
Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even When They
Held the Minority View (N = 62)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 17 27
Agree 42 68
Disagree 3 5
Strongly disagree 0 0
83
Table 21
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training Had Im-
proved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even When
They Held the Minority View (N = 180)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 78 43
Agree 75 42
Disagree 26 14
Strongly disagree 1 1
members’ ability to accept the majority decision, even when they held the minority during the
decision-making process.
Weiss et al. (2014) stressed that transformational leadership is a framework that can
establish empowerment, shared leadership, and organizational learning that can lead to effective
school superintendent–board relations. This leadership embraces teamwork and consensus-
building rather than competition among superintendents and their school board. Based on the data
and literature presented, when building and sustaining positive superintendent–board relation-
ships, collective leadership, collaboration, trust, and respect are critical and should be the way
that governance teams work together to frame challenging decisions and to impact people and
ultimately outcomes.
Summary for Research Question 2
After careful review and data analysis, it was clear that school board members who were
MIG trained exhibited effective school governance behaviors. Participants expressed a need for
84
board members to understand the complex nature of education as well as their roles and responsi-
bilities as members of a governance team. Participants expressed the importance that the MIG
training had had on maintaining effective board function. Finally, participants noted the benefit
for relationships within the board and district that had been built from the training. Also, as
indicated by this researcher’s results, the MIG training served as an effective professional devel-
opment program that provided foundational knowledge and governance team skills to the atten-
dees.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked whether MIG training had an impact on student achievement.
Board members must be accountable to the voters, communities, families, and students they
represent. Accordingly, participants were asked whether professional development, specifically
the MIG program, impacted student outcomes in their districts. This study’s significant findings
related to Research Question 3 are presented below, along with the main themes that emerged.
Per the Lighthouse Inquiry study, there were strong links shown between student success
and board practices, such as clear expectations, commitment to improvement, accountability, data
use, collective will, and professional development of the school board (Delagardelle, 2008). The
MIG training program educates board members to focus on leadership and governance, thus
creating the foundation for students’ academic achievement (CSBA, 2018c). The NSBA (2019)
has urged school boards to concentrate on raising student achievement, and effective district
leadership has been shown to have a positive impact on student achievement (Waters & Marzano,
2006).
85
Training Had Limited or No Perceived Influence on Achievement
According to the literature, the MIG training courses develop board members’ skills to
contribute to school districts’ progress and success. While all the study respondents were MIG
trained regarding developing policies and procedures; setting goals, priorities, and expectations;
and focusing on their district’s mission, some school board respondents did not correlate those
activities or the training with an impact on student achievement. Board Member C1 remarked, “I
think student achievement is one of those things that everybody comes to the table with a little bit
of a different perspective.” Board Member A3 described his perception of the training as indi-
rectly impacting achievement through board members knowing their job and supporting the
district:
I don’t remember it [MIG training] impacting necessarily achievement, other than when
we know what our job is, we can hone in on the important tasks, and so it takes some of
the mess out of everything. . . . The reason you are on the school board, the reason you
have this job to do, is because we are here to educate students, and we’re here to give
them the best education possible, the best overall experience possible. . . . We’re here to
support and give them [district staff] everything we possibly can so that they [district
staff] can educate our kids.
These board members perceived an indirect influence on the capacity of their boards to
improve student achievement based on their training and efforts to be influential leaders.
When asked how MIG training impacted student achievement, if at all, Board Member A1
responded, “Not at all. Unfortunately, no. Something’s missing. I don’t know what, but
something is missing. I don’t see how it [MIG training] would connect to student achievement.”
86
Board Member A2 expressed that “MIG has no play in the student achievement component of
things.” The same board member went on to explain his perspective:
The decision making for student achievement is by the professionals. It’s by the cabinets,
by the superintendents, by the directors—it’s by the administrators. We, as board
members—we’re just people. We’re there to guide the district, but any good school board
will base their information on the superintendent’s work and what administrators suggest.
Administrators are held accountable by the superintendent, and I hold the superintendent
accountable for student achievement. How he gets it done is on him. And he should be
counting on his cabinet members, his directors, his onsite principals, and that’s how you
do it. I don’t believe that MIG had any direct correlation to student achievement in my
district. It’s not my job to develop student achievement. It’s the professional’s job to
develop that, to work on that. And I’m just there to hold somebody accountable to ensure
we get where we need to be. So you simply give direction to the superintendent, “This is
where we want to be.” Then, you work with them to provide them with the opportunities
and the funding necessary, the teachers’ training, et cetera, to get them to that goal. Not be
an obstacle and be supportive.
Board Member A2’s perception aligned with a more traditional role of school boards
discussed in Chapter Two. In his opinion, the MIG training led school boards to be focused on
items such as financial, legal, and policy issues, while the responsibility for student academic
achievement had been left to the superintendent, district and school administrators, and teachers.
87
Training Supports Conditions That Focus on Achievement
The literature suggested that developing well-trained and effective governance teams
would positively affect student achievement and education. With MIG training, school board
members stay up to date on topics that are affecting education and student outcomes.
When asked how MIG training impacted student achievement, Superintendent B
explained that
it [MIG training] has really helped establish the district priorities’ and set the goals. . . .
student achievement is at the heart of everything. . . . When you get into the board and
governance role, they [CSBA] do a great job. . . . I think it’s all coming together. I don’t
know if it’s one thing . . . we’ve been working hard. . . . It’s taken a long time and a heavy
lift, but it’s that alignment.
Board Member C1 shared that board members did have an impact and were responsible
for continuous improvement:
The pressure s all about student achievement. I mean, it comes from everywhere. So you
can’t not be focused on that. It’s being able to look at it through a lens of understanding
and likewise understanding and ensuring that you get information from your superinten-
dent about what is being done to facilitate that. So in terms of a direct impact on student
achievement, I think a school board has the responsibility to ask, “What are we doing?
What is being done?” And to get the reports about the various programs that are being
used, and what are the results?
According to Board Member C3, the MIG program helped school board members to build shared
knowledge, values, and commitments for improvement efforts:
88
Our district priorities and goals center around student achievement, and we evaluate our
superintendent based on those priorities and goals using tools and training we gained
through MIG. . . . I believe all school boards should use data when making their decisions,
specifically when setting priorities for the LCAP. We use data when setting or tracking
progress toward goals. We use data to base our decisions and subsequent direct action.
Our board reviews a range of data to make decisions about school finances, staffing,
facilities management, and the like to support and improve the students’ academic perfor-
mance we serve.
According to board members in Districts B and C, because of training and the LCAP, their boards
had made a conscious effort to focus their work on student achievement. Board Member C2 said,
“Our discussions are heavier, they’re richer, they’re more direct; and with LCAP being involved
in that last [MIG] module on the actual policy and judicial review, it made us look at student
achievement very carefully.” Board Member B2 shared:
I think the fact that LCAP was just starting when we were going through the [MIG]
training brought even a more significant focus on student achievement, and so we got in
on some conversations about students’ achievements and the different kinds of assess-
ments.
By providing governance teams with access to and the opportunity for professional devel-
opment through the CSBA, board members learned what they needed to implement a vision and
goals for district and student success and achievement. Superintendent C felt that MIG training
did have an impact on student achievement:
I think it’s [the MIG training is] built around building systemness in a school district, and
student achievement is the ultimate outcome of your systems; but if you’ve got a history
89
of high achievement, that means you got pretty tight systems all the way around. You’ve
probably got pretty strong HR practices. They’re undoubtedly strong business service
practices. So it [the MIG training] really is an entry point to really reinforce that notion of
systemness, and then the ultimate outcome of those tight cycles is the achievement of our
kids.
Board Member B2 credited training and decision making focused on improvement goals
with being a functional team:
It comes down to the functionality of the board. Dysfunction rolls downhill; and when
members don’t know their roles, expectations aren’t clear, and [they] can’t work well
together, I don’t think they can make decisions in the best interest of the students. Know-
ing that you have the functionality of your board members together allows you to move
forward. Because we were functioning well together, because board members had taken
Masters in Governance courses, we were able to take on some very ambitious goals.
Table 22 summarizes participants’ responses regarding encouraging governance team
members to consistently use data to make informed decisions regarding student achievement;
Table 23 summarizes participants’ responses regarding the perceived positive impact of attending
the MIG training on student achievement in their districts. Based on the data presented in Table
22, 59 of 62 superintendents and 157 of 180 board members encouraged the consistent use of
data to make decisions regarding student achievement. The individual researcher’s data showed a
slight difference in results, with 100% of superintendents and only 76% of board members
strongly agreeing or agreeing. When asked whether attending MIG training had positively
impacted student achievement, 54 of 62 superintendents but only 128 of 180 board members
strongly agreed or agreed. This individual researcher’s data did not align with the research team’s
90
Table 22
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether, as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,
They Encouraged Governance Team Members to Consistently Use Data to Make Informed
Decisions Regarding Student Achievement
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly agree 31 50 69 38
Agree 28 45 88 49
Disagree 3 5 21 12
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 1
Table 23
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in Governance Training Had
Positively Impacted Student Achievement in Their District
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly agree 8 13 39 22
Agree 46 74 89 49
Disagree 8 13 50 28
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 1
91
data on this question. Only 67% of superintendents and 63% of board members strongly agreed or
agreed.
Tables 24 and 25 present survey data on whether school board members who had earned
MIG certification demonstrated an increased focus on student achievement. According to these
tables, 58 of 62 superintendents and 140 of 180 board members strongly agreed or agreed. In
comparison, in this individual researcher’s data, 100% of superintendents agreed and 88% of
board members strongly agreed or agreed. While many respondents seemed to understand the
importance of the MIG training, a smaller percentage felt that it positively impacted student
achievement in their districts.
According to Bolman and Deal (2017), organizations can frame challenging decisions that
impact people and outcomes. Researchers (Plough, 2014; Roberts & Sampson, 2011) have
concluded from their studies that while most states do not have a mandatory training requirement
for school board members, professional development is vital if school districts are to improve
their effectiveness and student performance. The NSBA’s (2019) position reinforced Roberts and
Sampson’s (2011) findings that there is a need for school board training. The literature supported
most researchers’ results regarding governance teams’ understanding of the importance of the
MIG training; however, just over a quarter of the respondents did not believe that MIG positively
impacted student achievement in their districts.
Summary for Research Question 3
Based on the data, most governance team members agreed that the MIG training had
increased their focus on working together to improve all students’ success. According to the
literature, school boards can influence the academic achievement of students. Governance teams
are the architects of the district’s plans for increasing student achievement. Thus, school board
92
Table 24
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Had Earned Masters in
Governance Certification Demonstrated an Increased Focus on Student Achievement (N = 62)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 14 23
Agree 44 71
Disagree 4 6
Strongly disagree 0 0
Table 25
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,
Their Focus Was on Student Achievement (N = 180)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 49 27.0
Agree 91 50.5
Disagree 39 21.5
Strongly disagree 1 1.0
members should have the training to clearly understand the board’s functions, among which
primarily is supporting increased student achievement.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, data from participant interviews and surveys have been triangulated with
the literature from Chapter Two and presented in organized themes through the lens of the study’s
93
purpose and research questions. By examining the motivating factors that impacted school board
members’ decision to participate in the MIG training program as well as the impact the MIG
training had on effective school governance and student achievement behaviors, a more precise
understanding has emerged. The examination of the data provided experiences, attitudes, and
personal perceptions regarding the MIG program, thereby demonstrating the importance of the
participants’ professional development program.
School board training such as the MIG program provides an added value to the gover-
nance team’s service, especially in setting a high standard for future performance and growth.
Based on the Lighthouse Inquiry work of the IASB (Rice et al., 2000), five critical roles of school
boards can positively increase student success: (a) setting clear expectations, (b) creating condi-
tions for success, (c) holding the system accountable to the expectations, (d) building collective
will, and (e) learning together as a board team (Delagardelle, 2008). This research study’s find-
ings reinforced Lighthouse Inquiry study’s findings (Delagardelle, 2008) that school board
members’ training is of critical importance and has an impact.
94
Chapter Five: Discussion
This study looked specifically at school board members and superintendents in 12 coun-
ties in the state of California for whom training was offered but not mandated. The study explored
the importance of school board training through a qualitative approach that examined the percep-
tions of school board members and superintendents about the MIG training program and its
impact on school governance and student achievement. The literature review in Chapter Two
provided a strong background on the prior research conducted related to this study. According to
the literature presented in Chapter Two, providing training for school board members builds their
capacity to understand education and their role as board members and increases the efficacy of
both individual members and the district. The CSBA has developed the MIG program as an
optional training program for school board members, and the impact of this training was the focus
of the study.
Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit effective governance
characteristics. 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 gover-
nance and student achievement.
Under the direction of Dr. Michael Escalante, 20 doctoral candidates from the USC
Rossier School of Education formed the research team for this study. In collaboration with one
another and with Dr. Escalante as the lead researcher and supervisor, the research team
95
developed, designed, and conducted this study. The theoretical frameworks for this study
included Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four-frame model for effective leadership, the IASB’s
Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000), and the CSBA’s (n.d.) Professional Governance
Standards. The research team used these frameworks to examine the perceptions of superinten-
dents and school board members regarding MIG training and its impact on school governance
and student achievement. The qualitative data collected for this study used school board and
superintendent surveys and interview guides designed collaboratively by the research team,
aligned with the three research questions and directly correlated to the frameworks. The follow-
ing research questions guided this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG
training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
These questions and the implications for practice, policy, and suggestions for further research
related to these, are presented in the sections below.
The discussion and conclusion contained in this chapter address the findings related to the
research questions. The implications presented include suggestions for continued training of
boards and individual members, plus recommendations for future research in school board ori-
entation and professional development and policy implications.
96
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1
Due to the high-stakes obligations of governance teams, board members are motivated to
obtain training, such as the MIG program, to conduct complex school district business. Motivat-
ing factors for participation in training focused on three main themes: participants’ eagerness to
effectively impact their districts, a supportive culture or expectation of service, and a desire to
learn and understand the roles and duties of board members,
The functions and decisions of school boards are essential. School board participants were
eager to be effective and successful. They thus obtained the knowledge and skills necessary to
govern their school districts by acquiring crucial leadership skills and capabilities through MIG
training. This study found that a significant number of participants were influenced to attend the
MIG program because they were self-motivated to gain critical training on behaviors required to
effectively run a school district and to be effective decision makers and improve educational
outcomes.
Other participants were motivated to build shared knowledge, values, and commitments
due to the participation culture or expectations of their school board regarding MIG training.
Based on this research, a culture of learning had a significant influence on participants’ comple-
tion of the MIG training for critical development. The data confirmed that superintendents and
board members in participating districts encouraged one another to seek training as a commit-
ment to further learning and understanding.
Another motivating factor for board member training identified in this study was provid-
ing board member participants with the information and support needed to serve their district
best. Training for many participants was sought to build competency, including increasing their
97
knowledge to make critical decisions. This understanding allowed governance teams to stay up to
date on issues that were currently affecting education and student outcomes.
Research Question 2
A recognizable outcome for a well-trained board is a clear understanding of the roles of
board members and superintendent—focusing on board function, policy formation, and effective
governance. The superintendents and board members in the study expressed how the MIG
training received in their districts helped governance members to exhibit effective school gover-
nance behaviors, including positive relationships and collaboration, thus ultimately determining
its success. The MIG training served as an impactful professional development program that
provided foundational knowledge and governance team skills.
School board members make decisions that have a significant impact on their students,
schools, and communities. According to this study’s findings, to equip school board members
with the necessary knowledge to successfully fulfill their responsibilities, board members should
undergo training and development to clarify roles and responsibilities. When board members are
trained, they exercise responsibility, carry out a vision, demonstrate leadership, and provide
accountability.
Governance teams make decisions that can have a long-term impact. School board
member training in core governance principles helps board members to obtain the content
knowledge and skills necessary to effectively and successfully fulfill their governance role and to
oversee their school districts responsibly. In this study, school board members overwhelmingly
agreed that the MIG training impacted their ability to govern effectively. Participants utilized
their training to help to navigate their governance roles and responsibilities and were helped by
the various strategies learned to fulfill the governance role.
98
Building and sustaining relationships is another exhibited behavior of effective school
governance teams. According to this study’s findings, MIG training provided governance teams
with a conceptual framework to have a collaborative relationship with staff and the community
and to establish a communication system to engage and inform all stakeholders in setting and
achieving district goals. According to participants, the MIG training brought a greater under-
standing of the governance team’s functions, which enhanced the building and sustaining of
positive working relationships and enabled leading as a united team with strong collaboration and
mutual trust.
Research Question 3
This study’s essential question was whether MIG training impacted student achievement
and growth, if at all. The fundamental concept of the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al.,
2000) was that districts that outperformed their peers had higher functioning boards than their
counterparts. Based on the data presented in Chapter Four, the MIG program increased board
members’ focus on improving all students’ success. The perceptions of superintendents and board
members regarding the MIG program’s impact on improving student achievement were related to
governance teams effectively working together. District vision, goals, policies, programs, and
budget alignment, influenced by training lessons, could indirectly impact student achievement.
School board member training such as the MIG program scan and cover various topics
that prepare local boards by reviewing the standards and governance principles for effective
board members. In contrast, some study participants perceived that the training had limited or no
influence on student achievement in their districts; however, these leaders’ decisions had a lasting
impact on the students, teachers, staff, and other members of the local public. Regular school
board member training and professional development keep board members apprised of
99
educational issues while developing skills, though some participants did not agree that training
contributed to their school district’s progress or to the success such training.
On the other hand, over two thirds of participants felt that their MIG training supported
conditions that increased their focus on student achievement. Participants reported a commitment
to a vision of high expectations for students, including quality instruction defined by clear goals
toward that vision. Effective school boards in this study has strong shared beliefs about what was
possible for students, their ability to learn, and their ability to impact student achievement. As
such, board policies and the allocation of resources in these districts were targeted to promote all
students’ achievement.
Implications
This study supports the significance of school board training. Even if professional devel-
opment and training are not mandated, school board members should engage in professional
development and training that specifically address practices and strategies to enhance their under-
standing and impact. As evidenced by this study, school board members’ desire to develop their
knowledge and skills to understand their job and duties for increased effectiveness was motivat-
ing for completing the MIG program. Second, this study demonstrated that board members who
received MIG training tended to function effectively and to successfully build and sustain posi-
tive working relationships. Third, the study’s governance teams indicated an increased focus on
student growth and achievement, attributed to the MIG program’s perceived impact.
Suggested by the results of this study are implications for school districts. Developing
well-trained and effective school board members will positively affect student performance and
education, which constitute a top priority of governance teams in today’s accountability era. It
would be in the best interest of students across California and the nation to be served by
100
governance teams that are well equipped with the knowledge and understanding of their specific
roles and responsibilities to provide district leadership focused on student achievement. There-
fore, as indicated by this study’s results, the primary implication for practice is that board policy
or state legislatures should mandate school board training to increase overall school district
function and student achievement. Policy should be enacted to ensure that all district governance
teams are well prepared and that they possess the skills and knowledge essential to effectively
and positively impact the students and communities they serve.
Recommendations for Future Study
The research conducted by this study was limited to the participation of superintendents
and school board members who responded to the survey and agreed to participate in an interview.
Participants were from only 12 counties within the state of California. Clearly, because of this
limitation, results cannot be used to make broad generalizations about all board members regard-
ing professional development and training and their impact on student achievement. The role of
training and professional development by school board members by state or nationwide warrants
further exploration and research. Research could be extended throughout the nation to compare
the impact of school board training programs throughout the country.
This study focused on the impact of one specific training program, the MIG program
offered by the CSBA. An interesting area that could be investigated further is the impact of other
school board training and programs on effective governance and student achievement. What
selection and design of training or professional development are critical for successful board
function and student achievement in California? This research could be expanded to include
non-MIG-trained board members and their ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective gov-
ernance and the results compared against MIG-trained members in this study.
101
As a result of this research, future study recommendations could be made concerning
what specific practices and strategies are utilized by governance teams to positively affect student
achievement. With an increased emphasis on accountability, school board members are forced to
think differently about their work.
Recommendations for Future Policy
California policymakers do not mandate that local school board members be required to
receive training to enhance their skills, understanding their roles and responsibilities, and how
they may best utilize their training to increase achievement for all students. While superinten-
dents and board members themselves advocate for school board training, a statewide mandate for
professional development or training for school board members is a pressing policy issue in
California and 25 other states currently without such a mandate.
Conclusion
This chapter restated the purpose, problem, and research questions forming the foundation
of this study. The findings related to the factors that impacted school board members’ decision to
participate in the MIG training program, how the MIG training program encouraged and equipped
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance, and whether MIG
training had an impact on student achievement. Finally, implications for practice, future research,
and policy were addressed as well. Through this research, the hope is that in this era of account-
ability, the inquiry deepens regarding and discussion of how the success of a school district and
its students are defined.
102
References
Alsbury, T. L. (Ed.). (2008a). The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation.
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Alsbury, T. L. (2008b). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 7(2), 202–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701748428
Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). The school district superintendent
in the United States of America. Educational Leadership Faculty Publications (Paper 13).
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/eda_fac_pub/13?utm_source=ecommons.udayton
.edu%2Feda_fac_pub%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Björk, L., & Lindle, J. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1),
76–91. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904801015001005
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations artistry, choice and leadership (6th ed.).
Jossey-Bass.
Briffault, R. (2005). The local school district in American law. In W. Howell (Ed.), Besieged:
School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 24–55). Brookings Institution Press.
California Department of Education (2020a). California School Dashboard and system of
support. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/
California Department of Education. (2020b). Local Control Accountability Plan. https://www
.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
California School Boards Association. (n.d.). Professional Governance Standards. https://www
.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/ProfessionalGovStanda
rds.aspx
103
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards. https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrdL
eadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2018a). About CSBA. https://www.csba.org/About/
AboutCSBA
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Effective governance: Resources, training and
support. https://www.csba.org/en/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance
California School Boards Association. (2018c). Masters in Governance: Governance education
for school board members and superintendents. https://www.csba.org/TrainingAndEven
ts/MastersInGovernance
California School Boards Association. (2018d). What it takes to lead: The role and function of
California’s school boards. https://www.csba.org/-/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceRes
ources/EffectiveGovernance/20180613_WhatItTakesToLead_Final.ashx?la=en&rev=b99adf
0f20bb4e12aebf41edb468c4fb
Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools—a historical analysis (ED010410). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED010410.pdf
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 391–395.
Canal, S. A. (2013). California school boards: Professional development and the Master’s in
Governance training (Publication No. 3563807) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South-
ern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
104
Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan, M.
D. (1986). School boards: Strengthening grass roots leadership. Institute for Educational
Leadership.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Cuban, L. (1976). The urban school superintendent: A century and a half of change. Phi Delta
Kappa Educational Foundation.
Danzberger, J. P. (1992). School boards: A troubled American institution. In J. P. Danzberger
(Ed.), Facing the challenge: The report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on School
Governance (pp. 19–24). Danforth Foundation.
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local school
boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 67–73.
Danzberger, J. P., Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan,
M. D. (1987). School boards: The forgotten players on the education team. Phi Delta
Kappan, 69(1), 53–59.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College
Record, 106(6), 1047-1085.
Delagardelle, M. L. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board leader-
ship 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 Educa-
tion.
105
Dervarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2019). Eight characteristics of effective school boards. Center for
Public Education. https://www.nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/cpe-eight-characteristics-
of-effective-school-boards-report-december-2019.pdf?la=en&hash=1E19C481DAAEE2540
6008581AE75EB2ABA785930
Dillon, N. (2010). The importance of school board training. The American School Board Journal,
197(7), 1–7.
Edwards, M. (2007). The modern school superintendent: An overview of the role and responsibil-
ities in the 21st century. iUniverse, Inc.
Ehrensal, P. A., & First, P. F. (2008). Understanding school board politics: Balancing public
voice and professional power. In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds.),
Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 87–102). Routledge. https://doi.org/10
.4324/9780203887875
Ford, M., & Ihrke, D. (2015). School board member definitions of accountability: What are they,
and do they impact district outcomes? Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1),
198–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2016.1071173
Fusarelli, B. (2006). School board and superintendent relations: Issues of continuity, conflict, and
community. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1555458905285011
Gemberling, K. W., Smith, C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key work of school boards guide-
book. National School Boards Association.
106
Glass, T. E. (2010). Superintendent of large-city school systems: History of the urban superinten-
dent, the profession, school boards, characteristics of the large-city superintendent. Edu-
cation Encyclopedia. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2470/superintendent-
Large-City-School-Systems.html#ixzz0p6HySmU0
Glass, T. E., Björk, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school superinten-
dency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium. American
Association of School Administrators.
Gomez, M. (2013). Impact of the Masters in Governance training program on effective school
board leadership and governance [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of South-
ern California.#
Grissom, J. A. (2009). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations:
The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and The-
ory, 20(3), 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup043
Hanover Research. (2014). Effective board and superintendent collaboration. https://www
.hanoverresearch.com/media/Effective-Board-and-Superintendent-Collaboration-Featured.pd
f
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004, Spring/Summer). Cracking the code of accountability.
University of Southern California Urban Education, n.v., 17–19.
Hess, F. M., & Meeks, O. (2010). Governance in the accountability era (ED515849). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED515849.pdf
Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., Campbell, C., McElroy, M., & Muñoz-Colón, I. (2002). Big city
school boards: Problems and options. Center on Reinventing Public Education. https://
www.crpe.org/sites/default/ files/pub_crpe_bigcity_dec02_0.pdf
107
Hochschild, J. L. (2005). What school boards can and cannot (or will not) accomplish. In W. G.
Howell (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 324– 338).
Brookings Institution.
Hopkins, M., O’Neil, D., & Williams, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence and board governance:
Leadership lessons from the public sector. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(7),
683-700. 10.1108/02683940710820109
Johnson, P. A. (2011). School board governance: The times they are a-changin’. Journal of Cases
in Educational Leadership, 20(10), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1555458911 413887
Kirst, M. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5),
378–381.
Kowalski, T. J. (2004). School public relations: A new agenda. In T. J. Kowalski (Ed.), Public
relations in schools (3rd ed., pp. 3–29). Merrill, Prentice-Hall.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L.G. Björk &
T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and devel-
opment (pp.1–18). Corwin Press.
Kowalski, T. J. (2006). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases (2nd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Kowalski, T. J., & Björk, L. (2005). Role expectations of the district superintendent: Implications
for deregulating preparation and licensing. Journal of Thought, 40(2), 73–96. https://
ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=eda_fac_pub
Kowalski, T. J., & Brunner, C. C. (2011). The school superintendent: Roles, challenges, and
issues. In F. W. English (Ed.), Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in
theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 142–167). Sage Publications.
108
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229–278.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543072002229
Lutz, F. W., & Iannaccone, L. (2008). The dissatisfaction theory of American democracy: A guide
for politics in local school districts (ED274041). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED274041.pdf
Maricle, C. (2014). Governing to achieve: A synthesis of research on school governance to
support student achievement. California School Boards Association. https://www.csba
.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/~/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/Governan
ceBriefs/201408GoverningToAchieve.ashx
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
McGuinn, P. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy,
1965–2005. University Press of Kansas. 10.1017/S1537592707071083
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementa-
tion (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Moody, M. (2011). Superintendent–board relations: Understanding the past to promote the future.
Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 23,
75–84. https://archive.cnx.org/contents/d0c5b8a5-2aa1-441f-a2b4-1ec66036f8
8c6%403/moody-m-september-2011-superintendent-board-relations-understanding-the-
past-to-promote-the-future
Morehouse, W. (2001). Training for my board colleagues? You bet. School Administrator, 58(2),
68–70.
109
National School Boards Association. (2019). Resolutions of the National School Boards Associa-
tion. https://www.nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/nsba-resolutions-adopted- march-29-2019
.pdf?la=en&hash=92E0E90329F99CA4B088B19609069ED3C25357B8
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
Northouse, P. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Petersen, G. J., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2001). Changing times, changing relationships: An explora-
tion of the relationship between superintendents and boards of education. University Coun-
cil for Educational Administration.
Plough, B. (2014). School board governance and student achievement: School board members’
perceptions of their behaviors and beliefs (EJ102887). Educational Leadership and Adminis-
tration: Teaching and Professional Development, 25, 41–53. ERIC. http://files
.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1028871.pdf
Ravitch, D. (2016). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and
choice are undermining education. Basic Books.
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and tomorrow’s
promise. Education Commission of the States.
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Bruce, J., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2000). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/superintendent team behav-
iors in school districts with extreme differences in student achievement (ED453172). Iowa
Association of School Boards. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED453172.pdf
110
Richter, L. (2013). The impact of the Masters in Governance training program on California
school board governance (Publication No. 3563990) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(7),
701–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Doubleday/Currency.
Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining
school improvement. Harvard Education Press.
Thomas, W., & Moran, K. (1992). Reconsidering the power of the superintendent in the pro-
gressive period. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 22–50. https://doi.org/
10.3102/00028312029001022
Thurlow Brenner, C., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. IPED Technical Reports
(Paper 15). http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/iped_techrep/15
Timar, T. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Peabody
Journal of Education, 78(4), 177–200. http://www.mikemcmahon.info/AccountabilityCA
.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). https://www.ed.gov/
ESSA
111
Warren, P., & Carrillo, G. (2015). Implementing local accountability in California’s schools: The
first year of planning. Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/
publication/implementing-local-accountability-in-californias-schools-the-first-year-of-planni
ng/
Waters, J. T., & Marzano R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effects of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for Education
and Learning. http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/ASC/4005RR_superintendent_
Leadership.pdf
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Webner, S., Jong, D., Campoli, A., & Baron, M. (2017). Public school board presidents’ and
superintendents’ perceptions of the characteristics of effective superintendents in a mid-
western state. Journal of School Leadership, 27(6), 800–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/
105268461702700602
Weiss, G., Templeton, N., Thompson, R., & Tremont, J. W. (2014). Superintendent and school
board relations: Impacting achievement through collaborative understanding of roles and
responsibilities. School Leadership Review, 9(2), Article 4. https://scholarworks.sfasu
.edu/slr/vol9/iss2/4?utm_source=scholarworks.sfasu.edu%2Fslr%2Fvol9%2Fiss2%2F4&ut
m_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.). McCutchan
Publishing Corporation.
112
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails
School Board Recruitment and Information Email
Date___________________
Dear School Board Member ______________________,
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program has on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. This study may serve as a source of the benefits of MIG training for school governance
teams. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school governance
teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board has completed the
MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done to complete the EdD
program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will
be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training
on effective governance. You will also be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom
™
interview at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded with your
permission and include questions about effective governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time. Infor-
mation obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher
and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no
individual and/or district can be identified.
Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the School Board Member Survey via the
following link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact myself or Dr. Michael F. Escalante
at the University of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx- xxxx. Thank you in advance
for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
113
Superintendent Recruitment and Information Email
Date___________________
Dear Superintendent ______________________,
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in
this email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction
and guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may
shed light on the impact that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in
Governance (MIG) training program has on school board members’ relationships with superin-
tendents 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 com-
pleted the MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done to com-
plete the EdD program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate
in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to
rate the impact of MIG training on effective governance. You will also be asked to participate in
a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom
™
interview at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The
interview will be audio recorded with your permission and include questions about effective
governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your par-
ticipation, 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 anon-
ymous by the researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a
manner that will ensure that no individual and/or district can be identified.
Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the Superintendent Survey via the
following link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any
questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact myself or Dr.
Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-
xxxx.. Thank you in advance for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
114
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation in Masters in
Governance (MIG) training.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school governance teams
by the local district policy.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states. The MIG training
should be mandated in California.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program would increase your
chances of participation (check all that apply)?
Q Online
Q Hybrid (online and in-person)
Q Locally hosted
Q Other _________________
5
The primary factor that influenced my participation in the MIG
training was . . . (check all that apply):
Q School board expectation
Q Self-motivation
Q Encouraged by board members
Q Increasing student achievement
Q Increasing effective governance
Q Unable to determine
Q Other _________________
6
The current cost of the MIG training program impedes school
board members from participating.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
7
As a result of the MIG training, my focus is on achievement. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
8
As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek community input
through a variety of methods (email, town hall meetings, surveys,
etc.)
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q 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.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
10
The MIG training clarified the differences between my roles and
responsibilities as a school board member and those of the super-
intendent.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
115
11
The MIG training encourages school governance teams to contrib-
ute to the effectiveness of our school board meetings.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school governance teams. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to differentiate
among policy, leadership, and management.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your superintendent. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern effectively. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
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 mem-
bers to consistently use data to make informed decisions regarding
student achievement.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
18
As a result of the MIG training, my ability to constructively accept
the majority decision, even if I hold the minority view, has
improved.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members could benefit
from MIG training.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
20
Attending MIG training has positively impacted student achieve-
ment.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
116
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation in Masters in
Governance (MIG) training.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school governance teams
by the local district policy.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states. The MIG training
should be mandated in California.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program would increase your
school board members’ chances of participation (check all that
apply)?
Q Online
Q Hybrid (online and in-person)
Q Locally hosted
Q Other _________________
5
The primary factor that influenced school board members to
participate in MIG training was . . . (check all that apply):
Q School board expectation
Q Self-motivation
Q Encouraged by board members
Q Increasing student achievement
Q Increasing effective governance
Q Other _________________
Q Unable to determine
6
The current cost of the MIG training program impedes school
board members from participating.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
7
School board members who have earned MIG certification demon-
strate an increased focus on student achievement.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
8
School board members who are MIG certified actively engage the
community and utilize a variety of communication methods (email,
town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
9
School board members who are MIG trained understand the impor-
tance of aligning the decision-making process with the district’s
vision and goals.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
10
School board members who are MIG trained exhibit a clearer un-
derstanding of the difference between their roles and responsibil-
ities and those of the superintendent.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
117
11
The MIG training encourages school governance teams to contrib-
ute to the effectiveness of our school board meetings.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school governance teams. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to differentiate
among policy, leadership, and management.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your school board
members.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern effectively. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
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 mem-
bers to consistently use data to make informed decisions regarding
student achievement.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
18
The MIG training has improved school board members’ ability to
accept the majority decision, even when they hold the minority
view.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members could benefit
from MIG training.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
20
MIG training has positively impacted student achievement in my
district.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
118
Appendix D: Interview Guide: School Board Members
1 What factors impacted your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance, if at all?
3
Some individuals believe that school board training should be mandated in California. How do
you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration
6 How could MIG be improved, if at all?
7
How has the MIG training affected how you govern your school district, if at all? If so, please
explain.
8
What role did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork) in
your district, if at all?
9 What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10
What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members/superin-
tendents?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12 How do you use what you learned in MIG training in your role as a board member, if at all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your experience
with MIG training?
119
Appendix E: Interview Guide: Superintendents
1 What factors impacted your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance, if at all?
3
Some individuals believe that school board training should be mandated in California. How do
you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to your board members and why?
Which of the following modules was least important to your board members and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration
6 How could MIG be improved, if at all?
7
How has the MIG training affected how your school board members govern your school district,
if at all? If so, please explain.
8
What role did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork) in
your district, if any?
9 What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10
What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members/superin-
tendents?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12 How do you use what you learned in MIG training in your role as a superintendent, if at all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your experience
with MIG training?
120
Appendix F: Informed Consent
Date: _______________
Dear _______________,
My name is _______________ and I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of Education. I am
conducting a research study under the guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F. Escalante. The purpose of
this study is to examine the perceptions of school board members and superintendents regarding the
Masters in Governance (MIG) training and the impact on school governance and student achievement. I
will interview and survey superintendents and school board members.
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the impact that
the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) MIG training program has on school board mem-
bers’ 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 participa-
tion in the research described above.
Participant’s Signature:
Participant’s Printed Name:
Date:
121
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument
RQ #1
What factors impact
the decision of school
board members to par-
ticipate 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 stu-
dent 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 Inter-
view Guide
1, 3, 10 2
4–9
12
11, 13
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the perception of school board members concerning the impact and benefit of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training offered by the California School Boards Association (CSBA). This study applied 3 theoretical frameworks—Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s 4 frames of leadership, the Lighthouse Inquiry study conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards, and the CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards—to examine the perceptions of superintendents and school board members regarding the MIG training program and school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance, including its impact on student achievement. This research included data collected, both individually and collectively, by the research team. Each researcher identified 3 school districts and then interviewed and surveyed at least 2 board members and their corresponding superintendent from the total participant pool of 62 districts, including 186 board members and 62 superintendents. The data discussed and analyzed answer 3 research questions: (a) what factors impacted the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG training program, (b) how the MIG training program encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance, and (c) whether MIG training had an impact on student achievement and growth. The findings demonstrated the importance of the participants’ professional development through the MIG program and suggested an added value to the governance team’s service. Motivating factors for participation in training focused on participants’ eagerness to impact their district, the supportive culture of service, and developing as a school leader based on a desire to learn and understand board members’ roles and duties. Participants expressed the importance that the MIG training had had on maintaining effective board function, which primarily supported increased student achievement.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
School board governance training and student achievement
PDF
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
PDF
Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
PDF
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California school board governance
Asset Metadata
Creator
Kearns, Stephanie Ann
(author)
Core Title
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
03/16/2021
Defense Date
01/29/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
CSBA,effective governance,Masters in governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board,student achievement,Training
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael F. (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy M. (
committee member
), Doll, Michele Taney (
committee member
)
Creator Email
sakearns@usc.edu,stephakearns@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-427401
Unique identifier
UC11668078
Identifier
etd-KearnsStep-9326.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-427401 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-KearnsStep-9326.pdf
Dmrecord
427401
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Kearns, Stephanie Ann
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
CSBA
effective governance
Masters in governance
school board
student achievement
Training