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
/
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
(USC Thesis Other)
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
California School Boards: Study on Effects of the Masters in Governance Training
by
Justin Lauer
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 Justin Lauer 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Justin Lauer certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Rudy Castruita
Charles Hinman
Katherine Thorossian
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
This research study examined the impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA)
Masters in Governance (MIG) training program on effective school board governance practices
and student achievement and growth as a result of the program. The purpose of this study was to
determine whether MIG training affected the governing practices and behaviors of school board
members by helping them to engage in best practices for effective governance, thereby leading to
improved student achievement. This study was framed using Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s
definition of leadership through their 4 frames of leadership. Using research from the Lighthouse
Inquiry study conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards, the research team analyzed
best practices for effective school boards. To determine expectations for governance teams, the
professional governance standards furnished by the CSBA were used. Data for this qualitative
study were collected from survey results from 180 MIG-trained board members who had
completed at least 1 MIG module and 62 superintendents in qualifying school districts across 12
counties in northern and southern California. Interviews conducted with 3 school board members
and their corresponding superintendents in each district. Three research questions guided this
work: (a) what factors impacted the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG
training program, (b) whether the MIG training encouraged and equipped school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance, and (c) did the MIG training have an impact on
student achievement and growth. Findings from this research suggested that MIG training
supports effective governance practice by building team coherence through established trust and
respect while clarifying roles and responsibilities and exposure and implementation of improved
governance practices, student achievement was shown to be indirectly influenced by the training.
Implications for practice include possible CSBA modifications to MIG training, due to the fact
that MIG training improves the practice for effective governance of school board members,
making trainings more accessible and exploring a state mandate of MIG training. This research
adds to the current research on effective school district leadership and more specifically, the role
that training plays in effective leadership.
vi
Dedication
To my mother, Patricia Ann Guzik-Lauer-Stephens: She has always been my source of eternal
inspiration, a guiding light, a patient listener, and the most incredible soul to walk this planet.
Through all of life’s ups and downs, she has remained my rock. For the rest of my days, I will
always hold her indelible spirit deep within my soul, and that spirit will continue to inspire me to
succeed to honor her name. “A mother is your first friend, your best friend, your forever friend”
(Soulwish, 2020, para. 1).
To my children—Sophia, Tyler (Dude) and Tyler (Rain): I sincerely hope that this inspires them
to be passionate in the pursuit of their dreams and keeps their inquisitive nature alive.
To my father, Edwin Lauer: His work ethic has always driven me to succeed to the best of my
ability in everything that I take on. Finally, without the support and love of my extended family,
sisters-in-law, cousins, uncles, aunts, and nieces and nephews, I would not have had the sense of
humor it takes not to let the stress of this process get the best of me. Thank you, everyone!
vii
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the people who provided support, guidance, and
encouragement throughout the process of completing this dissertation:
I thank Dr. Michael Escalante, my dissertation chair, for providing me with his guidance
and support throughout this challenging journey. After a year of delays to start the program, I
had many doubts in my ability to have the time necessary to complete it; however, Dr. Escalante
allowed me to join his group and provided much needed guidance and assistance to ensure that I
was successful in my endeavor. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee members—
Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. Charles Hinman, and Dr. Kathy Thorossian—for their time commitment
and recommendations to strengthen my study.
My friends, colleagues, and students provided mental and moral support throughout this
process. I appreciate the encouragement that I received from colleagues throughout the Los
Angeles Unified School District, especially my dear friends at Young Oak Kim Academy Middle
School, whose words inspired me to reach this accomplishment.
I want to especially thank my USC dissertation group—Isabel Brenes, Will Gideon Jr.,
Jennifer Jackson, Jayne Nickles, and Devon Rose—as well as all the 20 members of our cohort
whose support, dedication, and friendship provided me with the constant inspiration to complete
this work despite the personal challenges that persisted.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family for their patience and understanding
throughout this process. With deep gratitude and appreciation, I thank the amazing mother of my
children, Alma Barboza; my children—Tyler Ryan, Tyler Rain and Sophia Grace; and my
parents, brothers, in-laws, and all of my extended family for their constant support and
encouragement.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 5
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 5
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 6
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 7
Delimitations ....................................................................................................................... 7
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 8
Theoretical Frameworks ..................................................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 12
History and Context of School Boards and the Superintendency ..................................... 13
School Board Roles, Responsibilities, and Functions ...................................................... 18
Leadership: Definition and Key Indicators ....................................................................... 21
Effects of School Board Leadership ................................................................................. 24
School Board–Superintendent Relations .......................................................................... 26
ix
Origins of Accountability ................................................................................................. 28
School Boards and Student Achievement ......................................................................... 31
School Board Training ...................................................................................................... 32
Conceptual Frameworks ................................................................................................... 39
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 52
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 53
Research Team .................................................................................................................. 53
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 54
Methodology and Instrumentation Design........................................................................ 57
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 58
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 60
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 61
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 61
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 62
Participating School Districts ........................................................................................... 64
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 66
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 79
Results for Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 93
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 106
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 108
Purpose of the Study Restated ........................................................................................ 109
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 110
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 114
x
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 115
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 116
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 117
References ................................................................................................................................... 120
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails .................................................................... 128
School Board Member Recruitment Email ..................................................................... 128
Superintendent Recruitment Email ................................................................................. 129
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey .............................................................................. 130
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 133
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ........................................................... 136
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ....................................................................... 137
Appendix F: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 138
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix .................................................................................. 139
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Conceptual Framework for the Study 41
Table 2: Summary of Participants 55
Table 3: Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to
Participate in Masters in Governance Training
68
Table 4: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Would
Recommend Masters in Governance Training to School
Governance Teams
70
Table 5: Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the
Masters in Governance Program Would Increase Chances of
Participation
74
Table 6: Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Their
School Board Culture Encouraged Participation in Masters in
Governance Training
76
Table 7: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether It Is Important to Attend
Masters in Governance Training With Their School Board
Members
77
Table 8: 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
81
Table 9: 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
82
Table 10: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in
Governance Training Encouraged School Governance Teams to
Contribute to the Effectiveness of Their School Board Meetings
84
Table 11: 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
85
xii
Table 12: 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
85
Table 13: 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
88
Table 14: 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
88
Table 15: 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)
91
Table 16: School Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in
Governance Modules in Order of Importance to Their Role as a
Member of the Governance Team (N = 180)
91
Table 17: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members
Who Had Earned Masters in Governance Certification
Demonstrated an Increased Focus on Student Achievement
95
Table 18: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of
Masters in Governance Training, Their Focus Was on Student
Achievement
96
Table 19: 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
100
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Through qualitative and quantitative research, education has been clearly demonstrated
and expressed as a key to individual and societal success. The National Center for Education
Statistics (as cited in Johnson et al., 2011) has repeatedly published reports that show income and
employability differences among groups of varying educational levels. Children depend on their
school districts to provide an education that will allow them to become successful adults.
Because of these factors, leadership in school districts is deserving of serious consideration. A
public-school board member’s job can prove to be a challenging position. The role of the school
boards has evolved over the last few decades to include a far more complex definition of
responsibilities than ever before (Bianchi, 2003; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002; Petersen &
Short, 2001).
Throughout this period of educational reform, there has been increasing pressure for
educational agents to be held accountable for more effective, secure, and evidence-based
instructional practices that provide better academic achievement outcomes for students.
Underlying these growing pressures is a widespread belief that the quality of teaching and
administration are the only factors leading to improvements in learning for students (Webster-
Wright, 2009). As a result, the educational community looks to professional development and
training as the foundation for improving the quality of instruction and accountability for teachers.
This conclusion greatly overlooks the school board’s impact on student academic achievement
and overall school district progress. The demands for improved accountability and academic
achievement of students throughout the education system have expanded the board’s position.
Such reforms have generated a need for a system that ensures that members of the school board
are educated about and aware of the dynamic district education system that they oversee.
2
Local school boards are taking on a daunting task today to provide successful district
leadership for an ever-changing social and academic environment. As the governing body of a
district, the school board must be well equipped to deal with the challenges inherent in the
evolving landscape of public-school systems, with knowledge and skills. Members of the school
board hold a wide range of diverse and critically important roles. School boards are responsible
for multimillion-dollar corporations, frequently acting as the largest employer in the region,
managing a large number of facilities as well as transportation systems, food service operations
and enormous fiscal budgets (California School Boards Association [CSBA], 2018b). Hence, it
is important for school boards to keep abreast of changing educational concerns, as well as to
understand clearly the dynamics and obligations of their position (CSBA, 2018b; McAdams,
2003; Morehouse, 2001; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). In order to navigate the intricacies of
emerging educational issues and challenges, it is crucial that school boards learn unique
knowledge and skills to effectively execute the various aspects encompassing their position.
Ongoing focused professional development in these different aspects should provide school
boards with the necessary knowledge, skills, and conventions on specific practices and behaviors
conducive to effective district governance (Bianchi, 2003; Campbell & Greene, 1994; CSBA,
2018b; McAdams, 2003; Morehouse, 2001; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
The context of this study is provided in this chapter, which the problem statement,
research purpose, primary research questions, an overview of the research design, the
researcher’s assumptions, and the definitions used throughout the study.
Background of the Problem
In a period of increased accountability and high standards for academic performance
among students, every element of the efficacy of the public education system is being questioned
3
(Webster-Wright, 2009). Employers and institutions of higher education are challenging the
capacity of the public education system to provide graduate students with the basic skills
required to be productive employers or college students (Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002). The
school boards continue to face immense difficulties as a result of these rising demands. Local
school boards are currently held highly responsible for ensuring consistent district governance in
all aspects of district operations, as well as addressing expanding state and federal accountability
measures. School board members are often chosen to oversee and vote on a wide range of
dynamic and multifaceted challenges that require a deep understanding of complex laws fiscal
responsibility, policymaking, and program development, as well as numerous other social and
educational demands about which they have little or no information about.
Such challenges call for informed and educated school boards that are well equipped with
the requisite knowledge and skills to demonstrate effective leadership practices and effective
governance of the school board. Without adequate training, school boards are often left incapable
of making informed decisions about essential district operations, thus leaving them unprepared
for successful district governance (Bianchi, 2003). Knowledge and skills of critical district
operations are vital to a district’s success and require adherence to the appropriate policies and
practices governing districts. How do districts ensure a commitment by the school board to seek
training to educate and equip their members with the requisite knowledge and skills to govern
their schools and ensure adequate student achievement levels?
Following nearly 20 years toward a standards-driven transition of instruction, school
boards have to distinguish the shifts in state and federal accountability and assessments under
which schools are to be held responsible. State-led efforts coordinated by the National Governors
Association, Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO;
4
2010) worked to develop common standards across all states. The initial motivation for the
development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) was part of the American Diploma
Project. Instead of the previous state standards in California, California opted to follow the
CCSS. The introduction of CCSS, starting in 2010, meant that a new accountability structure for
K-12 education would be adopted. Consequently, students have new assessments to measure
their academic achievement in relation to the new CCSS. Changes in the accountability and
assessments of California have added to the confusion faced by local school boards with respect
to the new, standards-driven curriculum and, to some degree, have undermines local control.
Because of these challenges, the school boards have to face the changing accountability
and assessment landscape as they design district strategies for student achievement. Decisions
must be made on how school districts will provide systems to support staff in terms of
curriculum and training, professional development, resource allocation, and local evaluations. As
California is grappling with how government entities evaluate student achievement through this
prolonged transition period, local districts must learn once again to develop and execute a
comprehensive plan to address new accountability and assessments.
Federal educational concerns have a significant impact on local school districts and thus
on their board members. School boards must consider how existing federal and state laws and
regulations impact the locations they serve. School boards must learn how to navigate a new
accountability structure that has changed standards and the new demands imposed on them
through local needs, state and federal mandates, new curricula, and policy initiatives. Successful
leadership will be a guiding factor in policy interpretation, resource allocation, curriculum and
instructional practice adoption, local benchmarks alignment, and professional development to
CCSS. Moreover, strong leadership on the school board would allow individual members of the
5
school board to recognize their roles and responsibilities and to use effective practices of
governance.
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 Masters
in Governance (MIG) training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit
the characteristics of effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine
the perceptions of school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its
impact on school governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
The following research questions were developed collaboratively by the research team to
determine whether a correlation exists between the MIG training program and effective school
board governance:
6
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Significance of the Study
The study’s significance is to contribute to professional knowledge and understanding of
the influence of school board training on successful district governance practices, particularly
how MIG training in California affects governance practices by school board members and
school boards and their collective ability to work effectively with their superintendents to
increase student achievement. As the role of school boards has dramatically changed over recent
decades, the scope of district responsibilities has expanded, thereby leaving school boards
increasingly responsible for almost all aspects of district operations. The advent of stringent
legislative accountability mechanisms and shifts in student demographic trends has left local
school boards with the overwhelming task of providing effective district leadership that meets
both state and federal mandates, as well as district and community needs. The results of this
study should help members of the school board who seek to improve the conditions that
contribute to successful governance. This study will be of benefit to those taking part in the MIG
training as well as those responsible for producing the MIG modules.
This research should be of interest to California’s state policymakers, because
consideration may be given to adopting mandatory school board training as is done in some other
states. Some critics argue that school boards are comprised of unskilled, inexperienced people
who are elected by a low percentage of voters (Thomas, 2001; Timar, 2003). The study should
7
contribute to a deeper understanding of boardsmanship, policy, procedure, and practice. This
research adds to the literature by looking at how effective governance of the school board
impacts student achievement. It is difficult to associate effective governance of the school board
with the positive achievement of students. With a multitude of programs implemented by school
districts, isolating one curriculum, intervention technique, or activity as the catalyst for
successful student achievement is extremely difficult, if not impossible. This research, however,
is a small piece of the puzzle to understand what MIG-trained school boards do to implement
effective policies to promote student achievement.
Limitations
The limitations to the study included the following:
1. The study was limited to the representatives of the school board and the
superintendents who voluntarily participated.
2. The study was limited to the number of participants who were surveyed.
3. The responses of the participants were subjective and represented personal
perspectives.
4. The responses of the participants may not be representative of all members of the
school board and superintendents.
5. The study was limited due to the time constraints for completion of the surveys
and the interviews.
6. The study’s validity was restricted to the reliability of the research instruments.
Delimitations
This research has been delimited to school boards in 12 California counties (Alameda,
Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa
8
Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura) that oversaw K-12 school districts. Only school board
members and superintendents who had participated in the MIG training provided by the CSBA
(at least three of the five modules) were considered. Socioeconomic status was not considered.
Only elementary, secondary, and unified public-school districts were selected for participation.
Finally, only districts with representatives trained through CSBA’s MIG program were the only
ones sampled.
Assumptions
It was assumed that a qualitative approach was suitable for this study. It was assumed that
the procedures and methods chosen were appropriate. It was also assumed that the chosen
instruments were both valid and reliable. It was assumed that the 12 counties surveyed provided
a comprehensive data collection. Finally, it was assumed that participants provided truthful and
credible answers to all survey and/or interview questions.
Theoretical Frameworks
Three theoretical frameworks acted as the scope from which the study analyzed the effect
of the MIG leadership program on school board governance. The four-frame model for effective
leadership by Bolman and Deal (2008) was used to analyze the process in which school boards
participate in effective district governance. The Lighthouse Inquiry study, commissioned by the
Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB; Delagardelle, 2008; D. Rice et al., 2000) was used to
determine essential conditions required to develop successful leadership school boards through
comprehensive district organizational knowledge and skills. Finally, CSBA’s (n.d.) Professional
Governance Standards were used to define and explain appropriate activities and strategies used
by members of school boards when providing district leadership.
9
Current research literature suggested that the features of effective school governance are
demonstrated by the school board members who have received school board training or ongoing
professional development. Nearly every level of leadership in public education is being
scrutinized for its efficiency and effectiveness. This criticism often disproportionately assigns
blame to the most identifiable members of the educational system, especially teachers,
principals, and superintendents, regarding poor student academic achievement. Reformers often
ignore the role of school boards and their representatives in auditing the efficiency and
effectiveness of public education leadership.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined as applied in this study:
Accountability: A requirement that all students meet a specific level of proficiency in
math and English, as measured by state standardized tests. Accountability includes but is not
limited to the acknowledgment and acceptance of responsibility for contributing to the
achievement of students under one’s jurisdiction through the implementation of best practices
and effective governance (Larsen et al., 2011).
Accountability assessments: The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, the English
Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC), and the California Dashboard
(Larsen et al., 2011).
Average daily attendance (ADA): The total number of days of student attendance divided
by the total number of school days in a regular calendar school year. The number of students
attending every school day equals the total ADA (National School Boards Association [NSBA],
2019).
10
Board of trustees: The representative body of three, five, or seven elected officials
charged with the responsibility of the governance of the local school district (CSBA, 2018b).
California School Boards Association (CSBA): A collaborative organization that
provides guidance, resources, and training for school board members and communicating with
and advocating for the perspectives of school districts throughout California (CSBA, 2018b).
Effective board leadership: School boards that do not interfere with the superintendent’s
obligations to manage the school system and conduct day-to day affairs by avoiding
micromanaging of the superintendent (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Waters & Marzano, 2006;
Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through the
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2018b;
Gemberling et al., 2000).
Mandate: Term used to describe a direction that is not voluntary and required by all
members of a certain group, with specific emphasis on school board members.
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training: The five-module training offered by the CSBA
(2018b) for the purpose to provide the necessary knowledge and skills to school board members
to support an effective governance structure.
Professional development: Continuing education that keeps school board members
abreast of educational issues to increase their skills while empowering the organization (i.e.,
school district) to be forward thinking (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
School board: A group of nonpartisan citizens who live within the corresponding school
district’s boundaries and are elected to a school governing board only by residents of that area to
represent their interests (CSBA, 2019).
11
School board members: Members of the public who are elected to govern schools and
comprise the public portion of a school district’s governance team. Elected by the public, these
members bridge the public’s values and the values of the district, and their decisions have a long-
term impact on their communities and schools (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
School district: An education agency at the local level that exists to operate public
schools; synonymous with local education agency (NSBA, 2019).
Superintendent: The professional member of the school district’s governance team. The
superintendent is accountable for the direction of the school district (Land, 2002).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One has provided an overview
of the study, including an introduction to school boards; the problem, the purpose, and the
importance of the study; research questions; limitations and delimitations; and definitions of
terms as they are used in this study. Chapter Two provides a review of the literature, which
includes a detailed background providing information on the topic of school board history,
leadership, governance, roles and responsibilities, and training. Chapter Three explains the
methodology of the study, which includes the research design, population and sample,
instrumentation, validity and reliability, collection of data, and data analysis. Chapter Five
presents the research findings from data collection. Chapter Five summarizes the study’s
findings, identifies implications for practice, and presents recommendations for further research.
12
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
For centuries, school boards have claimed ownership of providing educational leadership,
guidance, and support to the public that they serve (Hess & Meeks, 2010; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). In
the field of public education, school boards are charged with providing the fundamental
framework for governing education (Hess, 2010). However, over the previous 2 centuries, the
function of the school board has shifted from more managerial to more legislative (Land, 2002;
Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Members of the board are asked to be knowledgeable and to make informed
choices on problems such as finance, curriculum, personnel issues, and policy decisions (Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). The function of the school board has changed significantly and includes a range of
duties imposed on its members, often with few to no preconditions for training or education and
training (CSBA, 2018b). In an age of increasing accountability, state and federal mandates have
only added to the answerability of school boards to provide effective leadership and perpetuate
the advancement of student achievement. As the role of local school boards continues to evolve,
the need for comprehensive professional development programs equipping school boards with
the knowledge and skills necessary for effective district governance becomes imperative. Today’s
school boards encompass a wide range of responsibilities that include but are not limited to
setting the district’s vision, developing district policies and programs, employing personnel,
overseeing fiscal solvency and facilities operations, and hiring and evaluating the superintendent
(Hess & Meeks, 2010; Land, 2002). Due to these significant responsibilities, school boards must
receive professional development and training relevant to their important roles.
The review of the literature begins with the historical context of school boards to provide
a background to the school board’s foundation as it currently stands. It examines the roles and
duties of representatives of the school board, as well as methods of governance and their
13
implementation in relation to members of the school community. With the present focus on
accountability in education, this subject is also given focus as it relates to the effectiveness of the
school board. To identify possible correlations, an assessment of current training programs for
school board members is provided. The section concludes with an examination of the literature
relating to the necessity and merits of the CSBA’s MIG training program in relation to effective
school board governance.
History and Context of School Boards and the Superintendency
School boards, comprised of publicly elected individuals, are responsible for overseeing
and governing local school districts (Land, 2002). It is important to examine the origins and
history of school boards to understand how early fundamental decisions regarding the
responsibilities of district governance have evolved and shaped current school boards and their
structures. During colonial times, the first Massachusetts School Law of 1642 pioneered
establishment of public education in the United States. (Goldhammer, 1964; Land, 2002). This
law did not stipulate that children were required to participate in formal education, but it stated
that it was the duty of the parent to make sure that their children were model citizens. The
perception was that parents would help their children to gain fundamental abilities that would be
functional in society, including being able to read and write (Campbell & Greene, 1994;
Goldhammer, 1964; Land, 2002). The responsibility for ensuring that the children were actually
learning was bestowed on the elected officials governing the town or region. Unfortunately, due
to the fact that parents did not comply with the law, it failed to achieve the desired results. The
Massachusetts School Law of 1647 specified that any town with over 50 households would have
to employ a teacher and that any town with over 100 households would have to provide a
grammar school. This law mandated that government officials provide public education because
14
it was their duty to have educators and schools for the community (Campbell & Greene, 1990;
Goldhammer, 1964).
Over the past 200 years, however, school board structures and their roles and
responsibilities have evolved significantly (Land, 2002; McCloud & McKenzie, 1994). Demands
for a local educational governance structure surfaced in the early 1800s, when a rise in settling
immigrant families began to emerge (Maricle, 2014; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). As
population size began to increase, a need for separate educational governance systems to oversee
the number of increasing districts and schools became evident (Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
As a result, educational governance became separate from general governance, thereby leading
to the decentralization of governance. Increases in centralized local school boards soon followed
to oversee and govern local educational systems (Land, 2002).
In 1837, in attempts to provide states with a more extensive role in education,
Massachusetts established the first State Board of Education and Office of State Superintendent
(Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Although establishment of these governing structures was
intended to provide the state with a greater role in education, local school boards maintained the
majority of control over their schools. This control was partially due to the lack of public
confidence and trust in a distant administrative body, often political in nature, reflecting public
preferences and satisfying local needs (Kirst, 2002; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). As the
population continued to grow, local taxes were utilized to fund establishment of new schools and
separate school districts (Land, 2002, Wirt & Kirst, 2002). By 1891, Massachusetts authorized
legislation granting local school authority to each district directly (Land, 2002). Individual
districts were given flexibility to govern their schools free from the State Education Board’s
administrative control.
15
This system of institutionalized separation of academic governance from general
governance spread rapidly throughout the colonies, leading to progressive rises in the number of
school boards formed across the country between 1800 and 1900. Although governance
structures varied considerably from district to district nationwide, the main responsibility for
managing and governing public education has remained with local school boards (Land, 2002).
In the late 1800s, members of the school board were usually chosen by neighborhoods of
local wards. Inherent disparities in the demographics of the neighborhood resulted in inequities
in academic possibilities for learners, as well as differing political ideologies. The response to
these perceived inequities led to the immediate participation of elite community members and
entrepreneurs for the purpose of improving and maintaining equitable local education
governance systems (Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
A crucial change toward a more centralized type of instructional governance occurred in
the early 1900s. This change served as the last significant academic governance reform particular
to the function and structure of the school board. The intention of this reform was based on three
main variables: (a) creating local, smaller school boards; (b) choosing members of the school
board as a whole; and (c) separating from overall governance, free of all political impact (Kirst,
1994). This change centralized local education governance by offering a professional
superintendent as the chief executive officer with a central board for individual districts (Glass et
al., 2000). As a consequence, the main focus of school boards has developed to focus more on
policymaking duties and less on management and administrative duties (Land, 2002; Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). At the same time, the superintendent’s function, earlier dictated by school boards,
has extended to include more duties in district administration and governance (Glass et al.,
2000). The original structure of education governance by Massachusetts established precedence
16
as the basis for the present governance system of public schools for today’s local school boards
(Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002).
While this change in governance gave local school boards the autonomy to show flexible
governance structures within local districts, a slight decline in governmental power resulted in
enhanced state and federal influence in public education (Land, 2002). The Brown v. Board of
Education case of the Supreme Court in 1954 warranted participation of the federal government
in public education to supervise desegregation. Similarly, as categorical programs financed by
the state and federal governments increased fiscal accountability through the 1970 Elementary
Special Education Act (Land, 2002), government participation in public education increased.
Most notably, with meticulous and thorough accountability mandates, the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act of 2001 (2002) has unquestionably extended and reinforced state and federal
engagement in public education (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004; Land, 2002; Timar, 2003).
The function of school boards has continued to encapsulate a wider range of duties over
the previous 2 decades; however, there has been little change in demographic composition
(CSBA, 2018b; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The demographic composition of local school board
structures continues to be defined by locally elected or designated residents and entrepreneurs
(CSBA, 2018b; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). This demographic structure of local school
boards continues to be defined today by locally elected or designated residents and entrepreneurs
(CSBA, 2018b; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Today, more than 95,000 members of school boards are currently serving on about
15,000 U.S. local government school boards (CSBA, 2018b). Eligible school board candidates
frequently tend to be local residents with little or no training or experience in educational policy.
Accordingly, it is not unusual for inexperienced residents to be elected to serve in a civil capacity
17
on local school boards. Applicants to the school board may be elected or appointed to a school
district governing board by meeting defined criteria. Individuals who choose to run for school
boards are mandated to satisfy only minimal criteria for eligibility, and candidacy needs no
education experience, training, or expertise. Aspiring school board applicants must fulfill only
the following criteria: being 18 years of age or older, being a state citizen, demonstrating present
residency in the school district and being a registered voter and being qualified to hold a civil
office (CSBA 2018b; Kolb & Strauss 1999). The majority of representatives of the school board
are chosen by the public to serve a 4-year term through residential or district-wide elections
(Maricle, 2014; Land, 2002). Typically, school boards consist of five to seven members. School
boards may have three to seven members, depending on the school district. Having three board
members is not unusual for smaller, suburban school districts with lower student populations
while larger suburban school districts tend to have seven or more members (CSBA, 2018b;
Maricle, 2014; Land, 2002).
California’s school districts vary from small rural districts with less than 20 pupils to
bigger urban districts serving over 700,000 learners (CSBA, 2018b). Over 1,000 public school
districts in California are governed by approximately 5,000 school board representatives, varying
in size from very small to very big and serving a variety of diverse student communities (CSBA,
2018b). California school districts are delineated by three separate structures: primary, high
school, and unified districts. Grades kindergarten through 6 or 8 comprise elementary districts;
high school districts serve Grades 9–12; and Grades kindergarten through 12 are served by
unified districts. The public school system in California is the nation’s largest and uses
approximately 40% of the state’s budget, thereby making public school operations a
multimillion-dollar enterprise (CSBA, 2018b).
18
It can prove to be a daunting undertaking to provide district governance to the largest
public school system. California school boards must be well versed in district operations at the
very least. Without adequate understanding, abilities, and training in these critical areas, this task
can be challenging, if not futile, for school boards.
School Board Roles, Responsibilities, and Functions
Citizen oversight of local government is the cornerstone of democracy in the United
States (CSBA, 2018b). While the U.S. Constitution does not address education per se, the Tenth
Amendment states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” (Legal
Information Institute, n.d., Amendment X section, para. 1). This gives the states accountability
for their citizens’ education, which is handled locally through school boards at the district level.
Goldhammer (1964) identified six roles of school board members as viewed by local
communities. Based on individual groups, this list may differ, but it includes most expectations.
First on the list was the expectation that members of the school board would promote the public
interest in education. Second, the expectation was that representatives of the school board would
maintain and protect the community’s values. Third on the list was the expectation for the school
board to hear the complaints and issues of the community. As problems occur and resolutions are
not made at the school level to the satisfaction of the parents, the next step is to communicate
these concerns to the school boards. Fourth, the community expects a fiscally conservative
school board. It expects members of the school board to carefully monitor expenditures and to be
prudent with expenditures. Fifth, the school board is expected to promote individual and special
interests for community members who hold specific relationships with board members. While
these expectations may not be the reality, sadly, they are the perceptions of local communities.
19
Sixth, the school board is expected to promote individual rights and interests while operating in
an impartial and unprejudiced manner to ensure that community interests are upheld. Counting a
member of the school board as a close friend or contributing to the election of a member of the
school board often involves the understanding that the school member will side with the person
or group if the need arises. This issue is now particularly compounded by the involvement of
unions in school boards and elections (Maricle, 2014; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Although these
expectations may not be the truth, they are, sadly, local communities’ perceptions.
As with most reform movements, intrinsic faults do not originally appear to be important,
but their effect is evident as time advances. In the early 1900s, school boards were reformed and
modeled after big corporations (Kirst, 1994). Consequently, it is now the responsibility of school
boards to supervise all school and district activities. This responsibility proves to be very
difficult, as members of the school board are asked to do all this superficially while doing
nothing at the required level. As a result, school boards now include government’s three primary
functions: parliamentary, executive, and judicial. School boards are requested to implement
budgets, establish policies, and pass laws. They are also approached with issues or complaints by
local people and community members and many times congruently shared with the local school
sites. However, the expectation is that the issue(s) will be handled by the school board. School
boards show their legislative power in doing so (Kirst, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
As members of the school board shift from policymaking to implementing those
measures, they are actually acting in an executive capacity. The school board must approve most
school and district expenditures, as well as contend with many human resources problems. The
board’s decisions or actions on implementing board policies are the executive authority of the
school board (Kirst, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
20
As school sites deal with discipline issues, the board is provided with a recommendation
to expel and must decide to act or not. The school cannot determine the expulsion of a student;
instead, the case is referred to the school board, which operates in a judicial ability by holding a
hearing and making a decision and determination on the result of the student (Kirst, 1994; Wirt
& Kirst, 2005).
It is not simple to define particular duties of school board members because school
boards govern so many areas of their schools. This situation has resulted in a great deal of
confusion about school boards’ duties. As a result of a study conducted by the NSBA in
conjunction with the CSBA (as cited in Campbell & Greene, 1994), the school board’s five main
duties were recognized. The purpose of this list was to provide guidance on the school boards’
main decision-making duties. The first task involves setting the district direction and defining a
vision (CSBA, 2018b; Campbell & Greene, 1994), which is the long-term direction where the
district must go and reflecting the superintendent, board members, and the community. It is
intended to be the driving force behind the school board’s various choices. The second
responsibility involves the establishment and maintenance of a fixed district structure. Hiring a
superintendent; developing and adopting policies, curriculum, budget, and collective bargaining
agreements; and, most importantly, supporting a climate of excellence are all part of this
framework. Providing support has recently been added as an area of accountability for school
boards to provide assistance. The superintendent and employees operate diligently to fulfill the
school board’s vision, and the board should ensure that it makes choices based on agreed-on
objectives and resources and that it upholds district policies (CSBA, 2018b). Recent legislation
has increased the obligations of the school board to be responsible for acting with accountability
in the interest of the public. The school board is accountable for tracking progress toward
21
achieving the vision of the district and communicating that progress to the public. Student
achievement is carefully tracked and shared with the public, as measured by state assessments.
There is also accountability for fiscal assets, contract negotiations, and personnel conflicts
(CSBA, 2018b; Campbell & Greene, 1994).
Most important on the list of responsibilities, as outlined by the CSBA (2018b) is the task
of advocating on behalf of students and their community. The school board is elected locally by
the community’s citizens and is there to serve the children’s best interests. Board members are
the community representatives who are responsible for sharing data with the community about
programs and policies. This is not a partisan activity; school boards are teams and must work
together to create sound choices. They should strive as elected representatives to guarantee
government accountability as a board, not as individuals.
Leadership: Definition and Key Indicators
Leadership may be the greatest valued feature that organizations seek when attempting to
instill reforms. Educational leadership is widely defined as the capacity or skill to effectively
process various types of information while preserving beneficial cooperative relationships (Bono
& Judge, 2004). School boards have been the keystone of America’s public education system for
the past almost 200 years (Land, 2002). They exist as a single governing body charged with
offering sound educational leadership to the public-school systems of the nation (Land, 2002;
Marzano & Waters, 2006). Effective leadership, however, is not easily described or obtained
(Marzano & Waters, 2006). School boards must be able to provide sound district leadership in
the attempt to achieve community and district visions with a broad spectrum of duties and
divergent community requirements. In addition, an increase in government and federal
accountability policies, combined with the ever-changing dynamics of public education, has
22
increased demand for efficient governance of the school board (Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano
& Waters, 2006).
As Northouse (2010) pointed out, leadership is a commodity much sought after by many
but still hard to identify and achieve. According to Northouse, leadership or management is a
complicated process involving many facets. Northouse characterized leadership as a process that
includes multiple methods and styles of influencing people to work toward a common goal in
order to attain it. Northouse offered four key management elements. First, he proposed that
management is a nonlinear, interactive method that requires two or more individuals: leaders and
followers. Second, Northouse proposed that the power of impact is involved in management.
This element varies from the first in that a smooth interaction between leaders and supporters is
suggested by the definition of management as a system, while the strength of impact denotes
how leaders affect those they lead. Third, Northouse suggested that management includes
influencing groups to work for a common purpose collectively. Fourth, Northouse suggested
perpetuating management by engaging a focus for common objectives.
Elmore (2000) provided a comparable conceptual management theory that both promotes
Northouse’s management theory and parallels it. Elmore suggested that leadership is the result of
the will and knowledge of an individual and cannot be described by particular personality
characteristics or professional titles. Elmore asserted that leadership tends to be romanticized in
American academic culture, as the public strongly subscribes to leadership’s trait theory. He
asserted that people describe achievement as progress through personal features and qualities that
most do not possess rather than through effort, skill, and understanding. Agreement with this sort
of management is prey to intrinsic shortcomings, as it assumes that efficient leaders are excellent
leaders merely by title or characteristics of personality. Effective leaders are efficient in having
23
the understanding, will, and perseverance to positively impact others to work toward a desired
objective (Northouse, 2010). Elmore (2000) proposed that de-romanticizing this management
theory would have a substantially beneficial impact on educational quality.
Every year school boards, as leaders in the field of education, are held increasingly
responsible for offering effective district management. With growing measures for community
and legislative accountability, school boards must be able to show efficient district management
by navigating various difficulties and requests and using various styles and approaches toward
management. Therefore, school boards must have the understanding and dedication to working
toward common objectives jointly with others (Thomas, 2001). School boards are left ill
equipped to participate in strategic leadership and general district governance without suitable
and strategic professional development to obtain the needed expertise (Waters & Marzano,
2006).
Effective leadership begins and ends with a clear understanding of every stakeholder’s
responsibilities. Bainbridge and Thomas (2002) argued that to hold school staff responsible but
not interfere with day-to-day choices, powerful leadership is required for school governance.
Superintendents and members of the school board must know and promote one another’s
roles. Identifying efficient school boards’ features enables both sides to succeed.
Seven conditions generated by superintendents and members of the school board in
efficient districts have been recognized: shared leadership, continuous improvement, sustained
projects, personnel support, information usage, staff development, and community participation.
This ineffectiveness can be recognized through the large amount of failed skill testing, bad
attendance, high failure rates, high school administration turnover, and few honors or advanced
designated classes (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2002). The New England School Development
24
Council published a survey with suggestions for improving the relationships and governance of
the school board and superintendent. Defining clearly the responsibilities of each and offering
recommendations to both sides would make it easier for them to work as a team (Bainbridge &
Thomas, 2002; Thomas, 2001). Support of district objectives coinciding with board alignment
are indicators of efficient management, thus suggesting the need for school boards to work
together to embrace and fulfill the district’s objectives. Individual agendas do not interfere with a
collective board. By focusing on efficient management duties, school boards can contribute to
the overall achievement of districts and their schools (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Effects of School Board Leadership
As district leadership stewards, school boards must be ready to participate in various
management strategies and behaviors governed by expertise, skills, and circumstances (Elmore,
2000; Northouse, 2010). Effective leaders use a mixture of basic approaches to management to
achieve this, each conducive to the situations they request (Leithwood et al., 2004). Effective
leaders employ a particular set of skills with clear yet fluid approaches to management, each
dictated by different conditions. (Elmore, 2000; Northouse, 2010) Through the years, those who
have tried to shed light on management theory and growth have claimed that the concept of
leadership does not provide a simple or clear definition (Northouse, 2010). Research has,
however, proposed that all good leaders draw on a certain repertoire of fundamental management
behaviors and practices and that the implementation of these practices has a positive impact on
efficiency and on desired objectives (CSBA, 2018b; Marzano & Waters, 2006).
The function of school boards includes a particular repertoire of decision-making
methods rudimentary to efficient management and education systems (Campbell & Greene,
1994; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Research indicates that efficient school boards use these
25
particular decision-making procedures to promote efficient district governance (Campbell &
Greene, 1994; Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano & Waters, 2006). Students’ achievement levels
and the quality of schools are witnessed when these practices are followed. These procedures are
essential to the efficacy of the governance of the school board and include the following specific
decision-making methods: building a vision, creating an efficient organizational structure,
establishing accountability, and ensuring advocacy (CSBA, 2018b; Houston & Bryant, 1997;
Leithwood et al., 2004; Walters & Marzano, 2006).
Although the number of quantitative studies that connect school board behaviors directly
to student achievement is small, many significant qualitative research sources based on school
boards’ behaviors in districts have been active in improving student academic achievement
(Land, 2002). One study commissioned by the Leadership Research Council sought to find areas
where a framework for school boards might be provided by the business sector (Thurlow
Brenner et al., 2002). The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the Iowa School Boards Foundation, the
Wallace Foundation, and the NSBA have funded studies on six school board practices. The
group conducted research focused on how board members think they do their jobs, how boards
are organized, how they are elected, and how boards interact with the superintendent (Hess &
Meeks, 2010).
Establishing a shared long-term vision is critical to the general effectiveness of the school
district. The establishment of a common vision is therefore essential to the backbone of the
governance of the school board (CSBA, 2018b; Campbell & Greene, 1994; Marzano & Waters,
2006). To drive all elements of district programs and operations, it is vital that school boards
develop a shared vision that infuses their community’s collective values and priorities. School
boards must create and sustain a fundamental structure of organization that cultivates a learning
26
and excellence frame of mind. This task involves establishing an infrastructure that is originally
reinforced by strategic and informed decision-making that includes, but is not restricted to,
approval of annual budgets and policy development in attempts to promote a culture that
commands excellence. (CSBA, 2018b; Houston & Bryant, 1997; Marzano & Waters, 2006).
Effective school boards show adherence and cohesion around demonstrating
accountability to the community by establishing systems and policies to support this effort
(Campbell & Greene, 1994). This goal is achieved through continuing informed decision-making
that demonstrates compliance with federal and state regulations, emphasis on improving student
success through fiscal accountability, program efficiency, and continuing student outcome
assessments (CSBA, 2018b; Campbell & Green, 1994; Houston & Bryant, 1997; Leithwood et
al., 2004).
School boards have proven to have a steadfast dedication to improving teaching among
students. This commitment is sustained through cooperative district–community interactions that
support district visions (CSBA, 2018b; Campbell & Greene, 1994; Houston & Bryant, 1997;
Marzano & Waters, 2006). The four critical decision-making procedures outlined above are
essential to the basic role of local school boards. While adherence to these main methods is
critical, engagement with their practice may have a positive effect on school board governance
efficiency and the general quality of education.
School Board–Superintendent Relations
As with any partnership that exists, the relationship between entities is the primary
success factor defining that partnership. The collaborative partnership between members of the
board and the superintendent is the school board’s foundation. A strong local educational
governance team, comprised of the school board and superintendent, is essential in supporting
27
the community’s educational vision for children, enlisting community support, and developing
long-term goals for student achievement (Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002). In fact, the interaction
between school boards and superintendents has become more and more critical over the past
couple of centuries, as higher focus has been placed on effective district governance (Thomas,
2001). Poor relationships between school boards and supervisors can lead to future compromises
in the capacity of boards to participate in effective governance (Petersen & Short, 2001). Local
school boards have one of the most significant duties, which is to hire a superintendent (Grissom,
2010). They operate intimately with school boards to provide united district leadership once
superintendents are thoroughly chosen. To promote effective district management, school boards
and superintendents depend on each other to provide strategy and guidance. It is a close bond
that enables both, if solid, to function strategically through tensions that are commonplace in
such an important relationship (Tallerico, 1989). When the board and superintendent have
powerful working relationships, a team-like partnership is established, district initiatives are
successful, and district visions are fulfilled (Byrd et al., 2006; Grissom, 2010). In the absence of
a working partner-like relationship, attempts fail, and visions of the district are impeded.
Thomas (2001) surveyed superintendents and board members on problems and
difficulties that, from their viewpoint, inhibited their capacity to perform their tasks. The
information proposed that the connection between the superintendent and the board was the
dominant factor in their capacity to provide effective management. It is essential that school
boards and superintendents, as the governing bodies of districts, develop and maintain a
collaborative working relationship by establishing defined contextual positions that drive and
perpetuate district visions.
28
Thurlow Brenner et al. (2002) proposed the need for a powerful leadership team to
cultivate a collective district vision that prioritizes student achievement. The superintendent–
school board relationship is instrumental in establishing a shared community vision that
promotes student achievement and sets the direction for the vision of the district (Thurlow
Brenner et al., 2002). Clearly defined methods perpetuate effective management habits, thereby
enabling school boards and superintendents to form a unified governing body to advance district
visions. Adherence to these methods brings organizational strength through clear, sound, and
unwavering leadership to the general instructional scheme (Marzano & Waters, 2006).
The perceptions of their respective roles by superintendents and members of the school
board lead to the tension within the relationship between the superintendent and the school
board. The governance board often has different understandings as to who will guide and
influence decision making and often displays a lack of appreciation for the expertise offered by
the superintendent (Tallerico, 1989). This situation may result in a school board overriding the
superintendent’s decisions and enforcing board-generated decisions (Thomas, 2001). To build
these relationships, there is a crucial need for a cohesive board– superintendent partnership and
strong interpersonal skills, such as communication and persuasiveness, which adds consistency
to roles (Petersen & Short, 2001). Superintendents’ success in a school reform period depends on
their ability to build such constructive and cooperative relationships with the school board. In a
2002 review of the problems of the school board, Hess cited the superintendent–school board
partnership as an important building block for effective leadership.
Origins of Accountability
Over the previous 2 decades, accountability in education has risen substantially. In 1983
a survey entitled A Nation at Risk was released by the National Commission on Excellence in
29
Education. This research recognized instructional system faults and predicted America’s demise
as an industrial leader if there were no major changes in the educational format (Timar, 2003).
Led by accountability, this publication started a movement that led to intense school reforms.
To understand the faulty accountability system in schooling, it is essential to realize that a
contractual connection between two sides is at the core of responsibility—one being the supplier
of a good or service and the other being the manager with the power to reward, punish, or replace
the supplier (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). In schools and districts with various layers of
providers and administrators, this connection is quite apparent. The initial layer simply defines a
director from the federal or state level and providers from the individual districts. Then, as roles
become redefined, districts begin assuming the role of director and the individual schools
become the providers, after which the school administrators or principals become the directors
and delegate to the teachers, who become the providers. These roles can also be interchangeable
(Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Problems occur when obstacles hamper the capacity of
providers and directors to behave in accordance with their responsibilities. This situation was
manifested with the 1999 Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA; California Department of
Education [CDE], 2020b) in California. This act included three primary parts: (a) the Academic
Performance Index (API), which was initially intended to be based on various measures but
instead was based solely on testing outcomes; (b) the Higher Performance/Improving Schools
Program, which offered bonuses for schools that met or exceeded API goals; and (c) the
Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program, which prescribed intervention for
schools that did not meet API goals and did not show enough growth. The initial intention was to
create ability and boost output by combining demands, incentives, sanctions, and support (Timar,
2003).
30
In 2001, NCLB (2002) was enacted by Congress and mainly dictated that by 2013–2014,
all learners would be proficient or advanced in language arts and mathematics. as measured by
the exams of each state (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004; Land, 2002; Lashway, 2002; Timar,
2003). The law did not set clear expectations as to what the results indicating proficiency would
be but rather delegated that determination to each individual state. It also did not mandate that all
states have a domestic set of norms; as a result, a fourth-grade student in Texas could have a
curriculum or set of norms distinctly different from a fourth-grade student in Virginia or
California. However, the law did create additional accountability layers for all individual states,
districts, and schools. Then, in 2015, the Obama administration passed the Every Child Succeeds
Act (ESSA; Klein, 2016), which served to overhaul and reform NCLB (2002). The new law
allowed states to be more flexible in how they are held accountable for student achievement—a
law that was particularly helpful in California due to its English learner population. The ESSA
recognized other important accountabilities, such as school climate and safety, discipline rates,
and attendance, as areas of importance. Finally, a key component affecting public involvement
with school boards was ESSA’s requirement that schools involve parents in the process of
creating school plans (Klein, 2016).
Currently, California school boards are mandated to abide by the California
Accountability Model and ESSA to guarantee compliance, as well as to make appropriate
adjustments to operate in accordance with their duties as directors (CDE, 2020b; Klein, 2016). In
these two areas, school boards must demonstrate their accountability to the public. Specifically,
the NCLB and now the ESSA have called for the publication and posting of a School
Accountability Report Card (SARC) for each school. The SARC offers data on information and
31
background of the school, student achievement as measured by test results, certification of
teachers and equipment (CDE, 2020b; Klein, 2016).
School boards are responsible to the public for the adoption and implementation of
policies that comply with the state and federal laws. Increasingly, multiple community members,
parents, and students have participated in board conferences to advocate for themselves and their
issues. The Brown Act provided a chance for the general public to discuss issues with school
boards publicly. The Ralph M. Brown Act (as cited in CSBA, 2018b), often referred to as the
open meetings law of California, was first enacted in 1953 to guarantee that publicly elected
bodies’ work was accomplished in an open and transparent manner. Now public discussion of
issues has become the norm rather than the exception, as in the past. These problems may be
anything to do with schools, such as curriculum, staff, and student safety. Most recently, school
boards have had to create and implement measures to decrease and eliminate bullying in
response to present legislation on bullying. This has become a heated subject for discussion as
school boards seek action from the public (Divercha, 2019).
Because of the increased accountability for schools and boards, there has been a potential
need for training. Because there is no educational or work-related requirement for running for
school board, board members come from a multitude of backgrounds. Providing some type of
professional development in specific areas, including the responsibilities of the school board,
legal mandates for schools, and school operations, may contribute to board members’ efficiency
(Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
School Boards and Student Achievement
Even though the topic of improving student achievement continues to dominate
conversations on social media as well serve as a core topic in many political debates, school
32
board members still may not perceive themselves as a potentially key piece of the solution. Some
researchers have identified the possible need for focused training for school board members in
order to develop an increased sense of self-efficacy. J. Rice (2010) found that school board
members and superintendents agreed that training is very important to a successful school.
Another study focused on higher education boards (Korelich & Maxwell, 2015) and concluded
that “without effective professional development, board members cannot understand their roles”
(p. 13). Bainbridge and Thomas (2002) proposed that without quality professional development
for school board members, the district risks an ineffective school board. Roberts and Sampson
(2011) found that most states do not have a requirement related to professional development for
school board members but most state education directors believed that professional development
for school boards was important. They also found that the Education Week 2009 rating of state
educational systems awarded a B or C to those states that had professional development
requirements for board members, while those that did not have such requirements earned a D or
F.
School Board Training
More than ever, school boards are held responsible for efficient governance in an
extremely complex, quickly changing world of public schooling (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon, 2010).
Since its founding, the role of the school board member has changed significantly. Board
members are held accountable for a variety of duties, defined with increasing responsibilities. As
schools remain responsible for enhancing student performance, there is an increasing focus for
school boards to provide effective district leadership centered on student achievement (Roberts
& Sampson, 2011). A broad variety of complicated and essential duties are assumed by the
school board members of today. To fulfill their core duties, school boards must have effective
33
techniques or practices that can assist in their preparation (Dillon, 2010). In addition to focusing
on enhancing student achievement, identifying district objectives, ensuring successful program
development, preserving economic solvency, supervising facilities and operations, policymaking,
and recruiting and evaluating a superintendent are just a few of the many varied and complex
duties that school boards assume (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon, 2010). To provide effective school
district management, school boards must be well equipped with the skills, data, and behaviors
that are critical to a governance team. As members of the board are elected individuals with no
required degree of formal professional growth or education, representatives often lack training to
comprehend the complete scope of their responsibilities (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Professional development is essential and should not be compromised in the area of these
duties. Because school boards’ strategies and activities have a profound effect on the efficacy of
enhancement projects and a school district’s general welfare, formal, deliberate training
programs are required to improve school governance (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon, 2010; McAdams,
2003). Roberts and Sampson (2011) asserted that the skills and effectiveness of the school board
are essential to a school district’s success.
With increasingly complex layers of accountability, it is imperative that school boards be
well versed in the multiple facets of school board responsibilities. Unprepared and untrained
school boards can paralyze the efficiency of school districts and interfere with the governing
team’s general cohesiveness (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon, 2010). School boards lacking fundamental
understanding of district operations, fiscal accountability, and federal and state legislation may
interrupt or even stagnate the progress of school board governance initiatives (Morehouse, 2001).
Bianchi (2003) noted that compulsory training of school board members is becoming
increasingly critical in the age of demanding accountability, stricter norms, and a growing
34
number of state and federal laws. Board members tend to feel overwhelmed and inadequately
prepared to deliver effective district governance due to increasing national and federal mandates,
increasing accountability measures, and demanding government requirements. Bianchi stated
that many school boards are ill advised to address complicated problems stemming from strict
state and federal legislation and community requirements. As a consequence, there may be a
significant reduction in the number of school board members pursuing new or repeated board
management. Bianchi asserted that this reduction in the service of school board members could
possibly erode government trust in school boards and disrupt the general efficiency of the school
board.
McAdams (2003) proposed that for effective district governance, school board
preparation is crucial. He asserted that a qualified board is a stronger board but that training does
not necessarily provide for effective governance. While training does not ensure effective
governance, it does better educate and equip the members to tackle critical problems using
knowledge of policy to guide them. Recent studies indicate that training of school board
members benefits school board administration and general district leadership (Dillon, 2010;
Morehouse, 2001).
Dillon (2010) proposed that learning almost always improves a board almost always and
can sometimes result in an outstanding board. Untrained and unprepared board members, on the
other hand, can paralyze district efforts and contribute little to effective governance. School
board training serves as a key building block for effective governance. Because school boards
directly impact a district’s achievement, staying well informed about current problems, requests,
and laws is unquestionably essential. Participation in a one-time training program may not
prepare school boards adequately to accommodate the immediate stresses of districts or the
35
growing requirements of state and federal regulations. Although a qualified board does not
ensure successful governance, the need for compulsory training for school board members is
essential to address their specific roles and duties (Bianchi, 2003; McAdams, 2003). School
boards must participate in continuing training that specifically addresses the district’s current
problems and needs and provides members with the expertise and abilities required to meet
evolving requirements and challenges.
An effective school board is a unified school board (Dillon, 2010). Members of the
school board work jointly as a governing team and should therefore engage jointly in training
programs to guarantee that representatives share a common vision, purpose, leadership skills,
and working relationship. For newly elected and veteran board members alike, training should be
required to ensure that all members receive coherent details and training to enable them to
function effectively as a cohesive management team (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon, 2010). Because new
board members require at least 1 or 2 years to acclimatize to state and federal legislation,
regulations, and policies that guide district functions, compulsory board education would be
useful in providing them with the expertise and abilities to play a constructive role as
policymakers. Through leadership training, team building, communication, and training on roles
and duties, boards will be better prepared to concentrate on key policymaking fundamentals
(Bianchi, 2003).
Together, school boards and superintendents form the governing body of a district. Joint
involvement in training programs for professional development should therefore be necessary
(McAdams, 2003; Morehouse, 2001). According to the NSBA (2019), school boards turn to
superintendents for input and decision making in about 88% of all instances. Joint involvement
in the training of school boards should therefore be advised to guarantee high-quality, informed
36
decision-making practices that promote common governance procedures (Morehouse, 2001). At
present, multiple training programs are easily accessible in the United States to improve the
comprehension and understanding of school board members’ complicated and multifaceted
positions (Petronis et al., 1996). Many newly elected members of the board engage willingly in
such training programs, thus making them better prepared to serve (Morehouse, 2001). Even
though most states offer board members a range of authorized training programs, involvement is
not always mandatory (Bianchi, 2003). Morehouse (2001) argued that training for all members
of the school board should be mandatory. Morehouse advised that it is in the best interests of
students and education as a whole to have board members trained in their basic duties and
responsibilities, board management, and professional ethics at the very least. However, only a
few districts require mandated school board training (McAdams, 2003).
Only 23 states across the country (excluding California) require compulsory school board
training (NSBA, 2012). Compulsory board training would ensure board competency and
professionalism and boost public trust in school boards. In addition, required board training
would keep boards up to date on evolving problems and legislation and provide newly elected
and reelected board members with the expertise and abilities that are vital to a governing board
(Bianchi, 2003). Analysis by Roberts and Sampson (2011) on both the relationship between the
training of the school board and students’ achievement discovered that states that required school
board training received better overall ratings than states that did not require training. The
researchers collected answers from the state board members and contrasted them with the 2009
ranking of state education systems by Education Week. According to results from the 26
responding states, it suggests that states with mandated school board training achieved a mark of
B or C while states that did not require board training received a mark of C or D. More
37
importantly, the researchers suggested that representatives of the school board should participate
in mandated professional development in all facets of public education so that school boards can
engage in effective decision making that results in quality education for all students being
guaranteed (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
While mandated training is essential to effective governance, the training content is of
paramount significance. The mandated training of the school board must aim to create a skill set
of leadership behaviors that encourage reliable governance practices. Dillon (2010) clarified that
the main objective in the training of a school board should be highlighting effective policies and
behaviors that will enable boards to meet their basic duties. Once the training has been
completed, school boards should be well versed in the expertise and abilities that will enable
them to successfully perform their tasks and duties. School boards must acknowledge the
significance of their positions as a primary support for the vision of a district. In order to help
school boards to understand these roles, Petronis et al. (1996) proposed five key components to
be included in board training programs: instructional leadership, instructional focus, high
expectations, climate and culture, and measurement and accountability. To fulfill their core
duties, school boards must have effective techniques or processes that can assist in their
preparation.
There is no agreement in the United States on compulsory training of the school board.
Individual states decide whether or not they should provide training. Some form of school board
training is currently mandated by 23 states, with less than half effectively implementing that
requirement (NSBA, 2012). These mandates vary from any kind of training to particular training
content demands. There are also provisions as to who should be involved in training. Some states
38
encourage all board members to participate, including existing board members, while others
require the attendance of only new board members.
Although training programs are not the national norm, the focus remains on the trend
toward implementing compulsory school board training (Bianchi, 2003). In general, the majority
of large school districts have school boards consisting of employees who are retired;
homemakers; or teachers who, for the most part, have no contextual-instructional policy
experience. While the impact of school board training on a district’s success cannot be readily
quantified, consideration should be given to the importance of school board training compared to
its cost. The importance and need for school board training have been recognized by several
states. For example, members of the Texas school board are mandated to engage in 18 hours of
professional learning within the 1st year of service and 8 hours thereafter annually. Similarly, in
Arkansas, newly elected board members are required to engage in at least 9 hours of professional
learning, while board members serving more than a year are required to receive at least 6 hours
of training (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
School board training is not mandated in California; it is left to the discretion of
individual school districts to determine whether to provide training or participate in it. The cost
of compulsory training programs for the school board is often sponsored by the state, local
districts or a mixture of the two (Bianchi 2003). Professional development in all capabilities for
school staff is vital in today’s age of accountability. To improve their effectiveness, teachers,
administrators and district staff must engage in continuing professional development. It should
also be expected that school boards that are entrusted with the crucial responsibility of delivering
overall district governance will engage in opportunities for professional development. Cognizant
of the need for this vital training, the CSBA (2018b) has successfully developed the MIG
39
training series consisting of five modules: (a) Foundations of Effective Governance, (b) Policy
and Judicial Review, (c) School Finance, (d) Human Resources/Collective Bargaining, and (e)
Community Relations and Advocacy. The program is comprised of 60 training hours. It is
expected that a school board member and the collective board (presuming all members have
taken part in the MIG program) will be able to work effectively together as a unit to meet the
needs of their district upon completion of the five modules in 60 hours.
As the educational governance landscape continues to develop and grow, the need for
compulsory instruction for the school board escalates. Once in charge of undemanding
managerial duties, the school boards of today are held accountable for a broad spectrum of
complicated and constantly evolving responsibilities and requests (Bianchi, 2003). This situation
is no more obvious than in the state of California, where student populations and requirements
differ extensively from district to district. To counter these difficult needs, school boards must be
equipped with particular governance practices in order to be efficient in transferring and
applying these practices to different populations and varying levels of difficulties (Roberts &
Sampson, 2011). The need for mandated formal professional development training will continue
only until school boards are well equipped to address present and future instructional difficulties
and duties.
Conceptual Frameworks
To study the effect of school board training on school board governance practices,
prominent sources of literature that have been discussed provide three theoretical frameworks
that will serve as lenses to narrow this study’s research focus (see Table 1). These frameworks
will guide analysis to explore key elements, including governance and leadership, effective
practices, and school board member training. Leadership is defined and characterized through
40
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames. Research conducted in the Lighthouse study will define
the effective and best practices of school boards (Delagardelle, 2008; D. Rice et al., 2000). The
CSBA’s (2019) Professional Governance Standards will frame effective governance for school
board members.
41
Table 1
Conceptual Framework for the Study
Four- Frame Model for
Effective Leadership (Bolman
& Deal, 2017)
Professional Governance
Standards
(CSBA, n.d.a)
IASB’s Lighthouse
Inquiry (Delagardelle,
2008;
D. Rice et al., 2000)
Structural Frame:
• Rules, policies, and
procedures
• Hierarchical structures with a
specified division of labor
• Govern within board-
adopted policies and
procedures
• Operate openly with trust
and integrity
• Creating awareness of
the need to improve and
building commitment to
identified needs
• Deliberative policy
development
Human Resource Frame:
• Productive working conditions
• Support and guidance
• District focus is on student
achievement
• Periodically evaluate its
own effectiveness
• Providing ongoing
support for quality
professional
development
• Demonstrating
commitment and
willingness to learn
Political Frame:
• Negotiation and diplomacy
• Distributive leadership
• Persuasion and negotiation
• Govern in a dignified and
professional manner
• Take collective
responsibility for the
board’s performance
• Supporting and
connecting with
districtwide leadership
• Applying pressure for
account- ability
Symbolic Frame:
• Rituals, stories, ceremonies,
and traditions
• Vision
• Respect
• Communicate a common
vision
• Ensure opportunities for
diverse viewpoints from the
school community
• Connecting with the
community and building
the public will to
improve achievement
Note. CSBA = California School Board Association; IASB = Iowa Association of School
Boards. Based on Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (4th ed.), by L.
Bolman and T. Deal, 2008, Jossey-Bass; Professional Governance Standards, by California
School Boards Association, n.d.a,
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/ProfessionalGovSt
andards.aspx; “The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of School Board Leadership in the
42
Improvement of Student Achievement,” by M. Delagardelle, 2008, in T. L Alsbury (Ed.), The
Future of School Board Government (pp. 191–224), Rowman & Littlefield Education; and The
Lighthouse Inquiry: School Board/Superintendent Team Behaviors in School Districts With
Extreme Differences in Student Achievement (ED453172), by D. Rice, M. Delagardelle, M.
Buckton, C. Jons, W. Lueders, M. J. Vens, J. Bruce, J. Wolf, and J. Weathersby, 2000, ERIC,
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453172.pdf
Four Frames
Understanding the structure that members of the school board are presently able to
provide and knowing what approaches to use—to reframe, if needed—is essential to assist
members of the school board as they navigate their roles and duties. Bolman and Deal (2008)
supplied leaders with a four-frame leadership perspective in the face of perplexing difficulties,
bureaucratic obstacles, and demands for stressful decision making. These frames dictate
reactions in everyday activities, especially in the work environment, as there may not be a
handbook or instructions on how to correctly perform every aspect of a job. Frame breaking
and/or reframing may have to be attempted if a specific frame should have to be adjusted to
improve the situation. Reframing enables adequate use of the case or situation-based tools and
strategies.
Bolman and Deal (2008) identified four particular frameworks (structural, political,
human resources, and symbolic) and argued that effective leaders can operate as needed in all
frames, rather than at all times in one frame specifically. This process is essential because
representatives of the school board often have to deal with multiple problems and responsibilities
43
and should be able to navigate collective decision making smoothly. Reframing also enables
executives and leaders to be more effective.
The structural frame operates on the premise that the roles and duties of organizations
must be clearly identified. Bolman and Deal (2008) defined the structural framework as a
blueprint for expectations, relationships, and exchanges. This frame allows people to be placed in
suitable roles within an organization to maximize the organization’s effectiveness and impact.
The organizational frame is not a structure of one-size-fits-all. It is a strategically tailored
structure specifically intended to fit the culture, visions, and objectives of an organization.
Organizations lacking a definite structural design may be likely to collapse. The structural frame
highlights the significance of developing an institutional infrastructure that promotes and
advances district and community objectives and visions. As the governing body of a district,
when participating in effective decision-making practices, the school board operates from within
the structural frame to cultivate an organizational structure that promotes district and community
priorities.
With the knowledge that people are at the core of every entity, the human resources
frame relates to how people interact with one another and for one another. Organizations
generally attempt to employ skilled and motivated individuals; however, members of the school
board are not recruited, they are elected. If members of a board are characterized as a nice fit and
employees are working well together, there will be beneficial outcomes. Providing services and
using strategies to foster beneficial relationships help to create motivation and significance for
staff to correctly perform their responsibilities (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The political frame depicts organizations as forums where there is a continual battle for
interest attainment. The political structure exemplifies the process of bargaining among differing
44
parties in attempts to achieve alliance through politically driven decision making in the
organization’s best interest. While a school board acts as a single governing authority, each
board is comprised of individual members with differing political, ideological, and personal
interests. As such, members of the school board operating within the political framework
participate strategically in decision-making methods that concentrate on district visions and
objectives through the cultivation of experienced constituents (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The fourth frame described by Bolman and Deal (2008) is the symbolic frame. This frame
tries to make sense of the world’s ensuing chaos and can include spiritual, patriotic, or emotional
associations that create significance. Within an organization, members shape beliefs and values
that are connected with the organization’s objectives. This situation does not happen just through
a mandate or policy. To develop and promote an organization’s spirit and soul, there must be
aspects of team building and passionate collaboration (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Especially during
fiscal crises, school boards are confronted with difficult decisions; and without the ability to
work within a symbolic framework, they may fall prey to collapse. Given that school boards
continue to be challenged by a broad spectrum of complicated responsibilities, it is essential that
they are extremely aware of the strategic decision making required by different demands (Kirst,
1994; Maricle, 2014; McCloud & McKenzie, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
When faced with a variety of problems and challenges, leaders must be able to navigate
deliberately and strategically through the four frames. As school boards continue to face these
difficulties with the increased accountability requirements dictated by different sources, their
capacity to navigate the four frames outlined above is crucial to an efficient system of district
governance.
45
The Lighthouse Inquiry
More than ever before, school boards are increasingly held responsible for student
success. Surprisingly, to date there has been little research on the link between the leadership of
the school board and the achievement of the student. A study commissioned by the IASB
provided research that is discussed by Delagardelle (2008) and D. Rice et al. (2000). This study
provided valuable insight into existing research on leadership of the school board and student
achievement and serves as the focus for the second framework of this study.
The aim of the Lighthouse Inquiry was to determine whether some school boards
produced greater rates of accomplishment than others. The research also aimed to identify
patterns of organizational behavior and procedures that may have led to greater student
achievement rates and whether other districts could learn those behaviors. In both high- and low-
achieving districts, the research examined school board–superintendent teams to determine
whether there was a correlation between school board governance practices and students’
success. The study’s results contributed to the conclusion that school boards in high-achieving
districts differed considerably in knowledge, values, and behaviors compared to school boards in
low-achieving counties and contributed favorably to improving overall academic achievement
(Delagardelle, 2008).
The Lighthouse Inquiry included interviews in high-achieving and low-achieving school
districts with 159 board members, superintendents, and staff members. Borrowed from
Rosenholtz (1989), the Lighthouse research used the words moving and stuck to characterize
school renewal as falling on a continuum. Schools denoted as moving showed higher and higher
rates of student achievement, while schools described as stuck showed stagnant and lower levels
of student success (Delagardelle, 2008).
46
Student achievement was quantified from 1996 to 1998 using standardized performance
test information. Findings from the Lighthouse Inquiry listed seven conditions for productive
change that substantially affected overall student success: (a) building a human organizational
structure, (b) establishing and maintaining initiatives, (c) establishing a supportive workplace, (d)
developing staff, (e) supporting data and information, (f) involving community, and (g)
integrating leadership. In moving districts, the study characterized board members as
maintaining an intrinsic focus on improving student achievement. In spite of external factors and
difficulties, the priorities of the board members lay in unwavering dedication to improving
student learning. Board members from stuck school districts attributed improvement effort
barriers to external variables such as strict government mandates and often regarded external
difficulties as excuses rather than as incentives to enhance learning for students (Delagardelle,
2008).
School boards that were perceived to be moving in the first stage of developing a human
organizational structure believed constantly that all students could learn and that variables such
as poverty or absence of parental involvement were merely difficulties to be overcome, not
excuses. Stuck districts tended to focus on these problems and did not see a way of overcoming
them. School boards whose districts moved set objectives and had structures and systems in
place to assist the district in developing and sustaining initiatives. Stuck districts put a great deal
of responsibility on the superintendent rather than taking ownership of it as a team. They were
also limited in their understanding of cooperation between administration and educators; they
merely assumed it was happening (D. Rice et al., 2000).
Establishing and supporting a workplace is essential to any organization’s progress.
Board members acknowledged and cultivated individual abilities as a means of building internal
47
capacity in moving districts. Members of the board in these districts openly acknowledged and
celebrated degrees of employees and community members’ contributions and achievements,
thereby fostering a collaborative working environment that promoted student achievement. In
comparison, board members in stuck districts acknowledged little importance in constructing
human capital and believed that adding additional qualified staff members would favorably
affect student success (Delagardelle, 2008).
In moving districts, the development of staff was demonstrated by clearly defining the
connection between teacher training and the objectives of the district or board as part of a
collective overall effort to address student needs. Stuck districts treated staff development as a
mere certification requirement and were often frustrated by the costs of staff development and
absence of proof of its effectiveness (D. Rice et al., 2000).
Accountability for student success is guided by student performance data (CSBA, 2018b;
Campbell & Greene, 1994; Delagardelle, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano & Waters,
2006; D. Rice et al., 2000). Board members in moving districts followed a general practice of
using information on student achievement as a driving force behind decision-making procedures.
Members of the board in stuck districts used information on student achievement continuously as
the driving force behind all decision-making procedures (D. Rice et al., 2000).
Community participation in moving districts has been evidenced through the capacity of
the school board to listen to and involve parents in the community. Frequent opportunities for
community members to actively engage in schools and districts were communicated and
provided, but members of the board merely thought that parents were not interested in becoming
involved and that there was little that change that mindset (D. Rice et al., 2000).
48
Leadership that is integrated illustrates vibrant leadership that is characterized by
advancing student success through shared objectives and visions (CSBA, 2018b; Campbell &
Greene, 1994; Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano & Waters, 2006; D. Rice et al., 2000). Board
members incorporated leadership opportunities across all professional capacity levels in moving
districts, with the objective of enhancing student success. In comparison, board members in stuck
districts demonstrated leadership autonomous of varying professional abilities and held
constrained expectations for disparate populations of students (D. Rice et al., 2000).
According to Delagardelle (2008), the Lighthouse Inquiry discovered that school board
members’ beliefs and practices in high-level districts were underlined by the existence of the
seven conditions for effective change (mentioned above) and were considerably distinct from
school board members’ views and behaviors in low-level districts. Compared to low-achieving
or stuck schools, knowledge, comprehension, and adherence to the seven conditions served as
the impetus for productive change; and districtwide reform attempts focused on improving
student learning. While there is no concrete proof to support the simple implementation of these
seven conditions that led to a rise in student achievement, the identification of successful
procedures offers a basis on which to build.
CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards
The CSBA is a professional association aimed at providing assistance and advice to the
many members of the school board in California. Because school boards are imposing increased
requirements on themselves with minimal prerequisites, the CSBA (2019) has defined eight
characteristics that assist a school board to effectively govern:
• Keep the district focused on learning and achievement for all students.
49
• Communicate a common vision.
• Operate openly, with trust and integrity.
• Govern in a dignified and professional manner, treating everyone with civility and
respect.
• Govern within board-adopted policies and procedures.
• Take collective responsibility for the board’s performance.
• Periodically evaluate its own effectiveness.
• Ensure opportunities for the diverse range of views in the community to inform
board deliberations. (paras. 3–10)
The CSBA (2018b) also created the MIG training program to provide the required techniques
and expertise for school board representatives to execute their duties better.
Over the previous few decades, state and federal participation in public school systems
has gradually escalated the primary function of school boards to concentrate on student
achievement (Gemberling et al., 2000). Maintaining a steadfast focus on student achievement is
an example of the governance structures, procedures, and priorities of the school board and
serves as the most important of the eight professional governance standards (CSBA, 2019).
Maintaining a powerful focus on educating students across all district levels strengthens the
objectives of the board and provides an impetus for all decision-making procedures (CSBA,
2018b).
It is crucial to establish a common vision for effective governance (CSBA, 2018b;
Campbell & Greene, 1994). Doing so enables the formation of a direction to guide all actions. It
is vital that members of the board work together to develop the vision and to communicate it to
50
all stakeholders. The vision is often somewhat linked to teaching or student achievement—again
due in large part to increased accountability.
Trust and integrity are the pillars underpinning and supporting efficient systems of
governance. Effective governance programs include members of the school board and
superintendents who demonstrate effective leadership through confidence and honesty in
governing procedures. Governance teams that function without integrity and trust may be
ineffective and likely to fail. Many governance systems are embodied by school boards. School
boards, however, must conform to behaviors and protocols that reflect civility and regard as
united governance teams. Members of the school board must concentrate on creating respectful
working relationships to maintain student learning at the forefront of all decision-making
procedures. The dynamics of these interactions are reinforced by adherence to policies and
processes adopted by the board. Effective management of the school board is dictated by
decision-making procedures guided by policies and procedures adopted by the board (CSBA,
2018b).
Members of the school board come from a multitude of backgrounds and differ in their
governing styles (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). While a board may consist of three, five, or seven
members, it functions as a unified body and must operate in that fashion. Maintaining
professionalism as a foundation allows the board to stay focused on ensuring that dignity and
respect are accorded to everyone (CSBA, 2018b). In contrast to individual members of the
school board, the governing body is seen as one unit; all choices represent the governing body.
School boards should monitor and assess themselves to guarantee efficiency. These
regular assessments can provide insight regarding adherence to keeping student achievement and
the vision of the district as the primary focus. Different indicators measure their effectiveness,
51
including student achievement and rates of promotion and retention, fiscal solvency, perceptions
and involvement of the community, and consistency of the superintendent board member (Wirt
& Kirst, 2005).
In a few cases, members of the school board may be appointed, although most are elected
by their communities (Campbell & Greene, 1994). As such, the community is represented by the
school board. These demands may not represent the whole; however, as they create deliberations,
school boards must be cognizant and consider all the different perspectives (CSBA, 2018b).
Doing so promotes their effective governance capacity.
It is crucial for the work of school boards to represent and uphold community values and
beliefs. Community representation is therefore equally essential for the effectiveness of the
school board. School boards concentrate on ensuring possibilities for community engagement
and communication to inform deliberations on boards and guide attempts to reform districts
(CSBA, 2018b).
The aforementioned eight professional governance standards can have a significant effect
on the capacity of a school board to govern with credibility and cultivate a culture that works
diligently toward a common vision and that maintains all efforts focused on improving student
success. According to CSBA (2019), every member of the school board guarantees effective
governance by the governing body by demonstrating the eight characteristics. They are basic
principles that define the professional norms of the CSBA (2019) and provide the path to optimal
governance of the school board. While there may be cases where not all eight are clearly shown,
working to exhibit all will guide school boards to effectively govern as a collective body.
52
Chapter Summary
Public schools are facing greater scrutiny in today’s high-accountability culture as they
attempt to fulfill the mandated educational targets of NCLB (2002) and now ESSA’s (Klein,
2016) and to address current fiscal and social issues. Demands placed on boards are at an all-
time high as members of the board try to create sensible decisions (Thurlow Brenner et al.,
2002). It is critical to provide school boards with tools to do their work effectively. School
boards should clearly define their roles and duties as supported by the literature (Campbell &
Greene, 1994; Land, 2002; Maricle, 2014). They must be kept up to date with all the present
educational issues. It is uncertain whether there is a direct correlation between the training
provided to representatives of the school board and its impact on their capacity to effectively
govern is uncertain. While the CSBA (2018b) offers an extensive training module known as the
MIG, there is no mandate or incentive for school board members to complete it.
53
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Team
The researchers in this study consisted of 20 doctoral students from the Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California (USC). The students held a variety of positions in
public school settings, from teachers in the classroom to administrative positions at the district
level. The researchers in the thematic dissertation cohort possessed a breath of knowledge
concerning public education in California. Dr. Michael Escalante of USC was the lead researcher
and dissertation chair for the study. The team developed the following research questions to
guide this study to determine whether there was a correlation between training for the school
board and successful school districts:
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?
54
Participants
In the early planning stages of the study, the research team planned to focus on the six
southern California counties; however, due to the effects of the pandemic, the team had to
expand the search to obtain enough school districts to qualify for the study. The research team
established certain guidelines and parameters for participation in the study to ensure purposeful
sampling (Patton, 2002). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the criteria were expanded to include
districts within the entire state of California. This expansion yielded the identification of
additional districts to replace southern California districts that opted out. In the end, school
districts qualified from northern and southern California. Each researcher in the dissertation
group was responsible to secure three districts that met the criteria, which were to have the
superintendent and at least three board members who had taken at least one module of the MIG
training. In the end, he team members interviewed and surveyed 62 superintendents, with a
100% participation rate for both surveys and interviews from the school districts used in the
study. The team also planned to interview and survey 186 school board members; however due
to conflicts caused by the pandemic, the cohort was successful in interviewing only 177 board
members in addition to receiving 180 completed surveys (see Table 2). The number of districts
that were included in the study and that participated in the survey provided rich data for the
study.
55
Table 2
Summary of Participants
Participants
n
%
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses
62
100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses
180
97
Interviews 177 95
Surveyed Participants
The research team created two survey tools once qualified school districts were
identified: one survey for MIG-trained school board members who had completed at least one
MIG module and one for the matching superintendent of that school district, regardless of
whether or not the superintendent had participated in MIG training. The survey questions were
strategically aligned to the three research questions and the theoretical frameworks and were
scored using a 4-point Likert scale. Designed to mirror each other, the questions on the
superintendent survey and the school board member survey were crafted with a focus on board
member leadership and governance practices. To avoid the inclusion of biased, double, wordy,
and ambiguous questions, special care was taken by the team during the design of the surveys
(Patton, 2002).
Survey participants received an email introducing the study and an invitation to
participate. An electronic packet containing an introductory letter, recruitment letter, consent
56
form, a superintendent survey, and a link to a Qualtrics survey for each MIG-trained board
member within that district was emailed to the superintendent of each eligible district.
Superintendents were asked to complete their survey via the link and to email the board member
survey link to their respective MIG-trained board members. Superintendents were asked to
encourage eligible board members to participate in the study. From the targeted population of 60
superintendents and 186 school board members, 100% superintendents and 97% of school board
members (Table 2) completed their surveys on the Qualtrics platform. It is important to note that
not every question was answered on a few surveys; however, these omissions were so small in
number that they did not impact the emergent themes from the surveys.
Interviewed Participants
Survey participants had the opportunity to indicate on the survey their desire to
participate in the interview portion of this study. The goal of the research team was to interview
the superintendent and three board members from targeted school districts. This meant that the
superintendent and the board members were interviewed separately in order to analyze their
perceptions of how MIG training impacted school board member governance practices. A total
of 12 interviews (three superintendents and nine board members) was conducted for this
researcher’s study. The interview questions were constructed to analyze the perceptions that
superintendents and board members had regarding MIG training and its impact on board member
governance. The survey questions were aligned to the research questions, the theoretical
frameworks, and were designed in an open-ended manner to allow participants the freedom to
fully explain their positions.
A comprehensive description of the study is provided in this chapter: research design,
instrumentation development and design, data collection and analysis, and ethical considerations.
57
Methodology and Instrumentation Design
To answer the three research questions a qualitative descriptive methodology was
selected by the research team. A qualitative descriptive approach has the advantage that it uses
data to add depth, description, and complexity to the analysis (Patton, 2002). As part of the data
collection, school boards and superintendents completed separate surveys that presented 19
Likert scale types of questions. Data from structured interviews contributed to the methodology’s
descriptiveness. Surveys of school boards and superintendents, systematic interviews of school
boards and superintendents, as well as research data on the characteristics and success of school
districts, helped to triangulate the results. Qualitative research requires the participation of
relevant individuals in data collection and aims to build relationships and legitimacy with those
participants (Creswell, 2003). To this end, the two tools used as part of the qualitative analysis
throughout enlisted the involvement and self-reflective experiences of members of school boards
and superintendents. Two surveys (one for school board members and one for superintendents)
with 20 Likert structured questions delivered to all school board members and superintendents in
12 southern California counties: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura. The survey
questions for board members and superintendents were similar but addressed their perspectives
on the research topic. For example, school board members were asked to respond to the
statement, “The MIG training helps school board members differentiate between policy,
leadership, and management”; superintendents were asked to respond to the same statement and
a further probing statement, “School board members who are MIG trained exhibit a clearer
understanding of the difference between their roles and responsibilities and those of the
superintendent.” The survey data will allow for aggregate presentation of the results. Structured
58
interview protocols were developed as part of the qualitative descriptive design with the intent to
understand the training program, its processes, and outcomes. Members of the school board and
superintendents of selected districts being surveyed engaged in formal follow-up interviews. The
data collected through the interviews underscored the effect of governance preparation for school
board members and superintendents as it relates to student achievement and outcomes.
Data Collection
Data collection began during the spring of 2020. To collect and analyze the research data,
a qualitative design approach was employed to allow the research team to analyze data collected
from researching the study phenomenon with depth, specificity, and context (Patton, 2002). The
research team focused on studying the effect of the MIG training program on the ability of
school boards to make decisions promoting effective governance and increased student
achievement.
Participation in the research was strictly voluntary. Participants receive letters of
recruitment and information (Appendix A) produced by the research team—outlining the intent
of the study, data collection confidentiality, anonymity of participants, opportunity to indicate
consent to participate, and contact information of research representatives. As requested by the
USC Institutional Review Board (IRB), all participants were required to give their consent in
writing to participate in the study.
The data collection process began with the distribution of survey packets assembled by
the research team. School board members who demonstrated completion of three of the five MIG
training modules throughout 12 California counties and their corresponding superintendents were
emailed a survey packet that included a letter of recruitment and information for the school board
59
or superintendent (Appendix A), a school board member survey (Appendix B), or a
superintendent survey (Appendix C).
Organized interviews (Appendices D and E) were planned after completed survey data
had been obtained and sorted. Interviewees were identified based on the evidence of MIG
certification by school boards and those indicating consent to be interviewed, as indicated in the
surveys (Appendix F). To encourage engagement, all formal organized interviews were
conducted at the convenience of the members of the school board and superintendents and lasted,
on average, 30–45 minutes. The objective of the interviews was to provide more insight into the
perspectives of school board members and their superintendents with respect to the effect of the
MIG training program as it related to the practices of the board. Each research team member
conducted individually scheduled interviews with two or three school board members and their
corresponding superintendents from the selected districts. Due to the restrictions imposed by the
COVID-19 pandemic, all interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom™ instead of in person.
Following the interview guides in Appendices D and E, each formal structured interview
with both members of the school board and their respective superintendents began with a brief
introduction of the interviewer, a brief overview of the purpose of the study, and an overview of
the structured interview process. The purpose of the structured interviews was to gather detailed,
in-depth information about the impact of the MIG training program on the behaviors and
practices of the school board that pertained to effective governance and student achievement.
The research team then transcribed the data from the interview process, with each participant’s
prior written agreement to remove variances and biases. The questions in the survey and
interview protocols were aligned with the three research questions (see Appendix G).
60
All information and data collected from the study will be kept for 3 years at the home and
office of the principal investigator in an effort to maintain confidentiality and the privacy of the
participants. Participants’ names and identifiers were not used in this study. Immediately after
transcription, all audio data collected from the interview guides were destroyed.
Data Analysis
To ensure that the items aligned with the frameworks and the three research questions,
survey items were precoded. To document the relationships among survey items, research
questions, and frameworks, a spreadsheet was developed. Response codes set numerical values
to assist with the analysis of data.
To define common themes and anomalies, qualitative data collected through structured
interviews were analyzed. Because the purpose of this study was to assess whether the CSBA’s
MIG training impacted the ability of the board to adhere to best practices for effective
governance, data were analyzed to define features of effective governance as identified by
participants. The difficulty of qualitative analysis is to make sense of massive amounts of data,
while realizing that there is no formula to do so (Patton, 2002). Patton noted that the procedures
had to be analyzed and documented. Creswell (2003) outlined six steps for analyzing data from a
qualitative instrument: (a) “organize and prepare data for analysis,” (b) “read through all data,”
(c) “begin detailed analysis with a coding process” (d) “use a coding process to generate a
description of the themes for analysis,” (e) “describe how the themes will be represented in the
qualitative narrative,” and (f) “interpret the data” (pp. 247–250).
The data obtained by the researchers were coded for analysis. Initially the data were
compiled and disaggregated by the team members. Emerging trends were identified from the
survey data and interviews. The researchers proposed assertions based on data gathered from
61
participants in the study. To ensure validity and reliability, the data collected were triangulated to
ensure that they were appropriate and meaningful to the research. This process helped in
recognizing factors that affected the governance of members of the school board and
superintendents after taking part in the MIG training.
Ethical Considerations
The research team followed the USC IRB protocols. The process of obtaining approval
from the IRB included completing the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI)
program course entitled Human Research for Social-Behavioral Human Subjects. The course
consists of elective modules, of which each researcher had to complete six and pass each test
with a minimum accumulated average score of 80%. The purpose of the CITI training program is
to train researchers to be aware of all possible ethical considerations that may arise in the
research prior to conducting the study.
Chapter Summary
This chapter described the research methods selected by the research team, guided by the
frameworks, research questions, and literature review. The chapter has provided detailed
descriptions of the research design, study participants, development and implementation of
research instrumentation, data collection and analysis procedures, and ethical considerations.
62
Chapter Four: Results
When taking a position on their district board, school board members assume tremendous
responsibility. They make budget, instruction, collective bargaining, and facility decisions that
have a direct effect on the educational lives of the students they represent (Bianchi, 2003). Not
only do they participate in the high-impact decision-making process, but also even the personal
time commitment required to fulfill their duties as members of the school board has a significant
impact on their own families (Hess, 2010). To help school board members to make the most of
their time by educating them on all aspects of educational policy, issues, and trends, the CSBA
(2018b) has offered the MIG training program. This training deals with the information required
for board members to make well-informed decisions that could potentially lead to increased
learning and achievement for all students (CSBA, 2018c; Hess, 2010).
The purpose of this study was to determine whether participation by governance teams in
MIG training offered by the CSBA impacted their ability to adhere to best practices for effective
leadership and governance. Using a qualitative approach, this study explored the perceptions of
board members and superintendents regarding the effect that training has had on board members’
governance practices, behaviors, and beliefs. The research team used the frameworks of Bolman
and Deal (2008), the CSBA’s (2019) Professional Governance Standards, and the IASB’s
Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008) to guide the method of inquiry. The results of this
qualitative study in counties from across the state of California focused on the impact of MIG
training on individual board members, their teams, and ultimately their school districts. In order
for a school district to qualify for the study, the superintendent and at least three board members
had to MIG trained (at least one module completed). The research cohort eventually collected
data from 62 superintendents and 180 board members. The researchers developed interview
63
questions (13) for both the superintendent and their respective board member participants. Then
the researchers created a superintendent and board member survey that was used to collect
results from all participants.
This chapter provides an analysis of all the data collected. The research data were
triangulated using the literature, interviews, and the survey results. The emerging themes were
derived from the data that were provided from the interviews, surveys, and literature. The
findings and data that this chapter provides is guided by the three research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
These questions were aligned with the theoretical frameworks on leadership and
governance examined in the study. The four-frame model for effective leadership from Bolman
and Deal (2008) provided the lens for the study of effective leadership practices. The CSBA’s
(2019) Professional Governance Standards and the seven characteristics of high-functioning
school boards found in the Lighthouse Inquiry study (Delagardelle, 2008) provided the lens to
analyze the characteristics and practices that contribute to successful governance of school
boards.
Reflective of the literature included in this study, four instruments were used to collect
data: (a) a superintendent survey, (b) a school board member survey, (c) superintendent
interview questions, and (d) school board member interview questions. The four instruments
were aligned to this study’s three research questions and three theoretical frameworks.
64
In this chapter, first a brief description of participants is provided. The results for the study will
then be presented by each research question and will include prevailing themes based on survey
and interview data, followed by a summary.
In order to ensure confidentiality, anonymity, and to protect privacy, fictitious names
were used for participating districts, superintendents, and school board members. Any
resemblance to actual school districts and their employees is entirely coincidental.
Participating School Districts
The first school district in this study will hereafter be referred to as ABC Unified; its
superintendent, as Superintendent A; and the participating school board members as Board
Members 1, 2, and 3. ABC Unified was a small-sized district in rural Los Angeles County. At
the time of this study, the student population was just over 6,500 students in schools ranging
from kindergarten to sixth grade. According to the California School Dashboard (CDE, 2020a),
ABC students were in the orange performance band, thus indicating that they were significantly
below the state average in language arts. The data comes from the Smarter Balance Summative
Assessment, taken every year in Grades 3–8 and 11. ABC scored below grade level in
mathematics, was in the yellow band, and had declined 3.3 points from the year before. The
superintendent had been in his role for 2 years. Before that, he had held an assistant
superintendent position for the previous 4 years and had begun his educational career 13 years
prior. He holds a bachelors and masters degree. The superintendent and a majority of the board
have engaged in MIG training at different points of their careers.
The second school district will hereafter be referred to as CBS Unified; its
superintendent, as Superintendent B; and the participating school board members as Board
Members 4, 5, and 6. CBS Unifies was a medium-sized district in the San Jose adjacent region in
65
northern California. At the time of this study, the district had a student population of just over
15,000 students with schools ranging from kindergarten to adult school. According to the
California School Dashboard (CDE. 2020a), CBS students were in the green performance
band—significantly above the state average in language arts and increasing by over 10 points
from the previous year. CBS again scored above grade level in mathematics; the district was
firmly planted in the green band and had increased 1.2 points from the year before.
Superintendent B had been the superintendent for almost 2 years, having received her doctorate
from a north Texas university. She had completed MIG training and had extensive experience as
a classroom teacher and in various administrative roles, including assistant superintendent, both
in and out of the state of California.
The third school district in this study will hereafter be referred to as NBC Unified; its
superintendent, as Superintendent C; and the participating school board members as Board
Members 7, 8 and 9. NBC Unified was a small school district in rural Los Angeles County. At
the time of this study, NBC was an elementary school district with a student population of just
over 5,000 students, with schools ranging from preschool to sixth grade. According to the
California School Dashboard (CDE, 2020a), NBC students were in the green performance band,
above the state average in language arts. NBC scored below grade level in mathematics and had
been in the yellow band for 2 consecutive years. The superintendent had been in her role for 5
years. She began her career teaching 15 years ago in Ventura County. She had earned her
doctorate degree from USC and had served previously as an assistant superintendent in Ventura
County. A majority of the board members have been trained in MIG training at different points
of their careers.
66
Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “What factors impact the decision of school board members
to participate in the MIG training program?” School board members are defined as locally
elected public figures who are entrusted with the management of local public-school systems
(CSBA, 2018a). Members of the school board set the district’s direction, provide input for
operational practices and systems, provide employee support, provide accountability, and serve
as community leaders (CSBA, 2018a; Delagardelle, 2008). Many members of the school board
pursue opportunities for professional development to assist them in their desire to fulfill their
duties in an effective and professional manner (Hess & Meeks, 2010). Currently, California does
not mandate participation by members of the school board in professional development (Bianchi,
2003). Studies have shown that effective school governance and targeted professional
development tended to be linked, thus indicating that the training of school board members
appears necessary for effective governance (Danzberger, 1994; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). It
could be concluded from the education literature that members of the school board are presently
asked to complete and execute roles that have increased in complexity, thereby resulting in new
and highly specialized duties (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Gemberling et al., 2000). Because of
the multitude of responsibilities required of them with this position, it is critical for school board
members to be well educated and to have a depth of knowledge about the policy decisions that
they are expected to make. When these trainings are not mandated or necessary prior to election,
the public must rely on personal considerations that enable each member of the board to pursue
such training after being elected.
Research Question 1 investigated the motivating factors that influenced members of the
school board to seek out the MIG professional development curriculum because California does
67
not mandate training for newly elected board members. From the data analysis from surveys and
interviews, three major themes emerged:
1. That members of the school board were self-motivated or motivated by their
colleagues to participate in professional development to enhance their ability to
govern effectively;
2. That expectation of participation in the MIG program was common within the
culture of MIG governance teams and would increase if trainings were made more
accessible; and
3. That school board members were influenced by a collaborative sense of culture,
although barriers exist that influenced participation.
Influential Motivation Factors
A key aspect of the analysis was to determine the reasons why school board members
might be willing to participate in training, as school board training is optional and voluntary in
California (NSBA, 2019). Specifically, while the need for training and its relevance have been
clearly articulated by scholars, not many have examined the commitment to participating in
professional development (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon, 2010; Land, 2002; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Dillon (2010) wrote in “The Importance of School Board Training” that members of the school
board must have an awareness of best practices and trends in education. In certain situations, this
expertise can be gained only through coaching, networking, and opportunities for professional
growth. Research Question 1 analyzed the driving variables that motivated members of the board
to pursue training. The data analysis showed that self-motivation to engage in professional
growth that would help them perform their duties well was the primary influencing factor.
68
The number 1 response for both superintendents and school board members was self-
motivation when answering the survey question about the primary factor that influenced board
member participation in MIG training (see Table 3). Members of the school board themselves
overwhelmingly agreed that the key factor in their pursuit for training was self- motivation. From
their responses, 37 of 62 participants ranked self-motivation as the key factor.
Table 3
Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in Masters in
Governance Training
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f f
School board expectation 33 84
Self-motivation 37 133
Encouraged by board members 35 71
Increasing student achievement 9 53
Increasing effective government 31 128
Unable to determine 0 0
Other 3 10
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
69
From the interview, when asked what would influence board members to participate in
training, NBC Unified Board Member 8 replied:
Gosh, I have no idea. I can’t imagine being in a position like being members of the
school board and not wanting access to statewide data and experts, all of whom might
honestly say, “Been there, done that,” or “This is how we fixed this problem,” or “This is
what our stakeholders expect us to be able to do.
As a self-motivating factor for board members, Board Member 5 had connected access to
professionals and her wealth of knowledge. The research team strongly agreed with all
observations during observations of MIG module training, highlighting the emphasis on
professional networking and spirited discussion around sharing best practices.
NBC Unified Superintendent C felt that board members were self-motivated to take part
in MIG training because it increased their positions to a professional level:
MIG training is important because it takes the board member position to a professional
level. Just as we expect our teachers and administrators to be professional and participate
in professional development, board members should also receive training to make it more
professional.
Superintendent C commented that it would concern the public to hear that there was no
requirement for board members to attend formalized training. To be eligible to run for office, all
board members must live in the district boundaries, be at least 18 years of age, a state resident, a
registered voter, and not prohibited from holding a public office by law (CSBA, 2018a).
The second major motivating factor for school board member participation in MIG was
colleagues’ encouragement to participate. Question #1 on the superintendent and board member
70
survey asked if board members encouraged other board members to participate in MIG training.
Both groups of participants agreed that they encouraged others to participate, with 100% (62 of
62) superintendents agreeing and an overwhelming 167 of 180 board members in agreement.
Question #12 asked participants if they strongly recommended participation in MIG training.
One hundred percent of superintendents agreed that they would, and 97% of board members
indicated that they would recommend the training to colleagues (see Table 4).
Table 4
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Would Recommend Masters in Governance
Training to School Governance Teams
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 48 77 128 71
Agree 14 23 46 26
Disagree 0 0 6 3
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
71
Many research studies have identified specific characteristics of successful school
boards. One characteristic was the commitment of successful school boards to team and
professional development and the formation of a culture that promoted participation (Waters &
Marzano, 2006). Furthermore, board members tend to participate when colleagues suggested
particular training. When speaking of a new school board member’s completion of the MIG
training, Superintendent A of ABC Unified said, “We encouraged him, and he felt like it would
be valuable.” ABC Unified Board Member 3 said that not only did colleague encouragement
motivate him to participate in the MIG training but also there was a small amount of peer
pressure as well:
Honestly, I walked into being a board member, and that was something that was offered
to me, and the other person that was elected at the same time I was, so I just thought it
was an expected thing to do, so I scheduled it.
Barriers to MIG Training Commitment
While self-motivation and the encouragement of colleagues were important factors in
pursuing training for board members, there were many factors that limited participation. The
second theme from Research Question 1 revealed the effect that MIG time, proximity, and
availability criteria could have on the decision of a board member on whether or not to
participate. Hess (2002) wrote that a considerable number of board members, especially in larger
districts, spent over 20 hours a week performing board duties. The first consideration was the
time invested in training. Board Member 7 reported that most members of the board had full-
time jobs and/or families. It could be a struggle to find time to complete MIG training because
the program requires participants to complete 60 hours of coursework over the span of 2 years
(CSBA, 2019). On average, board members in states with no mandate complete less than 16
72
hours of training within the 2 years, which is far less than states with a mandate for school board
preparation (NSBA, 2019). In addition to the 60 hours of MIG training, travel and overnight
lodging time must be taken into account by board members. One of NBC Unified ‘s board
members did not attend training because “he just couldn’t find the time,” according to
Superintendent C. “He is a businessman and finding the time to do that is not easy.”
Superintendent B noted that board members spent the day learning about CSBA’s
(2018b) Professional Governance Standards and how to integrate them into their practice during
their Module 1 training. One board member came in for the weekend from California’s northern
Central Valley and noted that since she worked long hours and had kids at home, the time
commitment was difficult for her. Although she appreciated the experience gained from training,
she was a new member of the board who felt somewhat overwhelmed with her position’s
requirements. At the beginning of her term and training, she would have preferred a simplified
version of MIG training that was closer to her.
Proximity, the second factor, seemed to be a point of consensus among the interviewees.
When asked what would make school board staff training more accessible, Board Member 6
said:
Okay, maybe if instead of having to travel great distances, it was offered locally, but I
understand that’s a challenge because are you going to get enough people to sign up to
make it worthwhile to provide it locally? So, like all problems, this one doesn’t have an
easy solution.
For many reasons, local offerings are desirable. Proximity to where board members live
and work makes the necessary distance to travel manageable and takes less time away from their
personal time. Transportation, housing, and meal costs are reduced because some board members
73
would prefer to drive to the training rather than incur additional costs to already tight budgets for
the school district. Increasing training opportunities would lower class sizes, according to
Superintendent A, and would undoubtedly raise the program’s cost and thus create a greater
burden on districts to pay for the training. Board Member 10 from NBC Unified agreed that MIG
offerings should be more readily available locally:
We went to a hotel conference room. They offered one in Sacramento as well but
traveling there and staying overnight was more expensive. It seems as though they’re all
over the place. It might be better if they offered more in southern California.
Superintendent A expressed the feelings of the board members, saying that “CSBA should
regionalize training courses. I think if there were local cohorts for training, more board
members would participate.” He also added that “because of monetary considerations, board
members might be resistant to participate.”
Online availability of the MIG curriculum was another factor influencing participation
rates. Superintendent B not only favored localized course offerings but also believed that
participation rates would be improved given online availability. When asked if he thought
participation rates would rise with the availability of MIG online, he responded:
Yes, I believe it would. Completing the training would be simpler, but I fear that when
addressing the subject matter online, the message will be lost. In a public environment,
school boards conduct much of their work. Attending MIG training enables them to have
face-to-face contact with peers from all over the state. Professionalism and the chance to
network are gained this way.
Superintendent C also agreed that online availability would make it easier to complete MIG
training but worried that members of the board would lose the critical engagement and
74
networking opportunities. While Board Member 1 accepted that Internet access could increase
participation, he also expressed concern about the lack of personal interaction:
I don’t think they can get online for the whole training. As you said, two out of five, is it?
Okay. All right. Which is nice. I believe they should be encouraged to engage with other
participants in the training.
In the participant study, a similar trend of overall support for alternative solutions from
both groups was also reported, but with somewhat less support from school board members who
favored personal contact. Table 5 indicates that 45 out of 62 superintendents agreed that closer
training opportunities would increase program participation. This same sentiment was echoed by
members of the school board, 125 out of 180—again noting that interactions among peers were
essential.
Table 5
Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the Masters in Governance Program
Would Increase Chances of Participation
Response Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Online 14 54
Hybrid 29 105
Locally hosted 45 125
Other 2 4
Note. Some participants contributed mor than one answer.
75
Expectation From Participatory Culture
Isolating determinant variables for the decision to undergo board training is complex, as
the decision is typically influenced by a plethora of factors. The evidence showed, however, that
the culture of the school board had a dramatic effect on the decision to undergo school board
training (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). While the survey showed that 7% of board members
disagreed when asked whether their school board culture encouraged participation in MIG
training (see Table 6), other data indicated that, despite the lack of systemic support across the
entire board, cultural influence was omnipresent. Two questions on the survey asked whether
superintendents felt it was important to attend the MIG training with their respective board
members or whether both superintendents and board members would recommend the MIG
training to school governance teams. These questions were asked to determine the degree to
which those who recommended training transferred their perspectives into actual
recommendations or potential influencing factors to those who said they would recommend the
training.
76
Table 6
Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Their School Board Culture
Encouraged Participation in Masters in Governance Training
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 34 55 107 59
Agree 28 45 60 33
Disagree 0 0 12 7
Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 1
The self-reported responses from the first of the two questions indicated that it was
overwhelmingly significant for superintendents to engage in MIG as a joint governance team
(92%; see Table 7), thus suggesting a clear cultural influence that would likely permeate the
team. Dillon (2010) found that when the superintendents of those teams encouraged the team to
engage in all team activities together, school governance teams were more likely to engage in
collective practices. The second question substantiated the importance that this collaborative
influence among team members, thereby further embedding this participatory culture in
governance culture. When combined, the strongly agree (77%) and agree (23%) responses
revealed that 100% of the surveyed superintendents would recommend the training to
governance teams (Table 7). The responses from the board members yielded similar results; 59%
of board members (n = 107) responded strongly agree, while 33% (n = 60) chose agree. These
findings reflected a valid argument that both superintendents and members of the board would
77
encourage governance teams to pursue the CSBA’s MIG training and illustrated an assertion that
there was a participatory culture among the surveyed participants.
Table 7
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether It Is Important to Attend Masters in Governance
Training With Their School Board Members
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 38 61
Agree 19 31
Disagree 5 8
Strongly Agree 0 0
78
When these survey results were then compared to the interview question asking how the
MIG training strengthened the collaboration process, it was discovered that it was important to
encourage team members to participate in the training as a unified team, if possible, for both
board members and superintendents.
CBS Unified Board Member 6 stated the following in support of encouraging team
members to engage in MIG training collectively:
Although it is difficult to have our whole team do the training together, I think if it could
happen, it would definitely help to make sure we are all on the same page in terms of
decision making and board policy decisions. Teamwork is important and vital to the
process and it is important that we all are focused on a culture of togetherness.
ABC Unified’s Superintendent A validated the value of collective participation: “I feel strongly
that governance teams that are unified are more far more effective in creating policy that makes
sense and attending MIG as a team is extremely significant.”
The findings from the survey and interviews overwhelmingly suggested that both
superintendents and fellow board members created a positive culture that encouraged untrained
board members to pursue and complete a school board training program by communicating their
experiences and the ways in which they felt it benefitted board members.
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
The findings for Research Question 1 revealed that school board members were
participating in MIG training because they were self-motivated or encouraged to participate with
colleagues and that participation rates would increase if the time requirements for MIG training
were easier, more locally available, and with expanded online course availability. This
motivation to participate in professional development was directly related to the human resource
79
frame, as members of the board sought professional development and self-actualization through
training (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Board members wanted to explore the practices and aspects of
successful school boards and sought professional development that included these opportunities
to learn (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Due to time constraints, it was revealed that board members
seemed to have a hard time committing to professional development. Superintendents and board
members were highly motivated to attend training, but time constraints precluded commitment
and could be addressed by training being more accessible online and also available in more
convenient geographical locations. The evidence indicated that MIG should be modified to be
more flexible and accommodating to meet the needs and busy schedules of participants as a
means of increasing engagement. Finally, the influence of a culture of participation was shown
by a variety of related survey and interview questions supporting this concept. Both
superintendents and board members agreed that MIG training participation was important as a
collective decision to enhance team governance.
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “Does the MIG training encourage and equip school board
members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?” This research question examined the
impact on board member leadership and governance practices as a result of the MIG training. In
the theoretical frameworks of this study, successful governance practices were demonstrated as
shown through established policies and procedures, acting with trust and credibility, focusing on
student achievement, encouraging and participating in professional development, self-
assessment, collective accountability, communicating a shared vision, and engaging with the
community (CSBA, 2018b; Delagardelle, 2008).
80
The professional development program of CSBA (2018b), MIG certification for school
board members, offers training on best practices for effective governance. The MIG program
allows participants within a 2-year time frame to complete five courses, or 60 hours of
professional development. Participants who had completed at least one module of the MIG
training were asked to identify the important effective practices that they felt were beneficial for
their success. Three major themes regarding effective practices emerged from Research Question
2: (a) an increased focus on aligning governance team priorities and practices with district
priorities and vision, (b) the importance of a unified board team, and (c) a clear understanding of
roles and responsibilities.
Alignment of Vision and Goals
The structural framework was defined by Bolman and Deal (2008) as a blueprint for
expectations, relationships, and exchanges. This organizational framework is not a one-size-fits-
all structure. It is a strategically tailored system primarily intended to reflect an organization’s
culture, visions, and priorities. The importance of aligning goals with a vision was further
supported by Delagardelle (2008), who noted that successful governing organizations must be
consistent in designing policies and procedures that support district and community interests that
are aligned with a shared vision. When this task is accomplished, evidence indicates that student
success will be achieved. Integrated leadership exhibits effective leadership practices marked by
the improvement of student achievement through shared goals and visions (CSBA, 2018b;
Campbell & Greene, 1994). The results of the cohort survey reinforced the importance of not
only setting achievable goals and a vision but also aligning the decision-making processes of the
governance team with the vision and goals. When asked whether MIG-trained board members
understood the importance of this alignment, superintendents overwhelming agreed with 98%
81
responding with strongly agree or agree (n = 61; see Table 8). When asked the same question,
board members agreed with the superintendents regarding the importance of this alignment by
similar percentage (92%, n = 166; see Table 9). Bianchi (2003) reported that when professional
development is provided to a governance team, it can be concluded that there is strong
collaborative effort around the alignment of district goals and objectives. In addition, when this
goal is achieved, a trend of student success generally occurs.
Table 8
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
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 31 50
Agree 30 48
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 0 0
82
Table 9
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
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 104 58
Agree 62 34
Disagree 13 7
Strongly Agree 1 1
In this study, several interviewees from the three districts referred to the importance of
developing a shared vision and alignment of district priorities that they learned from the MIG
program’s Course 1, Foundations of Effective Governance, when asked whether the MIG
training resulted in effective governance practices. Superintendent B from CBS Unified
highlighted the importance of a collective vision:
Well, this is about vision, actually. I mean, I think you have to have an open conversation
about the vision for your district if you want to maximize student achievement. And then
to respond to that vision—the structures that you’re going to create. So I believe that for
my district and my position as a superintendent, having the board know that their task is
to set the vision, and they hired me to implement the vision, to create the systems.
In alignment with the survey data, Board Member 2 commented on the importance of the
MIG training in establishing a vision to create aligned systems:
83
Yeah. Yes. MIG has helped us create our vision, so it’s about keeping the team together
and realizing what the kids need and having the vision they’re teaching you, and setting
those targets lets you create a system that can be expanded and improved to help you
concentrate on particular groups of students.
Unification Among Board Members and Superintendents
Another important feature of effective school board practice is that it acts as a cohesive
team or united board (CSBA, 2018b; Delagardelle, 2008). In successful school districts, school
boards exhibit characteristics of trust, integrity, respect, and cooperation (Dillon, 2010). These
are the characteristics that distinguish the actions of a cohesive board team, particularly when on
display with the superintendent at board meetings. CSBA (2018b) offers training not only to
collaboratively conduct successful decision making by the governance team but also to
encourage participants to build trust within the team. This particular aspect of the MIG training
was very important to survey participants.
Question 11 on the survey asked whether MIG training encouraged school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of school board meetings. Superintendents agreed, 60 out
of 62; board members agreed at a higher rate, 176 out of 180. These data show that both
superintendents and board members felt that the MIG training had provided them with guidance
to facilitate more effective decision making within the structure of their meetings (see Table 10).
84
Table 10
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Encouraged
School Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of Their School Board Meetings
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 30 48 104 58
Agree 30 48 72 40
Disagree 2 3 4 2
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
In addition to coherence, teamwork, and collaboration, the frameworks identified trust
and integrity as crucial in establishing and maintaining successful and effective governance
practices (Bolman & Deal, 2008; CSBA, 2018b; Delagardelle, 2008). The ability of fellow
colleagues to make informed decisions while establishing reciprocal respect for these decisions
was regarded as integral to trust. Survey participants were asked about the effect that the MIG
training had on the ability of participants to accept decisions of colleagues that differed from
their own. Tables 11 and 12 illustrate the importance that superintendents and board members
placed on trust, integrity, and working together despite their differences—all integral parts of a
cohesive team. Table 11 reflects that superintendents had overwhelmingly (95% strongly agree
or agree) improved their ability to accept decisions with which they disagreed, while 85% of
board members held the same view (Table 12). These data reflected that both board members
and especially superintendents recognized the importance of a unified decision-making process.
85
Table 11
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training Had Improved
Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even When They
Held the Minority View
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 17 27
Agree 42 68
Disagree 3 5
Strongly Agree 0 0
Table 12
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
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 78 43
Agree 75 42
Disagree 26 14
Strongly Agree 1 1
86
The importance of appearing in public as a cohesive team and communicating with one
voice was expressed by interviewees. As to the importance of speaking together in one unified
voice, Board Member 4 had this to say:
It was important to make sound decisions on how we wanted our district to operate; and
we all gave the media, the newspapers, the same message. Anything we’ve been doing. If
all of us spoke, it was like we spoke with one voice. With our superintendent, we had a
lot of confidence and trust because she gave the same to us.
Superintendent C agreed with her Board Member 9:
Members of a MIG-trained board typically conduct themselves in a professional way. In
terms of management practices, they behave in a positive manner. This undoubtedly
helps the process of decision making to go more smoothly. We have faith in each other
and do our homework on the issues.
In NBC Unified, while both Board Member 8 and Superintendent C agreed that trust,
transparency, and a shared message were critical, their views differed as to the effect of MIG
training on the behavior of board members. Board Member 8 said, “I recall him [the instructor]
saying that over 90% of what you’re doing is going to occur right in the board room, and it
definitely should be transparent.” In her survey, Board Member 8 also indicated that she agreed
that MIG-trained members of the board learned to be more unified and to respect the viewpoints
of colleagues; however, Superintendent C disagreed, saying that “the one member of the board
that we sent 2 years ago is the least collaborative and has been trained in MIG.”
The message that board members received regarding working as part of a cohesive team
during MIG training was consistent. Presenters at MIG Module 1, Foundations of Effective
Governance/Setting Direction, 1) often consistently mentioned, according to interviewees, the
87
importance of working as a cohesive team, creating a shared voice, and demonstrating a sincere
unity of purpose. An example was mentioned by Board Member 2:
We were all given a sheet listing over 30 leadership and governance beliefs. They were
asked to circle the 10 most important to them. Then, they decide on only three as their
core beliefs or values. These were then shared with the group, and the goal was to find
consensus and compromise as a team on just three. The aim was that these exercises
would assist participants to embrace these effective governance techniques.
Understanding of Roles and Responsibilities
Bolman and Deal (2008), as outlined in the structural frame, pointed out how clearly
defined roles and responsibilities were critical to successful leadership in the institutional
environment. In addition to understanding roles and responsibilities and ensuring that roles and
responsibilities are respected, it is imperative to have policies and procedures in place that allow
for this (CSBA, 2018b; Delagardelle, 2008). As this study has demonstrated, no other effective
practice resonated with study participants more significantly than roles and responsibilities.
Participants emphasized the importance of recognizing and respecting roles and responsibilities
and following established protocols and procedures, as evidenced in the survey and interview
data. Participants were asked whether MIG-trained members of the school board had a better
understanding of the difference between their duties and those of the superintendent. The clear
consensus of both groups of participants is illustrated in Tables 13 and 14: 60 out of 62
superintendents agreed (Table 13), as well as 95% of surveyed school board members (Table
14).
88
Table 13
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
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 1 2
Table 14
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Clarified the
Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 117 65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly Agree 1 1
89
At ABC Unified, in terms of the importance of implementing adopted policies and
procedures regarding roles and responsibilities, both the superintendent and the board members
had the same responses. Superintendent A felt that the most important MIG module that a board
member should attend was Module 1 (Foundations for Effective Governance), saying that
“understanding the difference between the roles of board members and the superintendent gets
reiterated from board member to board member. I recommend this module for providing the
foundation of understanding one’s job.” Board Member 3 echoed the idea of reminding fellow
board members of respecting roles and responsibilities:
Taking Masters in Governance—that was truly embedded in me that we work as a team
because you know your role. One of the things that you learn is not only that you bring
different tools, different skill sets to the bring to the team. But through Masters in
Governance, you learn that you need to be respectful of one another. Obviously, you
listen to everybody’s thoughts, and you make your decision based on what you feel the
day that you have and best decision you make.
Enhancing the understanding of their responsibilities as board members and reminding
one another of best practices constituted a valuable lesson learned through MIG training.
Superintendent B emphasized the significance of collaboration, roles, and responsibilities at CBS
Unified:
I believe collaboration is crucial. Understanding the difference in roles between what a
board member does and a superintendent does, identification of the role that I know they
are talking about, and then hopefully just trying to remember the Brown Act2 and what
can be addressed in closed session and the fact that it cannot be addressed outside of
closed session.
90
However, Superintendent B disagreed that MIG-trained board members actually practiced what
they learned at MIG training, saying that “you can train people but then you never know.” Board
Member 5 agreed with her superintendent on the importance of following established roles and
participate in meetings (Eisenstein, 2018). responsibilities, the difference being that she felt that
MIG training directly impacted board member governance practices.
To conclude, research strongly supported ensuring that school governance teams are
equipped with the knowledge to understand their roles and responsibilities to the school
community (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). If they lack knowledge in these critical areas, it follows that
appropriate training is necessary for them to effectively navigate their duties. The MIG training
provided by the CSBA provides this specific training as follows: Foundations of Effective
Governance/Setting Direction. This module explores the roles and responsibilities of the
governance team and focuses on trusteeship and governance, two core concepts in the MIG
program. It is also designed to facilitate the governance team’s understanding of the intertwined
relationship between (a) the district’s vision, beliefs, and goals and (b) the educational programs
of the district (CSBA, 2018b). Survey results from this study provided the researcher team with
data to conclude that participants felt strongly that this module was the most important of the five
modules offered (see Tables 15 and 16). Fifty-four out of 62 superintendents ranked Module 1,
Foundations in Governance, as most important; 119 out of 180 board members did as well, far
surpassing the responses about any other module.
91
Table 15
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 16
School Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in Order of
Importance to Their Role as a Member of the Governance Team (N = 180)
Ranking
Module #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Foundation in Governance 119 34 9 10 8
Policy and Judicial Review 21 63 48 27 21
School Finance 30 56 57 26 11
Human Resources 2 10 33 67 67
Community Relations 8 17 33 50 72
92
Interview participants in this study described the importance of understanding one’s roles
and responsibilities as a reason for selecting Module 1 as most important in many of the
interviews (seven out of 12 interviews). Specifically, they described the importance of “knowing
your lane” (Board Members 3 and 7), “understanding the difference between your
responsibilities and those of the superintendent” (Board Member 2), and “working together to
craft a vision” (Superintendent A, Board Member 1). Based on these responses and other
aforementioned data, this theme can be defined as one of the most powerful findings in this
study.
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 explored the effect of MIG training on the governance behaviors of
the participants, specifically whether training helped them to exhibit efficient governance
practices. Based on the survey results and interviews, it appeared that there was a clear
correlation between MIG training and its effect on the governance practices among participants
and that receiving training was an important key to performing their duties. Waters & Marzano
(2006) found that members of the school board and superintendents agreed that training is very
important for a successful district and that members of the board who have completed training
perceive that they are more effective school district leaders. Survey respondents in this study
generally agreed that in daily board member practice a critical factor was working as a cohesive
board team, including attending MIG training as a team and having a clear understanding of and
respect for roles and responsibilities. An analysis of the data from Research Question 2 revealed
that MIG certification was successful in providing participants with a clear understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of board members and superintendents in order to practice effective
governance behaviors in a cohesive manner. In successful school districts, effective governance
93
teams are those that understand and respect clearly defined roles and responsibilities (Bolman &
Deal, 2008; CSBA, 2018b; Delagardelle, 2008)
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth?” It is unclear and hard to quantify the influence that school boards have on student
achievement because board members do not work directly with students (Land, 2002). There are
several variables that can have a greater and more direct effect on student success, such as the
motivation of individual students, psychological factors, the level of education and income of
parents, and the level of experience of individual teachers in the classroom (Hess & Meeks,
2010). There is, however, a growing body of research indicating that school boards, through their
governance and leadership practices, have a substantial effect on student achievement
(Bainbridge & Thomas, 2002; Hess & Meeks, 2010). While school boards do not regularly
engage students directly, they are responsible for creating a climate where high levels of
academic success can be achieved (NSBA, 2019). The data for Research Questions 1 and 2
indicated that participants in the study were inclined to participate in training under favorable
conditions that were convenient and that the members of the board who completed MIG training
reported that they were more effective in their practice of governance. Research Question 3
explored the impact that MIG training had on student achievement and growth. Three major
themes emerged from the analysis:
1. That MIG training perpetuated a greater understanding for governance teams on
the importance of an omni-focus on an increase in student achievement,
2. That increased student achievement could be at least attributed to effective
governance practices, and
94
3. That there did not appear to be a clear connection between (a) increasing student
achievement and growth and (b) participation in MIG training.
Effect of MIG Training on Increased Focus on Student Achievement
Student achievement is a high priority for every school board, especially in today’s
educational environment of performance and accountability (Hess & Meeks, 2010). School
boards have been found to be aligned with and supportive of adopted achievement and
instructional priorities in school districts with high levels of student achievement (Roberts &
Sampson, 2011; Waters & Marzano, 2006). The IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry study (D. Rice et al.,
2000) demonstrated that board members in high-achieving districts identified specific student
needs through data and justified decision making based on those data. High-functioning boards
rely on the training that allows for productive collaboration with the superintendent to examine
factors that improve student achievement and growth.
As the survey and interview responses relating to Research Question 2 show, there did
appear to be a connection between training and board members exhibiting effective governance
characteristics, including placing an importance on a vision supporting growth in student
achievement. Superintendent survey participants were asked whether board members who
completed MIG training had an increased focus on student achievement. Results indicated that
an overwhelming number of superintendents felt that as a result of MIG training, board members
demonstrated an increased focus on student achievement (58 out of 62, or 98%; see Table 17). It
should be clarified that although many of the superintendents agreed in the survey, many stated
that specifically that the MIG training had an impact on board members in growing their
knowledge with respect to student achievement. They also felt that there would be an increased
impact if board members finished the entire MIG training program.
95
Table 17
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Had Earned Masters in
Governance Certification Demonstrated an Increased Focus on Student Achievement
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 14 23
Agree 44 71
Disagree 4 6
Strongly Agree 0 0
Board member survey participants also agreed that as a result of the training, their focus
was on student achievement, with 77.5% (n = 140) either strongly agreeing or agreeing (see
Table 18). These data revealed mixed results about whether it could be deduced that board
member participation in the MIG training resulted in a commitment to a student achievement
focus; however, as evidenced through interview responses, the focus on student achievement
may have been present without the influence of the training.
96
Table 18
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,
Their Focus Was on Student Achievement
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 49 27
Agree 91 51
Disagree 39 22
Strongly Agree 1 1
Interviews with study participants supported the conclusions derived from the survey
results. Superintendents strongly felt that the MIG training provided their board members with a
unified focus on creating a vision that was dedicated to the increase in student achievement.
Superintendent C clarified this sentiment with a statement linking the governance team’s unified
vision in support of a student achievement focus:
And I have a firm belief that if superintendents don’t give the information, boards can’t
even do number one—they can’t effectively govern, and they can’t set direction, and I
think that’s the superintendent’s fault when that happens. So, I think that has attributed to
our student growth, because now, there’s a focus on achievement.
Superintendent B echoed the effect the MIG training had on creating a vision inclusive of student
achievement:
Well, this is really about vision. I mean, I think that if you want to improve student
achievement, you have to have honest dialogue around the vision for your district. And
97
then the systems that you’re going to build to respond to that vision. With this is place,
student achievement will improve.
When asked whether there was an increased focus on student achievement as a result of
the MIG training, board member survey responses indicated mixed reactions to this direct
correlation; however, interview responses were in agreement that MIG training did provide
governance team members with the tools to focus on growth and achievement. Board Member 2
stated:
Board members know that student achievement is important. MIG helps you realize that
you need to focus on that—like I said, that one study that showed that the more a district
focuses on those topics, the better the results are.
Board Member 3 mirrored this opinion:
Well, it’s impacted by the MIG training because you received guidance on how to set
goals, how to create a vision, how to look at your budget so that it reflects the needs of
your students and where you’re wanting them to go? It teaches you guidelines for how to
hire people that would fit in your system that meets the needs of your student population.
So, all of those strands—they feed a school board member information to make decisions
on how to look [at] and evaluate data and make the determinations on where your
students need to go and how are we going to get them there. So, I think it has a big
impact on that.
Board Member 5 provided his explanation of how a unified focus can provide a foundation for
building student achievement:
As far as a positive impact on student achievement, if you’ve got a board that’s got all
their oars in the water and pulling the same direction at the same time, and you also have
98
the vision and leadership to know what to do to improve student achievement in your
specific area, then I think you could have a significant impact.
Survey data and interview responses indicated that superintendents were unanimous in
their opinion that the MIG training provided a strong focus for governance teams to work toward
improvement of student achievement and growth. Even though survey results were mixed, the
board members’ interview responses provided an overwhelmingly positive correlation between
student achievement and the ability of the team to specifically focus on student achievement as a
result of tools gained by the training. Even though this theme provided the research team with an
indirect link between the MIG training and growth in student achievement, the research
supporting this study provided a strong link between an increase in focus and overall growth in
student achievement. To illustrate this, Board Member 7 noted:
MIG does not focus so much specifically on student achievement, but it’s indirect. A lot
of the educational policies is really fed by the superintendent because they’re so much
more knowledgeable than a board on that job, but they help with vision and policies. I
think it’s a little one step removed from student achievement, but it helps for all of the
studying policy, creating a cohesive board.
Influence of Effective Governance Practices on Student Achievement and Growth
The belief that school leaders can improve student achievement should drive all district
goals and decisions (Land, 2002; Waters & Marzano, 2006). The results of the present study
indicated that this belief was universal among surveyed participants. Delagardelle (2008)
confirmed that a link exists between effective governance practices and growth in student
achievement. Use of data to inform decisions about policies to address student growth have been
shown to be a significant factor in districts implementing policies that are successful in the
99
achievement of growth over time (Timar, 2003). In order to triangulate a link among the use of
data, effective governance, and impact on student achievement, survey participants were asked
whether MIG training encouraged team members to consistently use data to inform decision
making around student achievement. Given that one of the modules in the MIG program proves
training on the use of data to influence a focus on student achievement (CSBA, 2018b), the
question was designed to provide this link. In all, 59 of 62 superintendents, or 95%, indicated in
their surveys that MIG training encouraged them to use data (a key component of effective
governance practices) with their team to improve student achievement. The numbers were not as
high with the board members but strongly in agreement; 157 out 180 or 87% (n = 157) felt that
the training positively impacted their team’s collective ideology regarding their ability to address
decision making for student achievement growth (see Table 19) The board members’
disagreement responses reflected that the training gave them clarity about rules, roles, and
responsibilities but could not directly relate to the impact on student achievement in their
districts.
100
Table 19
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 (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 31 50 69 38
Agree 28 45 88 49
Disagree 3 5 21 12
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1
The interview responses from both superintendents and board members further supported
the link between effective governance practices and growth in student achievement, albeit again
indirectly. Superintendent A stated:
Well, this is really about vision which MIG supports in providing effecting governance
practices. I mean, I think that if you want to improve student achievement, you have to
have honest dialogue around the vision for your district. And then the systems that you’re
going to build to respond to that vision. So, for my district and my work as a
superintendent, I think that having the board understand that their role is to set the vision,
and they hired me to execute on that vision, to create the systems. So, we’re not really a
data savvy district. I mean, even though we have a lot of data pieces, we’re not data
savvy in the way that we respond to issues for student achievement and growth.
101
Superintendent B related the need for examining data in order to be effective governance team
members and subsequently to have an effect on student growth:
I said to the board, “Set the direction, that’s what we’re going to do. I’ve given you the
data.” And I have a firm belief that if superintendents don’t give the information, boards
can’t even do number one—they can’t effectively govern, and they can’t set direction,
and I think that’s the superintendent’s fault when that happens. So, I think that has
attributed to our student growth, because now, there’s effective decision making. This is
what we’re going to do, and this is how we’re going to support our children—to give an
exemplary education. I think that has a big piece of it.
Board members echoed the sentiments of the superintendents equating effective
governance practices with the ability of teams to improve student achievement. Board Member 1
commented:
I think it affects student achievement because the whole point of the MIG training is to
make more effective board members. So, if board members are aware of different topics,
protocols, how important policies are, the finances, all that makes for an effective board
member. So, when you have effective board members working together, the outcome, the
student achievement, is going to happen automatically.
Board Member 8 expanded on this theme by stating that because MIG training provided the
professional development to improve governance practices, it allowed the team to build on their
data examination practices and subsequently led to addressing gaps within their district
subgroups:
Growth in the student achievement: It goes back to really understanding the system and
learning best practices in governance. With this training, we can look at the practices in
102
place and see how we can improve those practices and either change them out or rev
them up to meet the needs of students. It’s interesting because for a lot of years, even
though our district has been one of the higher achieving districts, the focus was so much
more broad, and then this time around with the MIG training and the superintendent
going through the MIG training, there’s very specific focus now on student groups—the
ELL [English language learner] kids for one. When I first got on the board, the statistic
about low-income foster youth was like—just that the statistic like 0.2—but this
superintendent didn't ignore this subgroup because of the training
It is worth noting, however, that a small percentage of board member participants
refrained from making this link directly. Because of his inability to commit to standardized
testing as a means to track student growth, Board Member 9 indicated his reluctance this way:
That’s a very difficult metric to try and determine. Mainly because the MIG training has
to improve student governance, and the student governance team’s role is to try and
improve the school educational program whose end result should be seen in student
achievement. But student achievement, frankly, is a red herring for me. Because it all too
often relies on standardized achievement tests that I think are not reflective of the student
population, or in their ability to do things.
No Direct link Between MIG Training and Student Achievement
In their comprehensive study, Roberts and Sampson (2011) attempted to answer the
research question of whether school board member training had a significant impact on effective
board governance and, by extension, on student achievement. These researchers concluded that
there was a significant link between effective governance and those who received related
103
training, but they stopped short of providing applicable research data that directly tied this link to
improved student growth (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Even though the research and data from this study appeared to provide an indirect link to
improved student achievement by way of the creation of effective governance teams and the
ability to create a laser focus in this area, the research and data did not substantiate a direct link
between MIG training and improved student achievement and growth. As stated in this study’s
literature review, a great majority of the research implied that if board members and
superintendents participated in professional development as collective teams, then the overall
health of the district was solid and moving toward effective governance, as evidenced by Roberts
and Sampson (2011).
As shown previously in Table 18, survey and interview data from the board members
indicated mixed feelings, and some members confirmed this assumption. In the surveys, 21.5%
(n= 39) of the board disagreed that as a result of MIG training, their focus was on student
achievement. Board members felt that superintendents have the greatest impact on student
achievement because they are the ones who create instructional goals and are the instructional
leaders. Because the superintendent is charged with recommending initiatives designed to
improve instructional outcomes, it makes sense that they all survey questions related to MIG’s
effect on student achievement produced overwhelming agreement from these participants (see
Tables 17–19).
The survey data also indicated that both board members and superintendents did not
choose to participate in MIG training in order to improve student achievement. Only nine out of
62 superintendents responded that increasing student achievement was the primary factor
104
influencing them to obtain training, while 53 out of 180 board members responded similarly (see
Table 3).
As the interview data have shown, both superintendents and board members did not
connect the influence and ability of the MIG training directly to improved student achievement
due to many factors. Board Member 4 grappled with the MIG program’s ability to directly link
its effect on student achievement: “I don't think there’s necessarily direct impact, where if Board
Member A has not been through MIG training, they go through MIG training and, all of a
sudden, we have test scores that increase. There’s not that relationship.
Superintendent A voiced similar difficulties directly relating student achievement with
the MIG training:
As far as connecting it with student achievement, on certain things you certainly want it
to be, but on other things, it’s not. And I mean, yeah, I think on different things now and,
in particular, connected to student achievement, they’re asking the right questions. I don’t
know if I can directly relate it to MIG, but I do know that this caused these newest board
members to think about their role as board members.
Finally, as previously stated, the majority of board members and superintendents in this
study agreed that the MIG training was valuable in understanding roles and responsibilities and
in setting a common vision and goals tied to student achievement—factors that led the majority
to believe that the result of these effective governance practices had an indirect influence on
student achievement. However, they did not believe that there was a direct link to improvement
due to the MIG training. Board Member 7 stated concurrence with this conclusion:
Student achievement is always part of that vision or mission. And then you can always
come back to that. You reroute everything through there and [it] kind of gives you that
105
structure. The MIG training gives you these tools, but it is up to the team members to
commit to improvement of achievement and brainstorm ways to help schools improve.
The MIG cannot give you this, but it helps the team understand how to get there.
Summary of Results for Research Question 3
Numerous researchers, including the conceptual frameworks cited in this study, have
provided an overwhelming sample of evidence connecting professional development to effective
governance practices. Participants’ survey and interview data from this research study showed
overwhelming support that the professional development conducted through the MIG training
provided participants with the learning necessary to practice effectively as a governance team.
Specifically, three themes were uncovered related to the influence on student
achievement and growth. First, MIG training perpetuated a greater understanding for governance
teams related to the importance of a focus on an increase in student achievement. Next, student
achievement could be at least attributed to effective governance practices, although there did not
appear to be a clear connection between (a) increasing student achievement and growth and (b)
participation in MIG training.
The overall view of the board members was that they had an indirect impact on student
achievement, but they did not feel that the MIG training directly led to the overall success of the
district. The training brought attention to making student-centered decisions as well as the
importance of aligning resources for student growth. Interview and survey results supported
board members feeling better equipped to ask the right questions as it pertained to student
achievement. The information collected also led to the conclusion that the MIG training could
not be linked directly with an impact on student achievement but could be indirectly linked due
its influence on promoting more effective governance practices.
106
Chapter Summary
This chapter explored the impact of the MIG training on effective governance practices
and student achievement through an analysis of data gathered from a variety of methods. The
responses from 180 surveyed board members and 62 superintendents were triangulated against
relevant research on effective governance along with the six interviews conducted with three
board members and their corresponding superintendents. The resulting analysis revealed some of
the ways in which the MIG training encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit
the characteristics of effective governance, as delineated by the CSBA (2018b).
Three main research questions were explored in this study. These questions were asked in
an effort to understand the relationship among effective school board practice, student growth,
and school board training. These questions directly related to issues in education today.
Increased accountability, most notably with LCFF and ESSA legislation, has increased the
pressure for school districts to improve student achievement. This increase in accountability and
scrutiny has made it imperative that all parties linked to education make the best possible
decisions, focusing their collective efforts on student growth.
In the examination of the prevailing themes provided by the data collected, there
appeared to be three major findings supported by this research. The first major finding of this
study was that school board members were encouraged by a combination of self-motivation and
district culture to pursue school board training. Motivation is part of the human resource frame
for effective leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2008). As stated previously, effective leadership
practices create circumstances where improvement in student achievement can be possible
through collective decision making. In fact, once trained, board members subsequently served as
change agents in their respective districts by modeling the characteristics of effective governance
107
for their untrained colleagues. A second major finding was that school board members were
likely to develop more collaborative relationships as a result of the clarification of roles and
responsibilities provided by the MIG training. MIG-trained board members decidedly credited
the training for equipping them with the requisite knowledge and skills to decrease the likelihood
that they would spend an exorbitant amount of time on activities not directly connected to
effective governance. A third major finding was that even though study participants did not agree
that the MIG training had a direct influence on student achievement and growth, nor did it
present itself as a major factor influencing participants to seek the training. However, because of
the impact of the MIG program providing members with training to engage in more effective
governance practices, many survey participants felt that student achievement and growth were
positively influenced, at least indirectly.
In conclusion, the literature, survey, and interview data revealed that school board
training affected effective governance for school board members, including understanding their
role within the governance team and the significance of their responsibility of (a) making
student-centered decisions through a lens of a unified vision and (b) acting as a cohesive team
that operated with procedures resonating with trust and integrity for all stakeholders. As a result
of the MIG training, participants in this study felt that they operated better as an effective
governance team and thus provided the basis of showing a strong indirect effect of the training
on student achievement and growth.
108
Chapter Five: Discussion
Over the past century, the role of school boards has evolved to envelope a significantly
more diverse set of challenging responsibilities (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Kirst, 1994; Land,
2002). Local school boards are constantly bombarded by increasing state and federal regulations;
they face an increasing array of complex multidimensional issues that require a deep
understanding of specific laws, budgetary oversight, and community and educational needs
(Danzberger, 1994; Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002). To address these challenges effectively, school
boards must be well trained and equipped with the knowledge, data, and skills necessary to
provide quality district leadership that focuses on student achievement.
The goal of this study was to gain understanding and insight into successful governance
of the school board and the role that training plays in this process. As part of the governance
team, school board members are entrusted with a number of complex roles and responsibilities.
These team members are elected governing bodies overseeing public education systems and are
responsible for establishing an educational climate in which excellence in education can be
attained (Johnson et al., 2011). Board members are held responsible for their education policy
management, progress monitoring, and educational outcomes; they control approximately $750
billion nationally (NCES, 2012). Individuals with no specific education experience across the
country are often elected to school board positions for little or no compensation (Hess, 2002;
Dahlkemper, 2005).
Members of the school board should understand and execute good leadership and
effective governance practices, particularly with performance benchmarks of state student
achievement disaggregated with specificity and scrutiny for each school site (CDE, 2020a). For
effective board governance, the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008) and the CSBA
109
(2018b) have identified best practices. The four-frame model by Bolman and Deal (2008)
outlines effective leadership practices. However, it seems that in these important areas, most
school board members will not receive any formal training. Just 23 states in the United States
require some form of professional development training for members of a school board (NSBA,
2019). Currently, training is a voluntary process in California.
Research has shown that formal professional development can improve school board
effectiveness (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon, 2010). As the demands for public oversight and
accountability increase, school boards must demonstrate professionalism and make well-
informed policy decisions on student achievement, finance, human resources and facilities
(CSBA, 2018a; Johnson, 2011). Successful school boards are those that collaborate, participate
and engage in continual professional growth (Leithwood et al., 2008).
Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four-frame model for effective leadership the CSBA’s (2019)
Professional Governance Standards, and the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008)
were the theoretical frameworks used as a lens to examine best practices. These frameworks
were then used to develop the following three research questions:
110
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?
School districts across 12 California counties that were verified to have at least two
members of their respective school boards having completing at least one module of the CSBA
training were invited to participate in the study. Using the three research questions as a
foundation, a survey protocol and interview guide were developed by the 20-member research
team. These instruments were triangulated with the theoretical frameworks and literature review.
Several themes emerged from the data analysis process. This chapter provides a summary of the
findings, limitations, implications for practice, recommendations for future research, and
conclusions.
Summary of Findings
In response to the research questions, three significant findings emerged:
1. That school board members were encouraged by a combination of self-motivation
and district culture to pursue MIG school board training;
2. That MIG certification was effective in providing school board members with a
clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities and those of the
superintendent so as to be able to exhibit the behaviors of collaborative effective
governance; and
3. That student achievement was not directly affected by the MIG training or the
desire to improve achievement influenced board members to seek out the training
111
but it did have an overall positive indirect effect on increased student
achievement.
As the research has indicated, motivation is critical for providing the impetus to seek out
effective leadership practices that provide the foundation of collaborative decision-making best
practices. The first major finding suggested that because of the culture of training created in their
districts, effective governance teams were motivated to complete training. This finding was
reinforced by the leadership framework discussed by Bolman and Deal (2008), who stated that to
be a complete leader, symbolic leadership is essential. Symbolic leaders establish positive
cultures and, in this case, a positive culture was established by district administrators and fellow
school board members. The cultural expectation of seeking and attending training is a common
element in successful governance teams. The findings suggested that developing a culture of
shared responsibility is a first step to successful school governance. This responsibility should
consist of accountability for pursuing and attending training for superintendents and fellow board
members through encouragement by all district stakeholders. The accountability could be as
basic as all participants agreeing as a team to attend MIG training.
Accountability, in the form of stakeholders expecting elected board members to be
trained and then holding them accountable through the public election process, may be more
complicated and political in nature. The study results showed that effective accountability was
clearly an expectation shared by the majority of members of the board and the superintendent
Waters and Marzano’s (2006) meta-analysis research indicated that successful school boards
participate in shared learning experiences. The same conclusion was reached by this study.
Successful school board members and their superintendents specifically reported that school
board training within their school district was an expectation. Their assertion that they
112
encouraged others to pursue training was in line with this expectation. A strong cultural belief
system that is present in effective school districts is created by the perpetuation of the
expectation that school board members must attend training.
As mandating the training was discovered to be an unpopular motivating force, the
participants overwhelmingly stated that MIG training should be adjusted to meet the needs of
school board members in order to increase participation. Increasing participation is important
because California does not mandate school board training of any kind (NSBA, 2019). There is
literature that supports the idea that training enhances board member governance practices when
there is consistency and coherence amongst team members (Danzberger, 1994; Hess & Meeks,
2010; Land, 2002). Land (2002) found that unique traits are exhibited by successful school
boards, one of them being participation in professional development. Danzberger (1994) found
that in effective school districts, board members and superintendents participate together in and
encourage professional development that helps to build improvement efforts around shared
decision-making practices. This finding was important as this study’s theoretical frameworks
emphasized the value of participation in professional development to increase effectiveness and
the willingness to participate must be prevalent in order to overcome obstacles to participate
(CSBA, 2018b; Delagardelle, 2008).
Another major finding revealed that MIG training equipped members of the school board
with a clear understanding of their responsibilities and roles and those of the superintendent. A
great majority of school board members in this study indicated that they were specifically
encouraged and prepared by MIG training to focus on student achievement, to use data to make
decisions, to align their decision-making process with the mission and vision of the district, and
to experience a collaborative relationship with their fellow board members. Such practices are
113
directly aligned with research on effective governance (Dillon, 2010; Waters & Marzano, 2006).
This finding was also reinforced by the theoretical frameworks of the study, which found that
successful governance of the school board depends on how well group members work
collectively, collaborate, respect roles and responsibilities, and interact with trust and integrity
(CSBA, 2018b; Delagardelle, 2008). This finding is important because at any given moment in
time, up to 50% of board members in the United States are in their first 4 years of service, and
approximately 17% of board members possess no background in education (Grissom, 2007).
Training can provide a clear understanding of duties and responsibilities for new and
inexperienced board members (NCES, 2012). Participants who completed MIG certification
claimed that the training helped them to become more effective through an awareness of roles
and responsibilities in their governance practice.
Bolman and Deal (2008) suggested that the structural frame is part of respecting clearly
outlined roles and responsibilities. These structures are in place to help to decrease board
members’ micromanagement and potentially to eliminate politically confrontational situations.
Surveyed participants and interviewees consistently indicated that their actions with respect to
their governance practices were directly and positively influenced by MIG training.
The third and perhaps most important finding from this study revealed that although there
did not appear to be a direct link between MIG training and an increase in student achievement,
there was overwhelming support to show that the training and its effect on student achievement
were indirectly linked through effective governance practices. Effective governance teams
improve student outcomes by creating and sustaining the conditions that support excellent and
equitable teaching and learning. They play a central role in developing the educational vision for
their school districts and county offices of education. Furthermore, they set the direction and help
114
to select the strategies for achieving the vision that professionals working in the central office
and at school sites are responsible for implementing. Delagardelle (2008) found that school
boards do not directly cause student learning; the beliefs, decisions, and actions of school boards
directly impact the conditions within schools that enable district efforts to improve achievement.
Through evidence provided by the research and conceptual frameworks cited in this study, there
existed a clear link between boards that engaged in professional development and those that
exhibited effective governance practices. Survey and participant data from this research study
showed overwhelming support that the professional development conducted through the MIG
training provided participants with the learning necessary to practice effectively as a governance
team. Participants in this study overwhelming felt that MIG trained governance teams possessed
the knowledge and skill set necessary to practice as an effective governance team; moreover, the
knowledge and skills allowed them to make student-centered decisions that aligned resources to
improving student achievement.
Limitations
New limitations related to this study were identified after careful data analysis. The
responses of some participants were limited and dependent on their recollection of MIG training
in which they had been engaged several years earlier. Additionally, due to pandemic restrictions
to meeting participants in person, this researcher was unable to observe nonverbal cues that may
have added another perspective to the interview data. Finally, because the qualifying participants
were required to attend only one MIG module, it was difficult to control for overlapping
variables such as prior experience and knowledge gained from other trainings or from
colleagues.
115
Implications for Practice
As a result of this study’s findings, three implications for practice emerged. First, MIG
training should be made more accessible in order to increase participation. Second, school board
members should be informed of the evidence provided by this study that links MIG training with
effective governance practices. Third, although participants wavered on their support for a
training requirement, a state-enforced mandate would ensure that governance teams have the
required knowledge to make informed decisions. These three recommendations will assist in
providing improved governance and effective leadership practices among school boards and
governance teams.
Improved Accessibility
The first implication for practice is that the CSBA should be more flexible regarding
MIG certification, including providing more accessibility to the modules. Although many board
members wish to participate, not all can do so due to time limitations, scheduling conflicts, and
budgetary restrictions. In order to improve participation, the CSBA should consider providing
more local courses, thereby making it more flexible related to the time criteria for certification;
offering more online courses; and reducing the cost of registration. These interventions could
increase participation throughout the state in MIG training. California school districts seeking to
improve board governance may want to consider training their respective school board members,
and organizations that offer professional development should be responsive to the time
constraints of board members and budgets for the school district.
Making School Board Members Aware of Research Findings
The second implication for practice is that school board members should be made aware
of the research findings in order to motivate participation in MIG training to improve their
116
effectiveness. Study participants agreed that with the completion of MIG training, they were
equipped with the necessary tools and knowledge to govern effectively. Their perception was
that the training positively influenced their behaviors toward practicing effective governance
characteristics that focused on student achievement and working as a collaborative board team;
training allowed for a greater understanding roles and responsibilities within the team (CSBA,
2018b; Delagardelle; 2008).
Mandating School Board Member Training in California
A third implication for practice is a recommendation to mandate school board member
training across the state of California. School board members agreed that MIG training helped
them to understand their roles and responsibilities, to stay focused on student achievement, and
to work as a unified board; and it altered their behaviors to mirror those outlined as best practices
for effective school board governance. Dillon (2010) wrote that it is possible to generalize
effective leadership and governance practices, thereby supporting the proposal of mandating
training. Although study participants were hesitant to recommend a mandate for MIG training,
they overwhelmingly felt that boards in California should be trained but cautioned that such
legislation could negatively impact school districts with small or shrinking budgets. Participants
in the survey were also concerned that mandating MIG training would result in another unfunded
mandate and recommended that the mandate be funded by the state or that CSBA increase
membership fees to provide free training to new board members.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this study contribute to the existing literature on the expectations that
board members have regarding training and their practices of governance. Strong connections
were made between training and effective governance, despite the study’s limitations. Only
117
MIG-trained board members were included in this research study. Non-MIG-trained school
board members should be included in follow-up research, and their responses should be
compared to MIG-trained participants’ responses. In addition, a study could examine high-
performing and highly effective school districts that do not have MIG-trained governance teams
in order to validate the findings. Participants of this study consisted only of superintendents and
school board members. Future research should consider the perspectives of key stakeholders,
such as students, parents, and members of the community. This type of study could provide
support for superintendents and members of the board who want to justify the expense of the
training. Finally, geographical constraints limited the study to only California. Follow-up studies
could include other states for more perspectives from superintendents and board members from
different regions and cultures, including the comparison of states with mandatory training versus
voluntary participation.
Conclusions
In an era of increased accountability, intense public scrutiny and widespread ease of
“armchair quarterback” social media commentaries, public school boards are facing challenges
never seen in the history of education in the United States. More than ever, members of school
governance teams desperately need to possess an understanding of how to function as a cohesive,
informed, and united team to avoid the influence from these intense distractions from modern
society. Findings from this study make it abundantly clear that the MIG training curriculum
offers leadership principles and decision-making practices necessary for school board members
to persevere in the face of these challenging times. Given the relative newness of school board
members to the position and their lack of formal experience in the field of education (Hess &
Meeks, 2010), participation in professional development makes sense for all board members.
118
Board members have agreed that their mission is to prepare students for future higher education,
careers, and civic responsibility (Dillon, 2010; Hess & Meeks, 2010). To realize their mission,
they want to be effective and are therefore motivated to engage in professional development.
This study has shown through cited research, as well as the survey and interview data, that
governance team members who sought out and engaged in MIG training functioned as a
cohesive unit that practiced effective governance decision making that had a marked influence
on improved student achievement.
To this researcher’s dismay, many California school board members do not participate in
MIG training, as training in California is voluntary (CSBA, 2019). States that mandate training
for school board members tend to receive higher marks for student achievement as compared to
those states who do not (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Although training does not guarantee
effectiveness, participants in the study agreed that MIG training strongly impacted and helped
them to become more effective in their own governance practices. Superintendents and board
members in this study supported the idea that training was extremely valuable and effective in
providing governance team members with the necessary skills to make responsible and informed
decisions in the best interest of their community stakeholders. Making the MIG content more
accessible through increased online and local options, the CSBA would see increased
participation, thus creating a possible platform for a state mandate for future training. Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the CSBA has responded by offering only online training modules that
have provided more flexible training options, but a return to in-person training will be necessary
to fulfill the need for collaboration with colleagues that many participants of this study thought
was valuable. With increased board member and superintendent participation in MIG training,
119
this researcher is confident that more districts will govern in a more responsible manner, thus
resulting in a continued march toward student success across California for years to come.
120
References
Bainbridge, W., & Thomas, M. D. (2002). Boards of education: The need for effective
leadership. Technos: Quarterly for Education and Technology, 11(4), 14–15.
https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-97297278/boards-of-education-the-need-for-
effective-leadership
Bianchi, A. B. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast, 1(3), 1–4.
https://www.nyssba.org/news/2003/10/01/forecast/school-board-training-mandatory-vs.-v
oluntary/
Bolman, G. L., & Deal, E. T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 901–910.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLandingdoi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.89.5.901
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Byrd, J. K., Drew, C., & Johnson, J. (2006, April). Factors impacting superintendent turnover:
Lessons from the field (ED493287). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
University Council of Educational Administration, Chicago, IL. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED493287.pdf
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/
121
California School Board Association. (2018a). Effective governance: Resources, training and
support. https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance
California School Board Association. (2018c). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards.
http://www.csba.org/~/media/51E3FBB839504700825CB16B7265F3C4.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2019). CSBA professional governance standards for
school boards.
https://www.csba.org/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/ProfessionalGovernance
Standards/CSBA_PGS_Brochure.ashx?la=en&rev=5fc78a303c5b45c4a6d89d519f991e5
6
California School Boards Association. (n.d.). Professional Governance Standards.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/Professiona
lG ovStandards.aspx
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 391–395.
Creswell, W. J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Dahlkemper, L. (2005). Making the grade: School board members navigate education
challenges. SEDL Letter, 17(2). http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v17n02/school-
board.html
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local school
boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 67–73.
122
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership
in the improvement of student achievement. In T. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school
board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 1–8). Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Divecha, D. (2019). What are the best ways to prevent bullying in schools?
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_are_the_best_ways_to_prevent_bullyi
ng_ in_schools
Education Week. (2009). 2009 state of the states. https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/2009-
state-of-the-states/index.html
Eisenstein, L. (2018). The Brown Act and school boards. https://insights.diligent.com/laws-
compliance-public-education/the-brown-act-and-school-
boards#:~:text=Brown%2C%20a%20member%20of%20the,open%E2%80%9D%20in%
2
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.
Gemberling, K., Smith, C., & Villiani, J. (2000). The key work of school boards guidebook.
National School Boards Association.
Glass, T. E., Björk, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.
American Association of School Administrators.
Goldhammer, K. (1964). The school board. Center for Applied Research in Education.
Grissom, J. A. (2010). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations:
The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research, 20(3),
601–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup043
123
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, n.v., 17–19.
Hess, M. F. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century. National School Boards
Association.
Hess, M. F. (2010). Weighing the case for school boards: Today and tomorrow. Phi Delta Kappa
International, 91(6), 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003172171009100605
Hess, F. M., & Meeks, O. (2010). School boards circa 2010: Governance in the accountability
era (ED515849). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED515849.pdf
Houston, P., & Bryant, A. (1997). The roles of superintendents and school boards in engaging
the public with the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 756-759.
Johnson, N., Koulish, J., & Oliff, P. (2009). Most states are cutting education.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/most-states-are-cutting-education
Johnson, N., Oliff, P., & Williams, E. (2011). An update on state budget cuts: At least 46 states
have imposed cuts that hurt vulnerable residents and the economy.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfmfa=view&id=1214
Kirst, A. M. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5),
378–381.
Kirst, A. M. (2002). Mayoral influence, new regimes, and public school governance.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2003.tb00023.x
Klein, A. (2016, May 14). The Every Student Succeeds Act: An ESSA overview. Education
Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/every-student-succeeds-act/index.html
124
Kolb, R. F., & Strauss, R. P. (1999, March). State laws governing school board ethics. Paper
presented at the American Education Research Association’s research conference,
Seattle, WA, United States.
Korelich, K. & Maxwell, G. (2015). The Board of Trustees’ professional development and
effects on student achievement (EJ1056179). Research in Higher Education Journal.
ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1056179.pdf
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
Larsen, S. E., Lipscomb, S., & Jaquet, K. (2011). Improving school accountability in California.
Public Policy Institute of California.
Lashway, L. (2002, September). The superintendent in the age of accountability. ERIC Digest,
161, 1–6.
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/3387/digest161.pdf?seque
nce=1
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Tenth Amendment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. Wallace Foundation. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-
center/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.pdf
Maricle, C. (2014). Governing to achieve: A synthesis of research on school governance to
support student achievement. California School Boards Association.
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/CSBAGoverningAchieve2014.pdf
125
Marzano, R. J. & Waters, J. T. (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
McAdams, D. R. (2003). Training your board to lead. School Administrator, 60(10), 7–9.
McCloud, B., & McKenzie, F. D. (1994). School boards and superintendents in urban
districts. Phi Delta Kappan 75(5), 384–385.
Morehouse, W. R. (2001). Training for my board colleagues? You bet. School Administrator,
58(2), 68-70.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Fast facts.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: Findings and
recommendations. http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. http://www.corestandards.org/about-
the-standards/branding-guidelines/
National School Boards Association. (2019). Public education FAQ.
https://www.nsba.org/About/Public-Education-FAQ
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership theory and practice (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
126
Petersen, G. J. (2002). Singing the same tune: Principals’ and school board members’
perceptions of the superintendent’s role as instructional leader. Journal of Educational
Administration, 40(2), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210421114
Petersen, G. J., & Short, P. M. (2001). The school board president’s perception of the district
superintendent: Applying the lenses of social influence and social style. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 533–570. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001316101219
69415
Petronis, J., Hall, R., & Pierson, M. (1996). Mandatory school board training: An idea whose
time has come (ED400625). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED400625.pdf
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Bruce, J., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2000, April 10–14). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/
superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student
achievement (ED453172). Paper presented Seattle at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED453172.pdf
Rice, J. (2010). The impact of teacher experience: Examining the evidence and policy
implications (Brief No. 11). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in
Education Research.
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
Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. Longman.
127
Soulwish. (2020). A mother is your first friend, your best friend, your forever friend.
https://soulwish583040226.wordpress.com/2020/05/22/a-mother-is-your-first-friend-
your-best-friend-your-forever-friend/
Tallerico, M. (1989). The dynamics of superintendent-school board relationships: A continuing
challenge. Urban Education , 24, 215–232.
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The quest to
define effective leadership. Johns Hopkins University & Howard University, Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
Thurlow Brenner, C., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. IPED Technical
Reports (Paper 15). http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/iped_techrep/15
Timar, T. B. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Peabody
Journal of Education, 78(4), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7804_09
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654308330970
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
128
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails
School Board Member Recruitment Email
Date___________________
Dear School Board Member ______________________,
Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school
governance teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board has completed the
MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in completion of the Ed.D.
program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will
be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training
on effective governance. You will be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom™ interview
at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded with your permission
and will include questions about effective governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time.
Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.
IF you agree to participate in this study, please complete the School Board Member Survey via the
following link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation, you may contact me or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University
of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
129
Superintendent Recruitment Email
Date___________________
Dear Superintendent ______________________,
Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school
governance teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board members have
completed the MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in completion
of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this
study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact
of MIG training on effective governance. You will be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual
Zoom™ interview at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded
with your permission and will include questions about effective governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time.
Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.
Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the Superintendent Survey via the following
link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation, you may contact myself or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the
University of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance
for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
130
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your chances of participation?
(check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced my
participation in the MIG training was . . . (check
all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Unable to determine
❏ Other
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
As a result of MIG training, my focus is on
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
8
As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek
community input through a variety of methods
(email, town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
131
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
As a result of the MIG training, I understand the
importance of aligning the decision-making
process with the district’s vision and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
The MIG training clarified the differences
between my roles and responsibilities as a school
board member and those of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
132
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data
consistently to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
Strongly Disagree
18
As a result of the MIG training, my ability to
accept the majority decision constructively, even
if I hold the minority view, has improved.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board
members could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
Attending MIG training has positively impacted
student achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
133
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your school board members’
chances of participation? (check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced school board
members to participate in MIG training was . . .
(check all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Other
❏ Unable to determine
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
School board members who have earned MIG
certification demonstrate an increased focus on
student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
8
School board members who are MIG certified
actively engage the community and utilize a
variety of communication methods (email, town
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
134
hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
School board members who are MIG trained
understand the importance of aligning the
decision-making process with the district’s vision
and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
School board members who are MIG trained
exhibit a clearer understanding of the difference
between their roles and responsibilities and those
of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
school board members.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the school governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
135
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data consistently
to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
The MIG training has improved school board
members’ ability to accept the majority decision,
even when they hold the minority view.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members
could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
MIG training has positively impacted student
achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
136
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3
Some people believe that school board training should be mandated in California. How
do you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has the MIG training affected how you govern your school district, if at all?
8
What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if at all?
9 What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a board member, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?
137
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school governance teams to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3 Some people argue that school board training should be mandated in California. How do
you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to your board members and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has MIG training affected how your school board members govern your school
district, if at all?
8 What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if any?
a What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make MIG training more accessible to all superintendents?
11 How does MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a superintendent, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?
138
Appendix F: Informed Consent
Date: _______________
Dear _______________,
My name is _______________ and I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a research study under the guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F.
Escalante. The purpose of the study is to examine school board members’ and superintendents’
perceptions of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training and its impact on school governance
and student achievement. I will interview and survey superintendents and school board
members.
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) MIG training program on school
board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of school districts.
This study may serve as a source of the benefits of MIG training for school governance teams.
Your participation is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw at any time. The information
collected will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher and members of the
dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no individual or
district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
me at _______________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California.
Thank you, in advance, for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
Dr. Michael F. Escalante, Dissertation Chair mescalante@usc.edu (xxx) xxx-xxxx
( ) I have read this form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent to my
participation in the research described above.
Participant’s Signature: _________________________________________________________
Participant’s Printed Name: ______________________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________________________________________
139
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument RQ 1
What factors impact
the decision of school
board members to
participate in the MIG
training program?
RQ 2
How does the MIG
training program
encourage and equip
school board
members to exhibit
the behaviors of
effective school
governance?
RQ 3
Does MIG training
have an impact on
student achievement
and growth?
School Board
Member Survey
1-6 7-16,18-19 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
Superintendent
Survey
1-6 7-14 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
School Board
Member Interview
Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Superintendent
Interview Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This research study examined the impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training program on effective school board governance practices and student achievement and growth as a result of the program. The purpose of this study was to determine whether MIG training affected the governing practices and behaviors of school board members by helping them to engage in best practices for effective governance, thereby leading to improved student achievement. This study was framed using Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s definition of leadership through their 4 frames of leadership. Using research from the Lighthouse Inquiry study conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards, the research team analyzed best practices for effective school boards. To determine expectations for governance teams, the professional governance standards furnished by the CSBA were used. Data for this qualitative study were collected from survey results from 180 MIG-trained board members who had completed at least 1 MIG module and 62 superintendents in qualifying school districts across 12 counties in northern and southern California. Interviews conducted with 3 school board members and their corresponding superintendents in each district. Three research questions guided this work: (a) what factors impacted the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG training program, (b) whether the MIG training encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance, and (c) did the MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth. Findings from this research suggested that MIG training supports effective governance practice by building team coherence through established trust and respect while clarifying roles and responsibilities and exposure and implementation of improved governance practices, student achievement was shown to be indirectly influenced by the training. Implications for practice include possible CSBA modifications to MIG training, due to the fact that MIG training improves the practice for effective governance of school board members, making trainings more accessible and exploring a state mandate of MIG training. This research adds to the current research on effective school district leadership and more specifically, the role that training plays in effective leadership.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards
PDF
The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
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
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
PDF
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
PDF
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice
PDF
School board governance training and student achievement
PDF
Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
Asset Metadata
Creator
Lauer, Justin
(author)
Core Title
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/01/2021
Defense Date
03/31/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
California School Boards Association,CSBA,governance teams,Masters in governance,MIG training,OAI-PMH Harvest,School boards,superintendent
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy (
committee member
), Hinman, Charles (
committee member
), Thorossian, Katherine (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jxl9505@lausd.net,lauerjus@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-435737
Unique identifier
UC11668097
Identifier
etd-LauerJusti-9386.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-435737 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-LauerJusti-9386.pdf
Dmrecord
435737
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Lauer, Justin
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
California School Boards Association
CSBA
governance teams
Masters in governance
MIG training