University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts

(USC Thesis Other)

The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Impact of Governance Training for School Board Members and Their
Respective Districts
by
Benson Kwok

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 Benson Kwok 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Benson Kwok certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Rudy M. Castruita
Michele Taney Doll
Michael F. Escalante

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
Abstract

In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of governance training, specifically the Cali-
fornia School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training program and
its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit effective governance characteristics.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the relation-
ship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance indica-
tors for school districts. This study engaged leadership through the lens of Lee Bolman and
Terrence Deal’s 4 frames of leadership. The CSBA’s professional governance standards were
used to establish expectations for school boards. Best practices were analyzed using research
from the Lighthouse Inquiry, a study conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards. This
study’s qualitative data consisted of 186 board members and 62 superintendents from their
respective districts, representing 12 counties in California. All 62 participating superintendents
completed surveys and interviews, 180 of 186 MIG-trained board members completed survey
responses, and 177 of those board members participated in interviews. Data from surveys and
interviews were collected and coded to answer the study’s 3 research questions: (a) what factors
impacted the decision to participate in the MIG training program, (b) how the MIG training
program equipped school board members to exhibit effective school governance behaviors, and
(c) whether MIG training had an impact on student achievement. Findings from this research
suggested that MIG training supported effective governance practices by building shared efficacy
through collaboration and clarification of education governance roles and responsibilities. This
study adds to the current research regarding effective school district leadership and governance
teams’ impact on student achievement.

iv
Dedication

To my wife Briana and my daughter Kaia: My incredible wife has supported and encouraged me
throughout this journey, and I am grateful for her patience and understanding. She always puts
others first and is committed to our family and raising our child. My daughter Kaia is my inspira-
tion to be better. I hope that my effort demonstrates the unlimited possibilities that can be
achieved with hard work and perseverance. I am truly blessed for my family.

v
Acknowledgments

I acknowledge those who have guided me through this endeavor of learning and leader-
ship with the utmost appreciation:
Thank you to our dissertation chair, Dr. Michael Escalante, for the invitation to begin the
journey, for guiding us through the entire process, and for pushing us to completion. Dr. Esca-
lante is highly insightful, and I am grateful for his encouragement in reaching my professional
aspirations. He has taught me the value of networking and coached me to advocate for myself and
others. I thank him for keeping me connected to this phenomenal institution, the University of
Southern California.
The USC Rossier School of Education has incredible professors, and Dr. David Cash is
no exception. I am fortunate to have gained substantial knowledge from his courses. I give thanks
for his time and support as a member of my dissertation committee.
I thank Dr. Michelle Doll for her willingness to serve on my dissertation committee. Her
guidance on personnel and human resources matters over the years has been invaluable to my
development as an educational leader.
A very special thank you to Dr. Richard Sheehan for his commitment to being on my
dissertation committee. Dr. Sheehan sincerely believed that I would develop into a successful
educational leader. I am grateful for the opportunities that he has provided to me and for his
sincere interest in my career. He inspired me to enroll in USC, and to him I attribute my greatest
educational and professional accomplishments thus far.
I want to thank my entire thematic group for their support and collaboration. I especially
appreciate my colleagues—Julie, Ryan, and Stephanie—for their camaraderie. These three set the
bar that allowed me to enjoy the process and focus on the accomplishments that are on the path

vi
toward the end goal. The laughter and friendship that I enjoyed with these fine people over the
past 3 years were invaluable. Fight on!

vii
Table of Contents

Abstract iv
Dedication v
Acknowledgments vi
List of Tables xi
List of Figures xiii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Background of the Problem 3
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 4
Research Questions 4
Significance of the Study 5
Limitations 5
Delimitations 6
Assumptions 6
Definitions of Terms 6
Organization of the Study 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 11
School Board Evolution 12
School Boards in the 21st Century 15
Setting Direction 15
Establishing an Effective and Efficient Structure 16
Systems Coherence 16
Culture of Support 17
Using Data to Inform and Support Continuous Improvement 17
Evolution of the School Superintendency 18
Superintendents of the 21st Century 19
Communication 20
Superintendent Governance Standards 20
Student Achievement 22
MIG Program 23
Module 1: Foundations of Effective Governance and Setting Direction 24
Module 2: Policy and Judicial Review With Student Learning and Achievement 24
Module 3: School Finance 24
Module 4: Human Resources 25
Module 5: Community Relations and Advocacy 25
Accountability 25
Theoretical Frameworks 27
The Lighthouse Inquiry 28
Four Frames of Leadership 29
CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards 31
Chapter Summary 32

viii
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 34
Research Design 34
Participant Sample 37
Instrumentation 37
Data Collection 39
Data Analysis 39
Ethical Considerations 40
Chapter Summary 41
Chapter Four: Results 42
Participants 43
District A: Acacia USD 44
District B: Glen Oaks USD 46
District C: Sun City Elementary School District 47
Findings for Research Question 1 47
Intrinsic Motivation 48
Culture of the School Board 50
Expectations 52
Summary of Results: Research Question 1 54
Findings for Research Question 2 54
Understanding Roles and Responsibilities 56
A Framework for Collaboration 58
Trust 61
Summary of Results: Research Question 2 63
Findings for Research Question 3 64
Indirect Influences 64
Focus on Achievement 66
Summary of Results: Research Question 3 69
Chapter Summary 70
Chapter Five: Discussion 72
Purpose of the Study Restated 72
Summary of Findings 73
Research Question 1 73
Research Question 2 74
Research Question 3 76
Limitations 77
Implications 77
Recommendations for Future Studies 78
Conclusion 79
References 80
Appendices
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails 89
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey 91
ix
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey 93
Appendix D: Interview Guide: School Board Members 95
Appendix E: Interview Guide: Superintendents 96
Appendix F: Informed Consent 97
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix 98

x

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Participants 45
Table 2: Summary of Pseudonyms Chosen for Participants 45
Table 3: Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the
Masters in Governance Training

49
Table 4: Participants’ Responses to Whether Their School Board Culture Encouraged
Participation in Masters in Governance Training

52
Table 5: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training
Should Be Encouraged for School Governance Teams by the Local District
Policy

53
Table 6: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training
Clarified the Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of a Schoo
Board Member and Those of the Superintendent (N = 180)

57
Table 7: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Were
Masters in Governance Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the
Difference Between Their Roles and Responsibilities and Those of Their
Superintendent (N = 62)

58
Table 8: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether It Is Important to Attend Masters in
Governance Training With Their School Board Members (N = 62)

60
Table 9: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance
Training Had Improved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept
the Majority Decision, Even When They Held the Minority View (N = 180)

62
Table 10: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training
Had Improved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the
Majority Decision, Even When They Held the Minority View (N = 62)

62
Table 11: School Board Members’ Responses Regarding Whether Board Members Who
Were Masters in Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning
the Decision-Making Process With the District’s Vision and Goals (N = 180)

66
Table 12: Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Members Who
Were Masters in Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning
the Decision-Making Process With the District’s Vision and Goals (N = 62)

66
Table 13: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in
Governance Training, Their Focus Was on Student Achievement (N = 180)

68

xi

Table 14: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Had
Earned Masters in Governance Certification Demonstrated an Increased Focus
on Student Achievement (N = 62)

68
Table 15: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether, as a Result of Masters in Govern-
Training, They Encouraged Governance Team Members to Consistently Use
Data to Make Informed Decisions Regarding Student Achievement

70

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames 30
Figure 2: Conceptual Frameworks for Study 36

xiii
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study

The state of California features the most extensive public school system in the nation,
with nearly 1,000 school districts governed by 5,000 school board members (California School
Boards Association [CSBA], 2007). The CSBA (2007) affirmed that these locally elected offi-
cials are entrusted to represent their communities in matters regarding education oversight. Lit-
erature from the CSBA (2007) and P. A. Johnson (2011) has identified the significant and
complex responsibilities of school boards, such as appointing the superintendent, hiring critical
members of the central office, developing and maintaining a vision for the district, and imple-
menting educational initiatives while abiding by state and federal mandates and fostering a
culture of educational achievement for all students.
In addition to representing the local community’s educational values and advocating for
students, the National School Board Association (NSBA; n.d.) has suggested that school boards
have the obligation to ensure the financial health and long-term stability of their districts. These
governance teams work to balance the costs of operations and the costs of change initiatives with
available resources. For many public school districts in California, there is the added challenge of
reduced funding brought about by declining enrollment. According to recent state enrollment
data, California public schools experienced the most significant drop in enrollment over the past
5 years (Education Data Partnership, 2019). As the governing body of a school district, the board
must make crucial financial decisions (Land, 2002). The choices the board makes in the alloca-
tion of resources influence instructional policies and shape the curriculum.
In recent years, the role of the school board has progressed into assuming a greater
responsibility for raising student achievement (Allen & Mintrom, 2010). A synthesis of research
by Maricle (2014) found that school boards ultimately bear the duty of ensuring that students
2

leave K-12 schools prepared for postsecondary success. The California School Dashboard
provides critical information regarding student achievement, keying in on areas such as gradua-
tion rate, college and career readiness, and academic indicators. According to the California
Department of Education (CDE; 2017), the Dashboard encourages the public to take an active
role and interest in achieving accountability goals. Community leaders can use it for determining
appropriate supports for increasing effectiveness and capacity building. In order to address issues
of school achievement, board members must be adept at understanding the state’s accountability
and the linked assessment system, known as the California Assessment of Student Performance
and Progress (CAASPP).
The Center for Public Education (as cited in Gemberling et al., 2000) suggested that a
critical factor in successful leadership for school boards is unification with the superintendent
through active collaboration and mutual trust. The report affirmed that the most important rela-
tionship that a school board must establish is with its superintendent. Superintendents and board
members differ in many ways, but each needs the other to be successful. Board members typically
possess limited experience in education and often lack specialized training in educational leader-
ship. Superintendents, on the other hand, usually possess these qualities but not elected officials
and cannot perform the governance functions that community-elected board members fulfill. The
Center for Public Education (as cited in Gemberling et al., 2000) found that boards and superin-
tendents in high-achieving districts came together, thereby creating a strong working relationship,
refining their visions over time, and able to assess district strengths and weaknesses. As commu-
nity leaders, education boards must work in conjunction with their respective superintendents to
establish an effective and efficient structure for the district by setting a direction for the schools
and offering support, while being held accountable to the public (CSBA, 2007).
3

CSBA facilitates professional learning opportunities to enhance school governance. This
study will explore the CSBA’s Masters in Governance (MIG) training for school board members
and superintendents. Qualitative data will be examined to understand perceptions of preparedness
for overall effective governance and the duties for which school board members and superinten-
dents are held accountable. Also, the research team will survey the motivation of school govern-
ance teams’ participation in MIG training and seek connections to the progress of their respective
school districts.
Background of the Problem

It is a significant responsibility to ensure the success of students, and there is great power
in the regulation of vital resources that promote high-quality teaching and learning. Nevertheless,
a vast majority of elected education officials have little to no background in education or educa-
tion finance (Bianchi, 2003; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). With critical decision-making power,
governance teams must be qualified and competent to make decisions that directly impact the
entire school community. Currently, school board training is mandated in 24 states (Alsbury,
2008b); California is not one of them. However, the CSBA (2018c) facilitates formal professional
development for education governance. The program is called MIG and is designed to equip
school boards and superintendents with the knowledge and skills to build and support an effective
governance structure collaboratively. Quite possibly, the most potent element of a thriving school
district is a productive professional relationship between a superintendent and the school board
(Feuerstein & Opfer, 1998). MIG training may strengthen this relationship through the clarifica-
tion of roles within educational governance and the enhancement of communication among team
members. Due to their obligations to the community, it stands to reason that education gover-
nance teams should participate in professional learning to prepare for conducting complex school
4

business. School board members have a daunting responsibility to their constituents; thus, they
must adequately prepare to meet those obligations through training.
Statement of the Problem

The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of
informed decision making that influence the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relations.
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions

The following research questions were designed by the research team to examine the
perceived impact that MIG training has on education governance and student achievement:
5

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 importance of this study was in identifying connections between education gover-
nance training, specifically the MIG, and its influence on the success of school districts in Cali-
fornia. This research offers valuable information regarding school board training and identify the
valuable components of the program. The study will be made accessible to school board members
and superintendents who are considering governance education or have a desire to improve their
practice. Correlations between training and practice may potentially motivate school board
members to seek training voluntarily. Findings from this study should complement current liter-
ature and provide guidance in the form of qualitative data to policymakers in order to make
informed decisions regarding mandated training for California school governance teams.
Limitations

The limitations of this study were tied to the participants and the research team. The study
faced geographic constraints as data collection occurred in only 12 California counties, thereby
restricting the pool of participants. The study data collection phase was limited by the COVID-19
stay-at-home orders that created barriers to in-person interviews; therefore, interviews were
conducted over the Zoom
™
virtual platform or over the phone. Due to time constraints, the study
was limited to those who volunteered to participate, thus limiting the number of interviews. The
6

recollection of participants’ experiences may also have limited the study in interviews and the
validity of their survey responses gathered from the surveys.
Delimitations

Given the above limitations, the study was conducted in elementary, secondary, or unified
school districts. Districts in Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) were not taken into
consideration. The focus of the research was on governance teams, including the superintendent,
and their participation in education governance training provided by the CSBA.
Assumptions

It was assumed that the instruments used in the study were valid and reliable and that
board members and superintendents responded candidly to the survey and the interview
questions. Because the study measured perceptions of school boards and superintendents who had
participated in governance education, it was assumed that the qualitative method was appropriate
for this study. The researchers assumed that school boards and school board members had a direct
governance impact on their districts and that training improved practice. The researchers assumed
that the duties of school board members are extremely complicated and require preparation. It
was assumed that the information provided by the CSBA was current and accurate and that MIG
training improves school board–superintendent relationships, thereby increasing the overall
effectiveness of the board.
Definitions of Terms

For this study, the following terms are defined:

Accountability: A system or set of policies and practices that is uses to measure and hold
schools and districts responsible for raising student achievement for all students, and to prompt
and support improvement where necessary.
7

Assessment: The annual summative evaluation of student learning through state- sanc-
tioned multiple-choice exams.
CAASPP: A California assessment that includes the Smarter Balanced Summative
Assessments; the California Alternate Assessments (CAAs), including the CAA for Science; the
California Science Test; and the California Spanish Assessment (CDE, 2019a).
CSBA:

The nonprofit education association representing the elected officials who govern public
school districts and county offices of education. With a membership of nearly 1,000 edu-
cational agencies statewide, CSBA brings together school governing boards and adminis-
trators from districts and county offices of education to advocate for effective policies that
advance the education and well-being of the state’s more than 6 million school-age
children. A membership-driven association, the CSBA provides policy resources and
training to members and represents the statewide interests of public education through
legal, political, legislative, community, and media advocacy. (CSBA, 2019, para.1)
California School Dashboard:
An online tool that shows how local educational agencies and schools are performing on
the state and local indicators included in California’s school accountability system. The
Dashboard is a key part of major shifts in California K-12 schools, changes that have
raised the bar for student learning, transformed testing, and placed the focus on equity for
all students. The Dashboard provides information that schools can use to improve. (CDE,
2019b)
Governance team: The district’s school board members and the superintendent, who have
the power to make decisions that will best serve the students they represent (CSBA, 2007).
8

Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP):

A 3-year plan that describes the goals, actions, services, and expenditures to support posi-
tive student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The LCAP provides an
opportunity for LEAs [local education agencies] to share their stories of how, what, and
why programs and services are selected to meet their local needs. (CDE, 2020a, LCAP
Overview section, para. 1)
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): The law enacted in 2013–2014 to simplify how
funding is provided to LEAs. Previously, funding included over 50 categorical funding lines
designed to give targeted services based on student demographics (CDE, 2020b).
LEA:

A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for
either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public
elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or
other political subdivision of a State, or for a combination of school districts or counties
as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools
or secondary schools. (Legal Information Institute, Electronic Code of Federal Regula-
tions, n.d., para. 1)
Mandate: An official order or commission to do something.

MIG: A training program sponsored by the CSBA consisting of five modules designed to
define roles and responsibilities, improve governance and leadership through increased
knowledge and skills to support an effective governance structure, and maintain a focus on
student learning (CSBA, 2018c).
9

NSBA:

A federation of 49 state associations and the U.S. territory of the Virgin Islands, represent-
ing their more than 90,000 school board officials. These local officials govern over
13,600 local school districts serving more than 50 million public school students. Work-
ing with and through our state associations, and serving as their Washington, D.C. office,
NSBA advocates for equity and excellence in public education through school board
leadership. (NSBA, 2020, para. 1)
Public school: A U.S. school that is maintained at public expense for the education of the
children of a community or district and that constitutes a part of a system of free public education
commonly including primary and secondary school.
School board: A group of nonpartisan citizens, either elected or appointed, within a
school district, to act as a single unit regarding various aspects of governance (CSBA, 2007).
School board members or trustees: Locally elected public officials entrusted with govern-
ing a community’s public schools (CSBA, 2018c).
School district: Synonym for LEA; a public organization tasked with operating public
schools and serving students within a designated geographic area.
School governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through
the development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000).
Student achievement: The performance by students on the annual summative assessment
given by the state of California.
Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer (CEO) of a public school district
with oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
10

Organization of the Study

This dissertation is comprised of five chapters. The first chapter has provided an overview
of the problem, the purpose, and the importance of the study; research questions; limitations and
delimitations; assumptions; and definitions of terms as they are used in this study. In Chapter
Two, a detailed background provides information on existing literature and research on the topic
of the school board and superintendent, history, leadership, governance, roles and responsibili-
ties, MIG training, accountability, as well as details regarding theoretical frameworks that guided
the research. Chapter Three explains the methodology of the study, including the research design,
participant sample, instrumentation, data collection and analysis, and ethical considerations.
Chapter Four summarizes the data concerning the research questions. Chapter Five presents the
summary of findings, conclusions, implications for practice, recommendations for further
research, and a conclusion.
11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature

According to the NSBA (2019), school governance teams must face the immense respon-
sibility of educating more than 90% of the nation’s students. This obligation comes with a multi-
tude of challenges, such as satisfying community demands, allocating increasingly scarce
resources, and addressing the diverse needs of learners. School boards and superintendents
depend on each other to exchange information, to provide direction, and to facilitate effective
leadership. This relationship has become increasingly crucial in modern public education, as there
is a growing emphasis on effective leadership (J. Y. Thomas, 2001). School board members must
participate in training to deal with contemporary issues in the educational policy of increasing
accountability, assessments, and rigorous standards for education. Participation in professional
development can provide school governance teams with the knowledge to effectively make
decisions while strengthening the professional relationships that are required to manage the chal-
lenges and opportunities faced by public schools (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
This research study intends to seek connections between highly effective school boards
and participation in formal governance training, specifically MIG. Additionally, the research team
will study school board characteristics that are related to the implementation of initiatives toward
student achievement and examine the perceptions of effective governance. The theoretical
frameworks utilized to outline effective school board leadership and governance practices are
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frame model for effective leadership, the Iowa Association of
School Boards’ (IASB) Lighthouse Inquiry study (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000), and the
CSBA’s (n.d.a) professional governance standards. These frameworks will guide the study and
illuminate the practices, characteristics, and behaviors of an effective governance team.
12

This chapter reviews the literature beginning with an examination of the purpose and
functions of U.S. school boards and superintendents from their inception to the 21st century.
Information is given regarding school board members’ accountability and their function in
modern public education, as described by the CSBA. A glimpse into the performance standards
of school superintendents follows a brief history of the position. Finally, the literature review
describes the aforementioned theoretical frameworks used to guide this study and details regard-
ing the MIG training program.
School Board Evolution

Public schools in America began to emerge in the northernmost section of New England
during the 17th century (Land, 2002). The British colony of Massachusetts Bay initiated compul-
sory education in 1647, thus requiring towns to establish and maintain schools (Wirt & Kirst,
2005). As similar statutes were adopted in other New England colonies, local governments run by
selectmen were expected to control, administer, and sustain schools through town meetings
(Hess, 2002; Land, 2002). Eventually, growing populations led to greater responsibilities and
increased complexity in local governments, thus driving the separation of education from town
governance. (Kirst, 2008; Land, 2002). By 1826, towns in Massachusetts formed committees
composed of laymen, who were responsible for overseeing public schools, establishing the
origins of the American school board (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
The Massachusetts model of school oversight spread throughout the colonies as school
districts were created and funded by local taxes, each possessing their authority for the provision-
ing and maintenance of schools (Land, 2002). In 1827, Horace Mann, founder of the American
school system, proclaimed that the typical school was to be free, financed by local and state gov-
ernment, controlled by lay boards of education, and mixing all social groups under one roof. The
13

school board was to be nonpartisan and nonsectarian (Kirst, 2008). This is still the governance
prototype used by school boards and public schools today (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002).
School boards in the early 20th century experienced significant changes in structure and
roles. Emancipating schools from partisan politics and excessive decentralization became the
focus for activists who viewed political corruption as the primary cause for education inefficiency
in urban areas (Alsbury, 2008a). These reformers argued that the decentralized, ward-based
committee system for administering public schools created opportunities for political influence
(Alsbury, 2008a; Land, 2002; Danzberger, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). School boards of that time
were usually large, often exceeding 20 members. These sizeable boards were typically comprised
of numerous subcommittees that activists felt were fragmenting executive authority (Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). Eventually, the governance structure was revised to smaller school boards whose
members were elected at large and had no affiliations to political parties or government officials
(Kirst, 2008).
Reformers believed that better management, accountability, and large-scale improvements
could be achieved through the centralization of power in a professional educator, a chief execu-
tive who had considerable delegated authority from the board (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). This newly
centralized governance structure, modeled after corporate boards, shifted efforts away from daily
administration to a focus on policymaking. The daily administration of the school district became
the responsibility of the superintendent (Danzberger, 1994; Kirst, 2008; Land, 2002; Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). There are diverse structures in the 15,000+ school boards existing in the United
States today. Most of those boards comprise of five to seven elected or appointed members (Hess,
2002). The reforms of the early 20th century established the profile for the basic structure and
administrative policymaking processes that boards use today.
14

The middle of the 20th century brought growth in state and national government influence
on education. A notable example is the 1954 Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Educa-
tion (1954), which requires equal educational opportunities for all students. The court’s decision
mandated the implementation of policies to desegregate public schools and eventually led to the
signing of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. ESEA, considered by
many to be a civil rights milestone, distributes federal funding to districts with historically
underserved—defined as low-income families (Alsbury, 2008a; Hess, 2002; Land, 2002; Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). The ESEA has gone through periodic reauthorizations such as the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (2002) and Race to the Top (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). These
reauthorizations, along with legislation relating to migrant and special education, tied funding to
state and federal requirements, expanding their involvement in education policymaking. The
latest reauthorization of ESEA, known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, n.d.), was signed into law in 2015 by President Obama. This legislation
reduced federal influence in schools, returning some authority to states and local governments
(Klein, 2016).
In April of 2017, an executive order was issued to investigate government involvement in
public education at the national level in an effort to reduce federal funding. Transcripts of inter-
views and discussions with the head of the U.S. Department of Education, Betsy DeVos, indi-
cates her belief that the centralized approach of distributing federal funds, is a disruption to the
ability of local governments and public schools to meet their own unique needs (Bock, 2019;
Kline, 2018).
There has been little change to the fundamental purpose of the school board from its
beginnings. According to a research study known as the Lighthouse Inquiry, school board
15

members serve as agents of the community. They are the voice of the public in developing a
vision and direction of education. Every community or district has a school board, and the con-
nection to the community is key to progress (Delagardelle, 2008). Early school boards were
responsible for implementing school policies that align with their respective communities’
values, as they are today (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
School Boards in the 21st Century

Modern-day school boards deal with increased responsibilities in finance, student
achievement, and mandates from state and national levels. Navigating the complex environment
of school governance requires knowledge, effective management, and leadership skills that are
developed through professional learning (Richter, 2013). The CSBA recognizes five primary
responsibilities of school board members in governing a community’s public schools. These
responsibilities are setting direction, establishing an effective and efficient structure, providing
support, ensuring accountability, and providing community leadership as advocates for students,
the school district, and public schools (CSBA, 2018b). The following subsections will explore
the obligations that represent the core functions of a board of education. According to CSBA
(2019), these functions are so fundamental that they can only be performed by an elected body.
Setting Direction
Formulating and communicating the culture that the school board wants the district to
embody, establishing goals that the board would have the district achieve, and supporting the
aspirations of the community for the future of its children are the primary ways that a school
board governs a district (Texas Association of School Boards [TASB], 2020). The board and
superintendent must work together to ensure that a vision and goals are in place for the district.
Those visions and goals should serve as guidance and the foundation for their work in decision
16

making. The partnership of the superintendent and the board delivers a pledge toward the
district’s vision and goals and ensures that they are used to coordinate the efforts within the
school community (CSBA, 2007; Land, 2002; Supovitz, 2006; TASB, 2020).
Establishing an Effective and Efficient Structure

As the main democratic body capable of representing the community in public education
decisions, the school board has a decisive role and considerable influence over educational
reforms. Authority is granted by the state to local school boards to develop policies and regula-
tions that control the operations of schools. School board policies often cover a vast array of
school operations that include system organization, approving personnel and finance actions,
curriculum, and progress monitoring. To achieve its vision, the school board should establish
organizational structures based on equity for all students and staff have the resources to maximize
student achievement. (CSBA, 2007; Danzberger et al.,1987; Ehrensal & First, 2008; Grissom,
2009; P. A. Johnson, 2011; Land, 2002).
Systems Coherence

Fullan and Quinn (2016) defined coherence as the shared depth of understanding about
the nature of the work. Leaders achieve shared understanding through purposeful interaction in
working toward common goals. Organizational coherence in school systems can make significant
impacts on student success and equity when leadership identifies and consolidate what works,
developing meaning over time. The policymaking process involves capacity, clarity, the precision
of practice, transparency, monitoring of progress, and continuous correction. A focused set of
policies gives an equity-driven board a chance to systematically concentrate on a portfolio of
high-leverage, equity-based policies to determine system performance. (Fullan & Quinn, 2016).
The CSBA (2017) has promoted Fullan and Quinn’s framework, which describes four critical
17

components in creating a coherent school district: a focus on direction, cultivating a collaborative
culture, securing collective accountability, and deepening learning. Meaningful change happens
through collaboration among all stakeholders when the system is focused on a common purpose
of improving a system to meet the needs of all students (CSBA, 2017; Fullan & Quinn, 2016).
Culture of Support

The CSBA (2017) identified the culture of a school district as a crucial component to the
success of improvement initiatives. School boards provide support to the district by aligning
resources with established goals, thereby guiding the district’s vision. They contribute to the
culture by modeling professionalism, being knowledgeable about district programs, and recogniz-
ing excellence throughout the organization (CSBA, 2017; Campbell & Greene, 1994; Land,
2002; Weiss 2014). School boards must model consensus-building practices to do what is best for
students, including developing a positive climate and treating all constituents with respect
(Campbell & Green, 1994).
School boards should promote an environment that empowers the staff through support of
the innovation and ongoing professional development. The CSBA (2017) emphasized the impor-
tance of building a culture of trust and listed precise ways that board members can do so: commu-
nity engagement, fostering mutual accountability for implementation, modeling positive and
professional relationships, and making decisions with transparency (CSBA, 2017; also see
Devarics & O’Brien, 2019).
Using Data to Inform and Support Continuous Improvement

District leadership plays a crucial role in promoting the use of data in decision making.
Evidence suggests that fostering a culture of using data for continuous improvement improves
student outcomes (CSBA, 2017; Devarics & O’Brien, 2019). The board should model the use of
18

data to inform resource allocation for site leaders and educators. Investing in building capacity of
understanding and using data are a means of supporting school staff should in informing teaching
and learning. The use of data plays a role in equity by identifying achievement and opportunity
gaps. Data-driven culture keeps the school community focused on providing learning opportuni-
ties that meet students’ diverse needs (CSBA, 2017; Waters et al., 2003).
Evolution of the School Superintendency

The first school superintendents were appointed to manage the business aspects of educa-
tion and for their extensive knowledge in curriculum and instruction. First appearing in the
middle of the 19th century in the cities of Buffalo, New York; and Louisville, Kentucky, superin-
tendents provided teacher training and were assigned to develop civic leadership among school
officials. Business-oriented school boards took over later in the century, consequently shifting the
superintendent’s primary functions to the management of finance, operations, personnel, and
facilities (Björk et al., 2014). A balance of business oversight and instructional leadership would
define the role of school superintendents as they became the authority on planning and designing
programs for the flourishing urban communities during the turn of the 20th century (W. Thomas
& Moran, 1992).
State-mandated curriculum, compulsory education laws, financial accountability, and
demands for efficiency in the 1900s expanded the responsibilities of the superintendent (Björk et
al., 2014). The political aspects of the position required the superintendent to be a great commu-
nicator for reasons tied to public relations and collaboration with stakeholders, including the
school board, district employees, and community members (Kowalski & Brunner, 2011). The
position of superintendent continued to evolve with the social movements of the 1960s and
1970s. New policies were being implemented at the national level. These mandates often
19

conflicted with community expectations for schools, thereby leading to the scrutiny of the most
visible school leader—the superintendent. Emergence of the information-based society during the
technology revolution of the 1970s raised expectations for superintendents to master the art of
communication and to support the use of technology in learning, teaching, and administration
(Glass et al., 2000). Kowalski (2005) further asserted the need for superintendents to be effective
communicators because they are required to engage in open political dialogue to build a positive
school district image, to gain community support for transformation, and to keep the public
informed about education.
Over the past 35 years, the role of the board and superintendent have shifted to share the
responsibilities of policymaking. The superintendency has grown to become highly multifaceted
and challenging since the position’s origins. Superintendents today are expected to be skillful in
the areas of instruction, leadership, policymaking, educational reform, finance, and government
mandates while navigating a political environment with the core purpose of creating a system to
support student success (Glass et al., 2010).
Superintendents of the 21st Century

The school superintendent is the CEO of a school district and primarily the face of the
district. The role of school superintendents is wide ranging. It is their job to put the vision of the
elected officials on the school board into action by creating different programs and new policies.
As the CEO, the superintendent is a professional who is expected to manage financial resources
and spending while also using human capital within the district to achieve goals. Superintendents
are responsible for the successes of a district and also liable when there are failures (Edwards,
2007).
20

Communication

The work of the superintendent involves collaboration in a diverse environment. School
superintendents must understand the value of building and maintaining relationships and be
skillful in developing working relationships with groups that have different interests within the
school community in order to maximize effectiveness. (Björk, 2009; Kowalski 2005). Building a
strong rapport with all stakeholders is necessary for fulfilling the necessary roles of a school
superintendent, and effective communication is required. The superintendent must make a con-
centrated effort to convey the activities, achievements, and necessities of the district using
various formats. Communication may come in the form of writing, attendance of school events,
interactions with the media, and other public relations. (Björk, 2009; CSBA, 2018b; Kowalski,
2005).
Superintendent Governance Standards

To further validate the complex and crucial role of the superintendent in the 21st century,
the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) Superintendents Committee and the
CSBA Superintendents Advisory has developed a set of Superintendent Governance Standards. It
is highly recommended that the following standards be adopted as part of public education pro-
fessional governance. The standards are as follows (CSBA, n.d.b):
• Promotes the success of all students and supports the efforts of the Board of Trustees to
keep the district focused on learning and achievement.
• Values, advocates, and supports public education and all stakeholders.

• Recognizes and respects the differences of perspective and style on the Board and
among staff, students, parents, and the community—and ensures that the diverse range
of views informs Board decisions.
21

• Acts with dignity, treat everyone with civility, respect, and understands the implications
of demeanor and behavior.
• Serves as a model for the value of lifelong learning and supports the Board’s continu-
ous professional development.
• Works with the Board as a “governance team” and assures collective responsibility for
building a unity of purpose, communicating a shared vision, and creating a positive
organizational culture.
• Recognizes that the board/superintendent management team in each district is sup-
ported by management team in each district.
• Understands the distinctions between Board and staff roles, and respects the role of the
Board as the representative of the community.
• Understands that authority rests with the Board as a whole; provides guidance to the
Board to assist in decision-making; and provides leadership based on the direction of
the Board as a whole.
• Communicates openly with trust and integrity, including providing all members of the
Board with equal access to information, and recognizing the importance of both
responsive and anticipatory communications.
• Accepts leadership responsibility and accountability for implementing the vision, goals,
and policies of the district. (The Superintendent section, para. 1)
Superintendents work collaboratively with the school board and other stakeholders to put
programs and resources in place in order to accomplish results and to continually monitor student
achievement in the evaluation of programs. They provide leadership planning and evaluate all
phases of the instructional program. In addition to hiring and supervising the central staff and
22

other school leaders, the superintendent guides them in meeting district instructional goals,
monitors their progress, and evaluates their performance (Björk, 2009; Waters & Marzano,
2006). Both the superintendent and the school board members must respond to the demands of all
stakeholders of the educational community, including teachers, students, parents, staff, advocates,
and the community at large. While being mindful of these competing demands, a superintendent
should be guided by what is best for all students (Björk, 2009; CSBA, n.d.b; S. M. Johnson,
1996).
Student Achievement

The central purpose of a school district is to ensure that students are learning at high
levels; therefore, governance teams must be knowledgeable of the best practices for maximizing
student achievement and be supportive of educators (Björk, 2009). Studies have indicated that
effective leadership from the superintendent and school board have a positive correlation with
student achievement. Waters and Marzano (2006) found a statistically significant relationship
between district leadership and student achievement in a meta-analysis of 27 studies conducted in
the 1970s. The authors indicated five district-level responsibilities in which a superintendent
influences student achievement, the first being working collaboratively with the school board to
set a clear district’s vision for the district and including all stakeholders in the process. Govern-
ance teams set goals and objectives that take effort and commitment and then see to it that they
are achieved. The next responsibility is ensuring that the collaborative process of setting goals
results in non-negotiable items, specifically in the areas of student achievement and improving
instruction. The authors asserted that a governance team’s alignment and support of non- nego-
tiable items is a characteristic of high-achieving LEAs. The third responsibility is ensuring that
achievement and instruction remain the main focus of the district’s efforts. Effective governance
23

teams continually monitor student achievement and progress toward instructional goals to ensure
that these goals remain the primary force of an LEA’s actions. Finally, effective governance
requires school boards and superintendents to ensure that resources are appropriately allocated
toward the most important goals of student achievement and improving instruction.
MIG Program

School boards of the 21st century must navigate the highly complex and fast-paced world
of public education. Its members must deal with a broad spectrum of responsibilities and oppos-
ing community demands. Knowledge and professionalism are vital to making informed policy
decisions regarding student achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities.
Although the demands of the position have grown, there are minimal educational prerequisites,
formal training, or related work experiences required to become elected as a school board mem-
ber in California (CSBA, 2007).
Bianchi (2003) claimed that many school boards are ill prepared to take on the complex
challenges stemming from rigorous legislation and community demands. In order to complete
their fundamental responsibilities, school boards must develop techniques and leadership skills.
Bianchi contended that in the environment of public education, which demands accountability,
high standards, and increasing state and federal statutes, mandatory training has become increas-
ingly critical. Mandatory training would keep members current on legislative issues and assure
competency and professionalism, thereby increasing stakeholder confidence in those school
boards. Since Bianchi’s article was published in 2003, the number of states mandating formal
training for school boards have nearly doubled to 24; however, only half of those states enforce
those mandates (Alsbury, 2008b; NSBA, 2020).
24

The state of California does not mandate school board training, but school districts may
decide to participate in the CSBA’s (2018c) MIG leadership program. The MIG equips school
board members and superintendents with the knowledge and skills to build and support an effec-
tive governance structure. MIG training consists of five modules that require 60 total hours of
training to be completed over 2 years. The modules are consistent with national standard core
governance principals and are highly recommended by graduates for gaining the foundation
needed to perform governance responsibilities. The courses are as follows:
Module 1: Foundations of Effective Governance and Setting Direction

The focus of this section is developing insight into the roles and responsibilities of
governance teams and the core concepts of trusteeship and governance. Participants learn how to
create a vision that describes the direction, focus, commitment, and beliefs of a school district.
They learn how to engage stakeholders in the vision setting process while keeping a focus on
student learning (CSBA, 2018c).
Module 2: Policy and Judicial Review With Student Learning and Achievement

This section details the purpose, types, and use of policy and the process of developing
policy. School board members gain insight into the judicial appeals process and learn how to
meet the demand for higher academic achievement by aligning their responsibilities with support
for student success through policy and decision making (CSBA, 2018c).
Module 3: School Finance

School finance involves achieving a balance between district goals and student achieve-
ment. This module focuses on establishing financial priorities, budget development, implementa-
tion, and overall monitoring of district finances (CSBA, 2018c).
25

Module 4: Human Resources

Module 4 explores the board–superintendent relationship, fostering a culture of account-
ability for sound personnel practices, and offers insight into the role of the board in collective
bargaining (CSBA, 2018c).
Module 5: Community Relations and Advocacy

The purpose of this module is to develop a deeper understanding of community leader-
ship through effective communication, public relations, and crisis management (CSBA, 2018c).
Leadership is the cornerstone in which education communities deal with challenges, function,
and creating a productive environment (P. A. Johnson, 2011). There is a need for professional
development for school board members to acquire the skills necessary to perform a multitude of
tasks, to meet the demands of increasing accountability, and to govern effectively (Dillon, 2011).
The commitment of the superintendent and board members to complete 60 hours of MIG training
together as a unit is a commitment to collaboration and learning. With students’ success at the
core of their work, the school board and superintendent collaborate to determine the vision, to
define roles, and to utilize data-informed decision making (Canal, 2013). Waters and Marzano’s
(2007) review of 27 studies linking superintendent leadership and student achievement identifies
the importance of boards and superintendents working together to set goals collaboratively. This
analysis also found it critical for boards to be aligned with and supportive of the goals that the
superintendent identifies as essential and non-negotiable and to ensure that these goals become
the primary focus of school districts’ efforts (CSBA, 2017).
Accountability

The ESSA (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) guides state and federal policies and
practices; it is an example of external or compliance accountability. The government and other
26

regulatory agencies mandate external accountability. Federal and state legislation has put
accountability systems in place to be the medium of communicating expectations and encourag-
ing action. These policies are what the state uses to measure and hold schools and districts
responsible for raising student achievement. There are rigorous academic standards that specify
what students need to know and aligned assessments that measure student achievement. Perfor-
mance assessments are a way of signaling how well students are doing. Policymakers, educators,
and education leaders are to initiate or refine the actions that result from those signals. Rewards
and recognition for high-performing schools and districts and the resources, supports, and inter-
ventions for those that are struggling come as a result of these accountability systems (Gember-
ling et al., 2000; Ohio School Boards Association, 2020).
Internal or professional accountability is not mandated, legal, or bureaucratic. Instead, it is
represented by principles for which there is broad agreement. District leaders, board members,
and the superintendent must understand that they are responsible for the results of their actions
and decisions. Governance teams should acknowledge and accept their personal choices and
understand their accountability to themselves and those impacted by their decisions and actions
(Ohio School Boards Association, 2020). The CSBA (n.d.) standards suggest that governance
boards hold themselves accountable to professional standards by operating openly with trust and
integrity. The school governance team assumes collective responsibility and periodically evalu-
ates their effectiveness.
Education accountability is rooted in the expectation that every student will have the
opportunity to be successful, meaning that traditionally marginalized students, who include
socioeconomically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and students of color, can
learn and achieve. The school board works to put in place systems and to establish a culture of
27

quality instruction for learning. School boards in successful districts take the notion of account-
ability seriously and understand their roles in serving students and the community. Successful
school boards hold the district account to meeting learning expectations by committing to a plan
of continuous improvement of student achievement (CSBA, 2018a).
School board members are elected officials who are given the authority by the state to
oversee their local communities’ public schools. School boards are expected to comply with state
and federal mandates while meeting community expectations to shape policies at the local level
to increase student achievement (Kirst & Wirt, 2009). These policies shape the quality of educa-
tion offered to students within a community. School governance teams are held accountable to
the community as they are entrusted to exert the necessary leadership to achieve educational
success through systemic changes. Successful boards strategically plan with the superintendent
and community stakeholders. They initiate these plans through the superintendent to transform
schools. Elected school board members are held accountable to the community and must work
with the superintendent to meet the needs of the school community (Goodman & Zimmerman,
2000).
Theoretical Frameworks

This study utilized three theoretical frameworks to guide the examination of practices in
positive working relationships between school board members and superintendents for effective
governance: the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry study (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000), Bolman
and Deal’s (2017) four frame model of leadership, and CSBA’s (n.d.) professional governance
standards. Each framework provides a structure for effective relationships and results.
28

The Lighthouse Inquiry

Commissioned by the IASB in 2000, The Lighthouse Inquiry, in partnership with the
NSBA, determined that school board actions are a vital part of the culture of improvement (Dela-
gardelle, 2008) and that school boards can create conditions that promote student learning. This
study was comprised of comprehensive data gathered through qualitative methods in multiple
phases over several years. The study examined school board–superintendent teams in both high-
achieving and low-achieving districts and involved interviews of 159 school board members,
superintendents, and staff members of those districts. At its core, the study attempted to identify
links between what school boards do and the achievement of students in schools (Devarics &
O’Brien, 2019). The three research questions addressed were the following:
1. Are school boards different in high- and low-achieving districts?

2. How do school boards influence the conditions needed for success?

3. What do board members and superintendents currently believe about the role of the
board in improving student learning? (Delagardelle, 2008, p. 195)
Findings from the Lighthouse Inquiry identified seven circumstances for effective change
that substantially impact student success: (a) an emphasis on building a human organizational
system, (b) the ability to create and sustain initiatives, (c) a supportive workplace, (d) staff devel-
opment, (e) support through data and information, (f), community involvement, and (g) integrated
leadership. The Lighthouse Inquiry found that the beliefs and behaviors of school boards in
high-achieving districts were emphasized by the presence of these seven conditions for produc-
tive transformation. It was also found that the beliefs and behaviors were significantly different
from those school boards in low-achieving districts (Delagardelle, 2008).
29

Four Frames of Leadership

Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames leadership model describes several mental models
to serve as a framework for organizational success. The frameworks provide a way to examine
leadership models, to diagnose problems, to identify institutional challenges, and to devise solu-
tions for improved leadership. This section describes the structural, human resource, political,
and symbolic frames as they apply to school governance (see Figure 1).
Structural Frame

Bolman and Deal (2017) described the structural frame as the configuration, policies, and
procedures of an organization. It is the foundational design of the expectations and conduct of the
people in an organization. It is in the structural frame that polices are formed and systems are
improved to foster a school district’s success. An essential item found in the structural frame is
the idea that districts develop protocols for professionalism and working interactions. The struc-
tural frame produces formal expectations for superintendents and board members (Bolman &
Deal, 2017). This concept connects to previous literature that emphasized the importance of
board members and superintendents understanding their roles in order to work collaboratively as
a unit (Land, 2002).
Human Resource Frame

The human resource frame emphasizes the relationship between people and organizations.

The success of an organization hinges upon employees who possess talent and enthusiasm. The
employees need the organizations that they serve to be successful in assuring sustained employ-
ment. The core assumption of the human resource frame is treating workers as an asset rather
than as an expense. The human resources frame outlines the importance of building and cultivat-
ing professional relationships (Bolman & Deal, 2017). School boards and superintendents work
30

Figure 1

Bolman and Deal’s Four Leadership Frames

Note. Based on Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (6th ed.), by L. G.
Bolman and T. E. Deal, 2017, Jossey Bass.

from the human resource frame when building trust and professional relationships with stake-
holders to perpetuate the advancement of district goals and visions.
Political Frame

In this frame, the leadership approach to facilitating change focuses on the political real-
ities that exist within and outside organizations. The political frame emphasizes one’s approach
to dealing with groups of people, each with their own interests. Themes in the political frame
include building bases, coalitions, negotiating conflicts over limited resources, and creating
compromises. Superintendents and board members must possess the skills to collaborate in
setting goals, directions, and an ultimate vision. They must navigate the political terrain while
31

networking and building relationships. Bargaining and negotiation are also skills that exist within
the political frame. In navigating the political structure, school governance teams have the power
to be agents of change for their respective communities (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
Symbolic Frame

Bolman and Deal (2017) described the symbolic frame as a foundational resource for all
organizations. This frame focuses on how people use meanings and beliefs to shape culture. It is
through the stories, rituals, values, and ceremonies of an organization that an environment is
created to attract others to support the cause. The symbolic frame identifies the unifying qualities
of organizations and the unique symbols that drive its progress. Culture involves powerful influ-
ences that shape the significance of the actions and values within that system. Understanding the
culture of an environment is understanding its history—a critical component for superintendents
and school board members for progressing a school community.
CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards

The CSBA (n.d.) recognizes fundamental principles for governing public schools respon-
sibly and effectively. The standards for school superintendents and the professional governance
standards for school boards will be referenced as a framework for understanding the critical
responsibilities and collaborative efforts of school boards and their respective superintendents.
The professional governance standards identify three core components of effective school gover-
nance. The first section describes the attributes of a capable individual trustee. The CSBA (n.d.)
recommends that individual trustees work with one another and the superintendent to guarantee
that a high-quality education is given to all students. Themes of communication, trust, and
diversity are evident in the second section of the governance standards. Individual trustees must
possess a unity of purpose and work as a team to assume collective responsibility and create a
32

positive organizational culture of effective governance. Finally, CSBA’s (n.d.) governance
standards identify the primary responsibilities of the board and the specific duties that members
must carry out.
Designed to enlighten the public’s understanding of the responsibilities of local school
boards and to support the efforts of the governance team, the CSBA (n.d.) endorses incorporating
the professional governance standards into local school board policies. The standards provide a
framework for board members and the superintendent to work effectively as a governance team.
Chapter Summary

Management and leadership of public education in the 21st century are complex. School
community leaders must deal with a broad spectrum of responsibilities and opposing community
demands. An emerging theme throughout the literature was the significant impact that school
boards have on their districts. Effective leadership from the school governance team is the corner-
stone from which education communities deal with challenges, function, and grow. Devarics and
O’Brien (2019) reported that governance teams that choose to collaborate well with another, the
superintendent, the school personnel, and the community have in place robust communication
systems that are critical for keeping all stakeholders informed and engaged. The literature also
underscores the need for board members and superintendent training in their respective roles and
responsibilities, K-12 governance, and school board leadership. The commitment to collective
leadership plays a role in how superintendents and board members empower, serve, and inspire
(Waters & Marzano, 2006).
The literature reviewed suggests that school governance teams take on immense responsi-
bilities in a complex public education system. Key attributes of effective governance teams have
been identified through studies on the matter. Standards and guidelines for effective governance
33

have come as a result of research. The CSBA has based its MIG training program on these
findings. Training programs such as the MIG can be a way to expand the knowledge and skills
required for success, yet the training is not mandated in the state of California. Literature further
suggests that in defining roles, school boards make policies for the superintendent to implement
and provide an appropriate structure that is in line with the district’s vision. Formal training can
also encourage a positive working relationship between the school board and the superintendent,
which is necessary to achieve the district’s goals (P. A. Johnson, 2011). School board members
must take a lesson from exemplary school districts and seek best practices for leadership. If the
focus is on improving student outcomes and increasing achievement, it is imperative that educa-
tion governance teams acquire the ability to govern effectively.
34

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Three conceptual frameworks guided the study: the four frame model of leadership by
Bolman and Deal (2017), the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000), and the CSBA’s
(n.d.a). The first two chapters of this dissertation provided an overview of the study and literature
concerning school governance history, roles and responsibilities, conceptual theories of leader-
ship, and impacts on student achievement. Chapter Three presents the research methodology,
which includes the design of this study, the participants, instrumentation development, the plan
for data collection, the process of data analysis, and ethical considerations.
Research Design

This research study was designed to elicit feedback and participation from school board
members and current superintendents in order to understand their experiences. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) suggested that qualitative research should be applied in the interpretation of human
experiences. Therefore, a qualitative method, grounded-theory research, was selected as the
approach for gathering and analyzing data that directly addressed the research questions. Data in
grounded theory studies come from interviews, observations, and a wide array of documentary
materials. These data were subject to the constant comparative method, which involved
35

identifying similarities and differences and then grouping data sets together to discover patterns
in relationships (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The research team will triangulate the data from the
literature analysis, surveys, and interviews with governance teams. The design followed research
questions that examine school governance teams’ perceptions of effective governance after the
MIG training and its implications on student achievement.
The research team developed the following research questions under the guidance of the
lead researcher, Dr. Michael Escalante:
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?

This study was conducted by a thematic dissertation group, which consisted of 20 doctoral
students from the University of Southern California’s (USC) Rossier School of Education. The
research team worked interdependently in the design of the study under the direct supervision of
Dr. Michael Escalante, the lead researcher and dissertation chair. The research team reviewed
several theoretical frameworks in the development process and selected three relevant frame-
works to guide this study: (a) the four frame model for effective leadership (Bolman & Deal,
2017), (b) the CSBA’s (n.d.a) professional governance standards, and (c) the IASB’s Lighthouse
Inquiry study (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000). The conceptual frameworks summarized in
Figure 2 provide the lens to examine the impact of the MIG training program on relationships that
affect school board governance and student achievement.
36

Figure 2

Conceptual Frameworks for Study

Four Frame Model for
Effective Leadership
(Bolman & Deal, 2017)

Professional Governance
Standards
(CSBA, n.d.a)

IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry
(Delagardelle, 2008;
Rice et al., 2000)
Structural Frame:
• Rules, polices, processes, roles,
goals, environment
• Govern within adopted policies
and procedures
• Operate openly with trust and
integrity
• Policy development
• Building commitment to
improvement and addressing
identified needs
Human Resource Frame:
• Needs, skills, relationships
• Focus on student achievement
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the
board
• Ongoing professional learning
Political Frame:
• Rituals, ceremonies, traditions,
vision, culture
• Practice professionalism
• Take collective responsibility for
the board’s performance
• Accountability
• Supporting leadership
Symbolic Frame:
• Rituals, ceremonies, traditions,
vision, culture
• Communicate a common vision
• Ensure opportunities for diverse
viewpoints from the school com-
munity
• Community relations
• Building 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 (6th ed.), by L. Bolman and
T. Deal, 2017, Jossey-Bass; Professional Governance Standards, by California School Boards
Association, n.d.a, https://www .csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernanc
e/ProfessionalGovStandards.aspx; “The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of School
Board Leadership in the Improvement of Student Achievement,” by M. Delagardelle, 2008, in T.
L Alsbury (Ed.), The Future of School Board 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. Delagar-
delle, 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
37

Participant Sample

Participants were selected because they were knowledgeable and experienced in the phe-
nomenon of interest, as suggested by Patton (2015). The phenomenon explored in this research
study was the impact of school governance training on the relationship between school boards
and their respective superintendents and its effects, if any, on performance indicators. The
research team used Patton’s (2015) research sampling methods to recruit specific participants to
provide insight, to gain a purposeful understanding, and to answer the research questions. Partici-
pants were selected based on criterion-sampling strategies developed and utilized by the research
team to ensure that participating districts met the following predetermined criteria:
1. Public school district serving students with any range of K-12;

2. Not in CSI;

3. Located in one of 12 California counties (Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey,
Nevada Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and
Ventura);
4. Having an average daily attendance between 3,000 and 60,000;

5. Having at least three school board members enrolled in or having already completed
one module of the MIG training from CSBA.
Instrumentation

The research team collaboratively developed investigation instruments under the guidance
of the lead researcher. The instruments consisted of surveys and interview protocols that were in
alignment with research questions for this study. These instruments were utilized for the collec-
tion of comprehensive, qualitative data to be triangulated with the literature in order to strengthen
the validity of the research.
38

Recruitment letters (Appendix A) and surveys for school board members and superinten-
dents (Appendices B and C, respectively) sent via email to those individuals who met the criteria.
Both surveys were comprised of 20 questions and were explicitly geared toward school board
members or superintendents. The surveys consisted of open-ended questions and scaled-response
questions with four choices increasing in value (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree). All survey
questions were aligned to frameworks in Figure 2 and guided by the research questions. The
research team designed the questions to draw responses from the school board members’ perspec-
tive of governance training and the impact, if any, on student achievement. Questions from the
superintendent survey were aligned to the questions asked of board members. The slight differ-
ences in the questions were designed to elicit the superintendents’ perceptions of the school board
members’ capacity for effective governance. Interviews with school board members (Appendix
D) and superintendents (Appendix E) in their corresponding districts were arranged with those
qualifying districts that reported participation in MIG training. In the development of the inter-
view protocol, the researchers took an open-ended approach to maximize the collection of raw
data. Patton (2015) suggested that dichotomous questions led to an interrogation session and did
not allow for an in-depth conversation. Thus, the research team developed interview questions to
address one concept at a time in order to encourage detailed responses. The interview protocol
was designed to allow for a systematic interview process for the members of the research team.
There were 14 questions in the superintendent interview guide and 11 open-ended questions for
board members. Interviews lasted approximately 15–40 minutes.
The informed consent for participants is contained in Appendix F. The Question Align-
ment Matrix (Appendix G) shows the association between the research question and the instru-
mentation used for this study.
39

Data Collection

The researchers sought the assistance of the CSBA to identify school board members who
had participated in governance training. Data collection began in the spring of 2020 with the dis-
tribution of recruitment letters that were created by the research team. Qualifying school board
members and superintendents of the 12 California counties received the following items: (a) a
digital recruitment and information letter (Appendix A), (b) a digital consent to participate
(Appendix F) and (c) a link to the digital survey (Appendix B or Appendix C).
This study used a qualitative design approach for the collection and analysis of the data.
Patton (2015) suggested that qualitative data are descriptive and are gathered through interviews
and observations. Interviews were audio recorded with the participants’ approval; the audio
recordings lent themselves to collecting detailed and comprehensive information. Each researcher
focused on gathering information from three qualified school districts. Team members formed
partnerships to conduct interviews with at least two school board members and the superinten-
dents from each district. The overall sample size was 186 board members and 62 superintendents.
Electronic surveys allowed for results to be located on a single, shared spreadsheet for ease of
collaboration and coding.
Data Analysis

This section addresses the procedures utilized for the data analysis phase of this qualita-
tive case study. A qualitative design prescribes the method whereby information is gathered,
coded, and synthesized in a manner that allows for conclusions based upon available data (Patton,
2015). The data collected from this survey were analyzed in a purposeful and organized manner.
Concepts from Creswell and Creswell (2018) and Patton (2015) were incorporated within the
40

study’s methodology. Survey data and interview responses were coded and aligned with each of
the frameworks using the six-step process outlined by Creswell and Creswell (2018):
1. Organize and prepare the data analysis.

2. Read through data thoroughly to determine tone and theme.

3. Begin a detailed analysis via coding process.

4. Utilize the coding process to generate descriptive themes.

5. Convey findings of the analysis through the usage of narrative passage.

6. Interpret the data through the lens of the applicable theoretical frameworks. (p. 197)
This phase of the qualitative case study was essential as it yielded transmissible perceptions
regarding the ability of school governance teams to exhibit the characteristics of effective gover-
nance.
Patton (2015) asserted that researchers should include triangulation of data to increase the
accuracy and credibility of findings. Patton (2015) stated that triangulation involves examining
data from various angles. The researchers triangulated data by (a) using information found in the
review of literature, (b) surveying both school board members and superintendents, and (c) con-
ducting interviews with board members and their corresponding superintendent. Common themes
or irregularities were identified in the triangulation process. Data analysis software was used in
the processes of coding and triangulation.
Ethical Considerations

In order to meet the requirements of USC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), all partici-
pants provided written consent of their agreement to participate in the study (Appendix F). The
opportunity to indicate consent of participation was included in the initial recruitment letters
(Appendix A), which were created by the research team. These letters contained information
41

regarding the purpose of this study, participant privacy, the discretion of data collection, and
research team member contact. Participation was strictly voluntary. Each member of the research
team completed courses through the Collaborative IRB Training Initiative (CITI) course. The
modules are an essential component of the IRB process because they provide guidelines for
ethical conduct that focus on protecting human subjects in social-behavioral-educational research.
No interview was conducted without the written and verbal informed consent of the
participants. The interviews were recorded and transcribed electronically using an audio record-
ing program. The research team prioritized confidentiality and protected participant privacy.
Information and data were kept for the length of the study, while audio data were destroyed
immediately after transcription.
Chapter Summary

This chapter has provided a methodology that was utilized to engage the research
questions on the impact of governance training. Information regarding data collection through
collaboratively developed instruments has been provided, and prospective participants have been
described in detail. Specifics on the process of data analysis of aggregate and individual data have
been disclosed. Training modules regarding ethical considerations have been completed through
CITI. Upon approval from the IRB, recruitment information were sent to prospective participants,
and the research team initiated data collection instruments.
42

Chapter Four: Results

Newly elected school board members encounter a highly public and complicated arena for
which they may have little to no training. Governance teams are held accountable for duties that
impact the schools of the community in which they serve. Their responsibilities include, but are
not limited to, mobilizing and allocating resources to support students effectively, establishing
and ensuring the enactment of policies, and crafting a vision for the district that reflects the com-
munity and staff (CSBA, 2018b; NSBA, 2020). New board members often come with limited
experience in the education field, yet they have the formidable tasks of developing and advancing
instructional philosophies, goals, and plans (Bianchi, 2003; Hess, 2002). According to research,
education management and leadership training can launch board members into their governance
role by providing them with the knowledge to make the informed decisions that are vital to
improving student achievement (CSBA, 2017; Johnson, 2011).
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.
The research team applied the theoretical framework of Bolman and Deal’s (2017)
Reframing Organizations, the Lighthouse Inquiry conducted by the IASB (Delagardelle, 2008),
and CSBA’s (2018b) MIG training program to guide the research. The research questions were
43

derived from the theoretical frameworks and served as the foundation for the surveys and inter-
view guides.
This chapter presents the findings from a qualitative descriptive study of effective Califor-
nia public school district governance through the professional development offered by the CSBA.
The 20 members of the research team collected data individually and analyzed the information
jointly. A discussion of the study’s overall findings is presented as part of the collaboration by the
research team. For this study, research literature was reviewed and surveys were conducted,
gathered, and inventoried. Interviews were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed as part of
triangulating findings. Data collected from these sources were coded and examined to identify
common themes or patterns for further study.
The findings in this chapter are about the following research questions regarding the
perceived impact that MIG training had on education governance and student achievement:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG
training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?

Participants

The 20 members of the research team gathered information from 62 public school districts
in California. Those districts were located within the 12 counties of Alameda (three), Los
Angeles (25), Marin (one), Monterey (one), Nevada (one), Orange (three), Riverside (eight), San
Bernardino (four), San Diego (six), Santa Barbara (four), Santa Clara (two), and Ventura (four).
Each researcher selected three districts and at least two school board members with their
44

corresponding superintendents to participate in online surveys and online video interviews via
Zoom. Table 1 summarizes the rates of interviews and survey participation.
Names of districts, board members, and superintendents were altered to maintain the
confidentiality of participants. Any resemblance to an individual or school district is strictly
coincidental. For this case study, District A is referred to as Acacia Unified School District
(USD), District B will take the name Glen Oaks USD, and District C will be known as Sun City
Elementary. All pseudonyms are listed in Table 2.
District A: Acacia USD

Acacia USD was in the San Gabriel Valley of Los Angeles County. At the time of this
study, the district served approximately 9,300 students in its 11 schools: six elementary schools,
three middle schools, one high school, and one alternative–outreach program. The student pop-
ulation was comprised of 64.8% Asians, 15.2% Hispanics or Latinos, 11.7 % Whites, 3.1%
Filipinos, 1.9% African Americans, and 2.3% mixed races. The district had been awarded
numerous National Blue Ribbon and California Distinguished Schools. For the past 4 years,
Acacia High’s graduating class had at least one student accepted into every Ivy League university
in the country.
Dr. Vandelay began in the district as the principal of Acacia High School in 2005 and
became the superintendent in 2014. He believed in a student-first approach to leadership and
establishing a culture of innovation and collaboration to ensure that all students were provided
with an optimal learning environment. Three of five Acacia board members participated in inter-
views and online surveys for the study. Kate, Lisa, and Kenton had all been active volunteers in
the community and had served in executive board positions for their local Parent Teacher Associ-
ations (PTA). At the time of this study, Kate was the current president; she began her term in
45

Table 1

Summary of Participants

Districts (N = 62)
Participants n %

Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses

62

100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses

180

97
Interviewees 177 95

Table 2

Summary of Pseudonyms Chosen for Participants

Board members

District Superintendent

#1

#2

#3

A: Acacia USD Dr. Vandelay

Kenton

Lisa

Kate
B: Glen Oaks USD Dr. Edison

Gary Arlene Sean
C: Sun City Elementary Dr. Anderson

Audrey Kayleigh Arnold

Note. USD = Unified School District.

2011. The vice president, Lisa, was elected in 2017; and Kenton, the clerk, began his term in
2013.
46

District B: Glen Oaks USD

Glen Oaks USD in Los Angeles County served nearly 26,000 students. The district had 20
elementary schools, four middle schools, three comprehensive high schools, one magnet high
school, one continuation high school, a developmental center for multihandicapped students, and
numerous childcare centers serving preschool and school-age children. Nine Glen Oaks schools
had earned the U.S. Department of Office of Education’s highest designation, the National Blue
Ribbon. Additionally, 26 schools had been recognized as California Distinguished Schools, and
17 of the district’s 18 Title I schools had been named Title I Achieving Schools. The student
population was comprised of the following ethnicities: Whites: Armenian, 38%; Whites, not
Armenian, 22%; Hispanics or Latinos, 20%; Koreans, 7%; Filipinos, 5%; Blacks or African
Americans, 2%; Chinese, 1%; Japanese 1%, Asian Indians, 1%; and other races or multiple races,
3%. The English learner population was 23%; 10% of students had special needs; and 54% qual-
ified for free or reduced-price lunches. Glen Oaks USD was quite diverse. The district had
students with a wide range of ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds; and there were
more than 50 languages spoken in the community.
Dr. Edison was the superintendent of the Glen Oaks USD. She was a long-standing
resident of the community and had had a career in education for over 30 years. Her philosophy
lay in the belief of the unparalleled power of education to transform lives. Dr. Edison remained
committed to providing a world-class education to all students to ensure they were college,
career, and life ready. The board of education governed the Glen Oaks district and appointed a
superintendent who oversaw daily operations. Five representatives were elected to terms that
lasted 4 years. Also included in their board was a nonvoting student representative appointed each
47

fall to serve for the academic year’s length. Three board members participated fully in the study:
Gary, Arlene, and Sean.
District C: Sun City Elementary School District

Sun City Elementary School District was in Monterey County. A total of 14 schools
served 9,000 students in this agriculture-based community. Almost 74% of Sun City Elementary
students qualified for free or reduced-priced meals, and 47% of students were English learners.
Hispanic students comprised 91% of the population, followed by 5% Whites, 2% Asians, 1%
Blacks, and the final 1% other and mixed races. The district had one of the highest concentrations
of top-ranked public schools in California.
Dr. Anderson was in her 1st year as the superintendent of Sun City. She had 23 years of
public school experience ranging from classroom teacher to site and district administration. She
was highly focused on collaborating with all stakeholders to create inclusive spaces that fostered
a sense of belonging and to empower educators and students’ voices, particularly those who were
minoritized. All three board members—Audrey, Kayleigh, and Arnold—participated in the
online survey for this study. Arnold declined an online video interview with the researcher.
Findings for Research Question 1

Research Question 1 asked, “What factors impact school board members’ decision to
participate in the MIG training program? Newly elected school board members often lack the
knowledge, training, and skills necessary to understand and operate under their full scope of their
duties (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Moreover, the state of California does not mandate gover-
nance training for school board members. The purpose of this research question was to gain
insight into the factors that encouraged school board members to participate in MIG training in a
state where it is not government mandated.
48

While factors that impacted the decision to seek governance training varied with each
board member’s experience levels, three primary themes emerged from the data analysis. The
first theme was grounded in self-motivation and an internal desire for participants to increase
their education governance capacity. The second theme involved the culture within the school
board and the district. Finally, expectations and encouragement from other board members
constituted a significant influence to participate in MIG training.
Intrinsic Motivation

Delagardelle’s (2008) Lighthouse Inquiry found that school districts that perpetuated an
awareness of improvement and exhibited a willingness to seek knowledge demonstrated higher
student achievement levels. All board members and superintendents interviewed by the
researcher selected self-motivation as a primary influence in MIG training participation in the
survey. Self-motivation was the most highly selected option among all participating school board
members (n = 133) and coincided with superintendents’ responses (n = 37), as summarized in
Table 3.
Interview data from board members highlighted self-motivation and an inclination for
learning as the primary motivators to pursue MIG training. When asked about factors influencing
her decisions to complete governance training, Acacia school board member Kate highlighted her
desire to improve her performance in her response:
I wanted to be the best school board member I could be, and I had never served on an
elected board like this. I wanted to do the best job possible. Participating in all the training
offered is what I would naturally do.
Two Glen Oaks board members indicated their motivation for training when they were
initially elected. Board member Sean stated that “as a new school board member, I naturally
49

Table 3

Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the Masters in

Governance Training

Superintendents
(N = 62)

Board members
(N = 180)
Participants f f

School board expectation

33

84
Self-motivation 37 133
Encouraged by board members 35 71
Increasing student achievement 9 53
Increasing effective governance 31 128
Unable to determine 0 0
Other 3 10

Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.

welcome the opportunity to receive formal governance training to learn more about the role in
advance of finding yourself in challenging situations.” Board member Arlene responded:
I believe it is an excellent opportunity to learn about how school governance works. When
you are new on the board, it is a way to understand better how to work better with your
colleagues, how to collaborate, and how to work with your superintendent. You become a
more effective board member.
Dr. Edison, the superintendent, alluded to Glen Oaks board members and her interests in
professional learning:
I have had the opportunity to invite board members to various training, and they have
always willingly participated. Their growth mindset certainly exists, and I believe that
50

MIG training has increased their capacity for governance. ...... I think every time a learning

opportunity exists that I should embrace it.

Acacia Superintendent, Dr. Vandelay, indicated his motivation for training before becom-
ing the superintendent:
More than anything, being so new to the position, I also had minimal cabinet-level experi-
ence where I was one of the people or designees at the board meetings responding on
behalf of district and district staff and the superintendent. So that responsibility made me
feel that I needed to gain the knowledge and skills to meaningfully and transparently
follow the regulations necessary for public meetings. … I had many skill sets going into
the superintendency and a lot that I did not know. I looked forward to that training, and it
provided me with a high-level overview.
The interview statements suggested that the interviewees placed value on professional
development that prepare governance teams to be successful—specifically, the MIG training
provided by CSBA. Collectively the data indicated that board members and superintendents were
self-motivated by an inherent desire to acquire knowledge as motivation to participate in gover-
nance training.
Culture of the School Board

According to Bolman and Deal (2017), a symbolic leader looks to create meaning
through emotional attachments to the organization. These attachments often surface in the form
of objects, actions, or group experiences. In the case of school board training, both superinten-
dents and school board members attributed a significant portion of their external motivation to
their organization’s culture. The participants described this type of group experience as part of the
51

culture, tradition, and norm. It was clear from the data that leadership in the district placed a high
value on participating in governance training.
The school board and the school district’s culture strongly influenced board members in
deciding to complete MIG training. Of the nine school board members surveyed by the research-
er, eight strongly agreed that their school board encouraged participation in MIG training, and all
three superintendents agreed or strongly agreed. Data gathered from the whole group aligned with
this result. Table 4 reveals that 100% of the 62 superintendents surveyed and 167 of 180 board
members agreed or strongly agreed that school board culture encouraged participation in MIG
training. Data from Table 3 further supported a theme of cultural influence, as data indicated that
a significant number of superintendents (n = 35) and school board members (n = 71) selected
encouragement from other board members as a primary factor for governance training.
Cultural expectation continues to emerge in the data from interviews, which indicated
that school board members and superintendents’ encouragement significantly influenced the
decision to attend governance training. When the researcher directly asked whether MIG training
was a cultural expectation in Sun City, board member Audrey responded:
I was told I had to do it when I was elected to the school board. My fellow board members
pushed me to participate in training. They are the ones who told me I had to do it. They
inspired me to sign up, and I felt it was the right thing to do.
Board member Kenton noted that “my fellow board members highly recommended it.” Board
members from Glen Oaks further supported the theme of cultural influence, as illustrated in
Sean’s statement:
Historically the GOUSD [Glen Oaks Unified School District] superintendent and the
board have always encouraged new board members to participate in the Masters in
52

Table 4

Participants’ Responses to Whether Their School Board Culture Encouraged Participation in
Masters in Governance Training

Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response category f % f %

Strongly agree 34 55 107 59
Agree 28 45 60 33
Disagree 0 0 12 7
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1

Governance program. That was an incident in the history of Glen Oaks that a vice presi-
dent was not selected for the presidency because that person did not participate in training.
Glen Oaks board member Arlene indicated the culture as the driving factor as well as the benefits
of training for newly elected members: “For GOUSD, it is part of the culture; it is assumed that a
new board member will complete the training program. All fellow board members were MIG
trained, and it was beneficial to me as a new board member.”
Expectations

The theme of a culture of encouragement that promotes governance training participation
continued by way of expectations or local policy, as indicated by survey results. On the survey,
eight of nine board members and all superintendents indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed
that MIG training should be encouraged for school governance by the local district policy. Table
5 highlights results from the large participant group, indicating that 100% of superintendents and
53

Table 5

Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Should Be
Encouraged for School Governance Teams by the Local District Policy

Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response f % f %

Strongly agree 46 74.0 116 64.5
Agree 16 26.0 53 29.5
Disagree 0 0.0 11 6.0
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0

94% of board members felt that MIG training should be encouraged for school governance teams
by the local district policy.
Interview responses from board members and superintendents further reinforced that a
culture of training was present and that culture should be encouraged by the local district policy.
Dr. Vandelay of Acacia described the expectation for board members as follows:
In our district, although it is not formalized, it is an unwritten rule we have. A policy that
all new board members have an obligation to go through the MIG program, once they are
elected in and as soon as physically possible. We view the Masters in Governance
program as an onboarding, as the first step to onboarding new board members.

Acacia board members Lisa and Kate confirmed school board culture as a significant
influence for completing MIG professional development. Lisa expressed during the interview:
I did not even think it was a question. Everyone on our board had gone through it. When
you join the board, this is what you do. I have many friends that have served on the board
54

over the years, and I knew they had all done it. It was not an option not to complete the
training.
Acacia board member Kate described MIG training as both a culturally embedded tra-
dition combined with a personal desire to learn and be better:
It is a norm in Acacia. I was upholding the tradition. I wanted to do the best job I could.
Getting all the training I can is what I would just naturally gravitate to. It was just the
norm. We all go through the Masters in Governance training.
Summary of Results: Research Question 1

Bolman and Deal (2017) described an organization’s culture as a set of interwoven
patterns of beliefs, values, practices, and artifacts. Organizational culture is both a product and
process that defines the organization’s members by who they are and how they are to do things.
The analysis revealed that a culture of professional learning was sustained by three elements:
board members’ self-motivation, board members’ encouragement, and school board expectation.
The participants in this study placed significant value on a culture that encouraged completing the
MIG training to build successful school board members’ capacity.
Findings for Research Question 2

Research Question 2 asked, “How does the MIG training program encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit effective school governance behaviors?” According to the
CSBA (2018b), how board members perform their duties is as important as their role. Working as
a “governance team” places importance on professional relationships with one another, the
superintendent, other staff, and the public. These relationships have a profound impact on a
board’s effectiveness (CSBA 2018b). Research Question 2 was designed to investigate the extent
55

to which the MIG program prepared board members to exhibit the characteristics associated with
effective, collective governance as indicated by the CSBA (2018d):
• Keep the district or county office of education focused on learning and achievement for
all students;
• Communicate a shared vision;

• Operate openly, with trust and integrity;

• Govern in a dignified and professional manner, treating everyone with civility and
respect;
• Govern within board-adopted bylaws, policies, and procedures;

• Take collective responsibility for the board’s performance;

• Periodically evaluate its effectiveness;

• Ensure opportunities for the diverse range of views in the community to inform board
deliberations; and
• Focus on closing opportunity gaps. (p. 3)

An analysis of the data revealed three emergent threads concerning the second research
question:
1. The ability of the MIG training to enable board members to distinguish between roles
and responsibilities of school board members and those of the superintendent equipped
them with the requisite skills and knowledge to focus on activities associated with effec-
tive governance.
2. MIG training encouraged board members to exhibit several of the characteristics of
effective governance by fostering collaboration and collegiality among board members
and superintendents during training sessions.
56

3. MIG training emphasized and fostered trust among board members and their respective
superintendents.
Understanding Roles and Responsibilities

The concept of clear roles and responsibilities as a crucial component of an effective
leadership team is found throughout relevant literature. Governance teams are expected to be
informed about their obligations and to perform them well while keeping student achievement at
the forefront (CSBA, 2017). In Reframing Organizations, Bolman and Deal (2017) suggested that
clearly defined roles, policies, and procedures are underscored in the structural frame as crucial
behaviors for effective leadership. Delagardelle’s (2008) Lighthouse framework denotes that
effective school boards demonstrate the ability to know the fundamental principles of good
governance. The CSBA’s (n.d.a) governance standards have recognized the following core
functions that set the frame for MIG training: (a) establishing an effective and efficient structure;
(b) providing support; (c) ensuring accountability; and (d) providing community leadership as
advocates for children, the school district, and its public schools. MIG training, which is
grounded on these core principles, is undoubtedly a means to improve governance effectiveness.
Examination of the school board member survey revealed that all nine board members
strongly agreed and 95% of the full cohort’s board members surveyed perceived that MIG
training, specifically in the area of role and responsibilities, prepared them to be more effective in
matters of education governance. The at-large survey results are summarized in Table 6.
Superintendents were asked whether their respective school board members exhibited a
clearer understanding of their roles and responsibilities because of MIG training. Results from
this question supported the data of the same question asked of board members. All three of the
superintendents surveyed by the researcher responded with strongly agree, coinciding with data
57

Table 6

School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Clarified the
Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent (N = 180)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

117

65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly disagree 1 1

from the entire sample. Table 7 shows that 96% of the superintendents’ survey agreed or strongly
agreed that their board members had a better grasp of their role and responsibilities because of
MIG training.
Interview data suggested that the board members found the clarification of roles and
responsibilities as part of MIG training to be highly valuable. Audrey from Sun City noted, “I
think it’s good for people to understand through the Masters in Governance, their role and what
they are supposed to be doing.” Arlene from Glen Oaks added: “The biggest thing for me is
knowing where my role ends and where the superintendent and staff fit. Recognizing my place in
the system was a tremendous help in governing the school district.” Kenton from Acacia rein-
forced this position with his statement:
I think, most importantly, it sets the foundation in terms of what your role is. People often
go into this position with their agenda, not knowing what their role is. I think, broadly, it
sets the tone in terms of what you should be doing before getting into specifics. They went
58

Table 7

Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Were Masters in Gover-
nance Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and
Responsibilities and Those of Their Superintendent (N = 62)

Response category f %

Strongly agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly disagree 1 2

through the experience, and it felt valuable to them in learning what to contribute to the
role and its responsibilities.
The data indicated that participants understood their roles and responsibilities as board
members through MIG training. Participants of the study perceived this understanding to be the
primary support for improving governance in their school districts.
A Framework for Collaboration

The Lighthouse inquiry study indicated that one of the school board’s primary functions is
to create the conditions that promote learning (Delagardelle, 2008). According to NSBA’s Key
Work of School Boards (Gemberling et al., 2015) strategic collaboration and shared leadership are
vital for increasing student achievement. The survey and interviews suggested that superinten-
dents felt strongly about attending MIG training with their school board members. All the super-
intendents surveyed by the researcher strongly agreed that it is essential to attend training with
59

board members, while 92% of the entire superintendent sample responded agree or strongly
agree, as indicated in Table 8.
Although the importance of attending MIG training with the superintendent was not
emphasized in the school board members’ survey data, interview data suggested that professional
collaboration is an essential outcome of the MIG training. Interviewees articulated that the
training provided opportunities to learn from and to enhance professional relationships with
board members and the superintendents. Dr. Vandelay of Acacia provided an example stating: “In
my role as superintendent, I am committed to attending MIG training with my board members. It
allows us to establish rapport and build a foundation for a professional working relationship.”
Acacia board members Kate and Lisa, who worked with Dr. Vandelay, responded to an
interview question that asked, “What role did the MIG training play in strengthening the collabo-
rative process within the district, if at all?” Kate responded:
We collaborated on our vision and values that we have today. We have been working on
our mission statement for a year now. We still do not have it, which is okay. To do it
right, it takes time because we believe in collaborating and figuring it out together.
Lisa emphasized collaboration in her response: “In terms of governance and just the effect on me
and the collaborative process, it fit very well with how our board works cohesively. The MIG
training was like an affirmation of the progress as a team.”
Sun City board member Kayleigh expressed a similar sentiment in her praise for MIG
training:
Through MIG training, I learned how to be an effective leader by working with our team
to set district direction. I realized the limited scope of what I can do as an individual
60

Table 8

Superintendents’ Responses to Whether It Is Important to Attend Masters in Governance Train-

ing With Their School Board Members (N = 62)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

38

61
Agree 19 31
Disagree 5 8
Strongly disagree 0 0

versus together as a collective. I understand now that I am a member of a collective body, and it is
necessary to work harmoniously as a team.
Glen Oaks superintendent, Dr. Edison, suggested that collaborative relationships are vital
to the effectiveness of a governance team:
Working with my board members and participating in the training together has helped to
improve our professional relationships. Our work is more thoughtful and more strategic.
MIG has leveled the learning; we have the same information and knowledge. It is advan-
tageous for us to improve our work together to offer a more significant advantage, and
everyone is on the same page.
Glen Oaks board member Arlene responded to the same interview question regarding
teamwork because of MIG training:
I like the fact that they focus on the school board culture and the team aspect of a board
that works together to [meet] our district vision and goals. … As a group, we must focus
on our purpose and question ourselves as to what we are trying to achieve and how to
61

work together towards those goals…effective boards work together to make sure that we
are making good decisions.
Trust

Collaboration, diplomacy, and the importance of operating openly with trust and integrity
with a strong focus on student achievement were identified as key to effective governance in
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) political frame and CSBA’s (n.d.a) professional governance standards.
Analysis of survey results indicated that school board members who were MIG trained trusted
that the board operated openly as a unified team and that board members were more willing to
accept the majority decisions, even if they held opposing views. Table 9 summarizes results when
participants were asked whether school board members who were MIG trained could accept
school boards’ majority decision even if they held the minority view. Survey responses indicated
that 85% of 180 school board members agreed that they would accept the majority decision,
although they did not share the same view.
When superintendents were asked the same question, 95% agreed or strongly agreed that
MIG training improved school board members’ ability to accept majority decisions, regardless of
a contrasting perspective. Table 10 summarizes these results.
Both the surveys and interviews suggested that the MIG training encouraged board
members to cultivate working relationships guided by trust, regardless of differing perspectives or
beliefs. Arlene from Glen Oaks noted: “I think the biggest benefit of the training was the relation-
ship building with other board members.” Acacia school board president, Lisa, outlined the pro-
gression of her working relationship with the superintendent:
It [training] helped us moving forward. Because I did it with our superintendent, we
developed a certain rapport, which certainly created a better working relationship. He was
62

Table 9

School Board Members’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training Had Im-
proved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even When
They Held the Minority View (N = 180)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

78

43
Agree 75 42
Disagree 26 14
Strongly disagree 1 1

Table 10

Superintendents’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training Had Improved
Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even When They
Held the Minority View (N = 62)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

17

27
Agree 42 68
Disagree 3 5
Strongly disagree 0 0

newly appointed superintendent, and I was the newest board member. ...... It was nice to go

through it together, not just sit next to him, but we could give each other feedback and
63

discuss some of the pertinent issues in our district. We learned a lot by being together. It
was helpful, and I could not imagine how my experience would have been if I did it alone.
The Acacia superintendent, Dr. Vandelay, emphasized the importance of relationship
building to support and to develop trust:
It is imperative to take time to build a level of trust, especially with new board members . .

. from a superintendent’s perspective—if that is not going well, then nothing is. If you

don’t trust them to begin with, there is just a breakdown from the start. It never ends well
for kids. I cannot think of anything you should be doing more than working on those rela-
tionships.
Sun City Superintendent, Dr. Anderson, shared the following when asked about attending MIG
training as a unit:
It will strengthen us and it will build, more than anything, that trust. Without that trust as a
system, we will not be able to do what we need to do to support students. A lack of trust
will cause a distraction, and the team will be unable to focus on the students and the job
that we are here to do.
Summary of Results: Research Question 2

Because school systems have become more complex, school boards face many challenges
in governance. School boards and superintendents must navigate highly complex duties and
public education systems that require many leadership types to function effectively (CSBA,
2018b). Research Question 2 was asked to determine whether MIG training encouraged and
equips school board members to exhibit behaviors and practices of effective governance. This
question related directly to this study’s purpose and sought to determine whether a relationship
existed between (a) effective school boards and (b) a commitment to participate in training and
64

how a collaborative working relationship is developed and enhanced. The survey that was given
to school board members and superintendents who had attended MIG training, interviews with
school board members and superintendents, and a review of the MIG training through literature
provided the data that determined a correlation of training with the participants’ perceptions of
increased effectiveness in matters relating to effective school governance.
Findings for Research Questions 3

Research Question 3 asked, “Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth?” Delagardelle (2008) described this essential role in a seminal study of school
boards:
The linkages between school boards and teaching and learning are often misunderstood.
School boards do not directly cause student learning. However, it would appear from
findings of the Lighthouse research and others’ work that school boards’ beliefs, deci-
sions, and actions directly impact the conditions within schools that enable learning. (p.
240)
According to the Lighthouse study, school board actions are vital to creating a student achieve-
ment culture (Delagardelle, 2008). In line with the Lighthouse Study, results from this research
indicated two significant themes regarding the school board’s role in student achievement:
indirect influences and decisions that tied to the allocation of resources for schools.
Indirect Influences

There is an indirect connection between the school boards and student learning outcomes.

The board plays a crucial role in supporting district improvement. Research has suggested a
relationship between student achievement and boards that shared a vision and supported district
goals. In a review about the impact of leadership on student performance, Waters et al. (2003)
65

found a positive correlation between student achievement and board alignment in support of
district goals. In this study, participants were asked whether the MIG training revealed the
importance of aligning decisions to the district’s vision and goals. All the school board members
surveyed by the researcher strongly agreed, and 92% of the full cohort’s board members
responded with agree or strongly agree, as indicated in Table 11.
All three of the superintendents were asked the same question regarding vision and
responded strongly agree on the survey. Table 12 shows that 98% of the 62 superintendents from
the full cohort’s group agreed or strongly agreed that school board members who were MIG
trained understood aligning the decision-making process to the district’s vision and goals.
Interview data further highlighted a vision for the district that was focused on increasing
student achievement. Acacia superintendent Dr. Vandelay noted:
That vision has allowed me as a superintendent and my staff to continually chip away and
look for areas to improve and improve in that area. A student graduating from Acacia has
an entirely different experience than maybe 10 years ago, and that is due to the board’s
vision.
Acacia board president Kate expressed that professional relationships among leadership
impact student achievement: “I think the school board does impact student achievement. ...... The
relationship between the board and the superintendent impacts the teachers, which impacts staff
who are directly working with the students. Yes, the board does impact student achievement.”
Dr. Edison of Glen Oaks commented about her board being highly focused on vision:
“My board has been able to stay out of our district’s daily operations and have, therefore, been
able to strongly influence and focus their attention on the vision, as this impacts our students.”
66

Table 11

School Board Members’ Responses Regarding Whether Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With
the District’s Vision and Goals (N = 180)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

104

58
Agree 62 34
Disagree 13 7
Strongly disagree 1 1

Table 12

Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With
the District’s Vision and Goals (N = 62)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

31

50
Agree 30 48
Disagree 1 2
Strongly disagree 0 0

Focus on Achievement

When district leaders have established a shared vision, they can focus on creating specific
goals. Delagardelle’s (2008) Lighthouse study identified school districts with high student
67

achievement levels and compared them to school districts with students of similar characteristics
but with substantially lower performance levels. One of the differences that the Lighthouse Study
noted was that boards from low-achieving school districts reported focusing primarily on keeping
costs low, even to the detriment of meeting academic achievement goals. On the other hand,
boards in school districts with high achievement also considered controlling costs as necessary;
however, they repeatedly identified academic achievement as their primary responsibility. This
held even in times of fiscal challenges and could be seen in their spending decisions (Delagar-
delle, 2008).
The school board survey revealed that seven of nine board members agreed or strongly
agreed that they were focused on student achievement due to MIG training. Table 13 shows that
88% of all board members surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that MIG helped them to adopt a
focus on achievement.
Survey data and interviews revealed that participating superintendents perceived MIG-
trained school board members to focus on student achievement. All the superintendents inter-
viewed by the researcher and 94% of the whole cohort’s superintendents agreed or strongly
agreed, as indicated in Table 14.
Analysis of the interviews further supported that MIG-trained school boards and superin-
tendents prioritized student achievement. Kayleigh, a board member from Sun City, expressed
how the decisions they made influenced students and focus on achievement as a unit:
Any time everybody is on the same page, and we are all working towards the same goals
in Sun City. We understand the importance of our role. You are always going to make
better decisions regarding supporting student achievement. To that end, I think that
training, if everybody goes through the training, we are like-minded there.
68

Table 13

School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,

Their Focus Was on Student Achievement (N = 180)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

49

27
Agree 91 50
Disagree 39 21
Strongly disagree 1 1

Table 14

Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Had Earned Masters in
Governance Certification Demonstrated an Increased Focus on Student Achievement (N = 62)

Response category f %

Strongly agree 14 23
Agree 44 71
Disagree 4 6
Strongly disagree 0 0

Board Member Gary from Glen Oaks shared his thoughts about the school board’s effect
on student achievement:
I think it impacts achievement. There’s no doubt about that, and that is the lens that we
should be looking through whenever we make our decisions. The bottom line is that it is
one of our primary objectives. Student success not just academically but in all aspects.
69

After establishing a vision and goals, data must be analyzed to measure progress and,
when necessary, to adjust course. Leaders must use data to inform ongoing decisions on improv-
ing student outcomes and facilitating continuous improvement. According to the CSBA (2017),
governance teams are expected to regularly analyze achievement data and to evaluate their
schools’ effectiveness. Survey participants were asked whether board members who completed
MIG training encouraged others to use data to make informed student achievement decisions
consistently. Based on responses, there did appear to be a connection between training and board
members exhibiting effective governance characteristics. When asked whether the MIG training
encouraged using data to make informed decisions regarding student achievement, 95% of 62
superintendents and 87% of 180 board members agreed or strongly agreed, as shown in Table 15.
Acacia board member Kenton described using observation data in their board’s decision-
making processes:
It is more a way of observing and saying, “Okay, how did our decisions impact what is
going on here in front of us positively or negatively?” I think that’s very valuable for them
to do when we make these focused school board visits. And that we are actually in the
trenches and witnessing what our decisions are doing to our students.
Summary of Results: Research Question 3

Despite the indirect connection between boards and students’ learning outcomes, the
board nonetheless plays a crucial role in supporting district improvement. The results of the data
highlighted two factors of how governance influenced student achievement. The first was indirect
influence, such as boards’ responsibility to make decisions that allocate resources in alignment
with school district goals. The second common theme found throughout the interview processes
70

Table 15

Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether, as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,
They Encouraged Governance Team Members to Consistently Use Data to Make Informed
Decisions Regarding Student Achievement

Superintendents Board members

(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response category f % f %

Strongly agree 31 50 69 38
Agree 28 45 88 49
Disagree 3 5 21 12
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 1

lay in the boards’ role in ensuring that districts continue to progress. Improvement relies on data
analysis and collaborative leadership driven by a systems approach.
Chapter Summary

Chapter Four addressed the three critical research questions explored in the study. These
questions were posed to understand the ties between professional development and effective
school district governance. Several themes emerged from the literature review, data gathered
from surveys, and analysis of the interviews. The information presented was aligned and pre-
sented through the lens of the Lighthouse Inquiry study (Delagardelle, 2008), the CSBA’s (n.d.a)
professional governance standards, and Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Reframing Organizations.
Research Question 1 uncovered three important themes grounded in inspiration for com-
pletion of governance training. The most prevalent finding was that board members and superin-
tendents were self-motivated to participate in the MIG program due to an affinity for learning and
71

a personal desire to improve their governance ability. The school board’s culture was another
significant factor for completing the training, as school board members were highly encouraged
by fellow board members and their respective superintendents to attend MIG training. The third
noteworthy finding was the existence of an unwritten policy or tradition to participate in gover-
nance training. The motivation for those who were interviewed described MIG training as being
part of their culture.
The analysis of Research Question 2 yielded three themes. The first was that MIG training
provided participants with specific knowledge of board members and superintendents’ roles and
responsibilities. Understanding roles and responsibilities are fundamental attributes of effective
governance. The second theme tied to collaboration as a characteristic of effective governance;
data indicated that governance teams found value in collaboration and were likely to develop or
enhance professional working relationships due to the training. Finally, MIG training directly
influenced board member governance practices by instilling them with skills to collaborate as a
unified board team by cultivating relationships based on trust.
The two themes that manifested from the analysis of data aligning with Research
Question 3 addressed student achievement. One of the central functions of school board gover-
nance is developing clear, shared goals to guide school district decisions. The MIG program has
instilled in its participants that governance teams should align resources and actions to a vision of
student success and continued improvement. Finally, informing critical decisions regarding
resource allocation requires data. MIG-trained board members were more likely to promote data
as a measure of progress and to communicate with stakeholders. The research indicated that
MIG-trained school board members viewed student growth as a priority and perceived that
governance teams indirectly influenced student achievement.
72

Chapter Five: Discussion

Whether a board member has years of experience or is a newly elected trustee, all govern-
ance team members can benefit from training. Trustees and superintendents bring an assortment
of skills to the organizations they lead, and they have much to learn from one another. School
governance teams regularly encounter new learning opportunities, new challenges to address, and
new educational demands to meet. Addressing a mounting multidimensional array of complicated
tasks requires education governance teams to be knowledgeable and prepared to provide the lead-
ership necessary for student achievement. School communities deserve to be led by dedicated
governance teams who can make decisions with fidelity. Professional learning, specifically the
MIG training program, can provide school board members with the tools necessary for effective
governance.
Chapters One through Three of this study provided an expanded view of the contextual
framework, qualitative methodology, and literature review to illuminate the emergent themes
presented in Chapter Four . This chapter summarizes the study’s findings and offers a discussion
of implications and suggestions for future research.
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 MIG training
and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit effective governance character-
istics. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of school board
members and superintendents regarding MIG training and its impact on school governance and
student achievement.
73

The theoretical frameworks used to guide the study were the four-frame model of leader-
ship from Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations (2017), the key areas of board perform-
ance from the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008), and CSBA’s (n.d.a) professional
governance standards. The research team pursued the answers to the following three questions
derived from the examination of those frameworks:
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?

The research team worked interdependently to design the study, to formulate the research
questions, and to select the appropriate qualitative methodology. Under the dissertation chair’s
guidance, the thematic group established the problem statement and collaboratively developed the
study’s purpose. The research team gathered information collectively from 62 public school
districts in California. All the 62 superintendents and 180 of 186 school board members com-
pleted an electronic survey created by the research team. Survey data were collaboratively
processed and shared. Each team member conducted qualitative interviews of at least two board
members from three districts and their corresponding superintendents. Survey and interview
questions were aligned with the research questions to enhance the instruments’ validity.
Summary of Findings

Research Question 1

The analysis of data revealed the key influences that impacted board members’ decision to
pursue governance training. The first theme to emerge was that individual school board members
74

held an intrinsic desire to gain knowledge to improve their capacity for governance. Interview
data suggested that successful governance teams perceived professional learning as a necessary
tool to enhance their work toward the service of the school community. This finding aligned with
Delagardelle’s (2008) study, which showed that in school districts with high student achievement
levels, school board members focused on providing ongoing support for professional develop-
ment as a means and willingness to learn.
Another premise that arose from the data was that the school board’s culture and encour-
agement from fellow governance team members were leading influences for completing the MIG
training program. Through modeling and creating a culture that encouraged continuous learning,
MIG-trained board members exhibited the characteristics associated with effective governance
while simultaneously influencing their colleagues’ growth and development. Participants
reported that governance training was an expectation within their districts, and they encouraged
others to participate in the MIG program. This finding coincided with Waters and Marzano’s
(2006) meta-analysis, which reveals that effective governance teams engage in shared learning
experiences, upholding the expectation that school district leaders participate in professional
learning, building a robust cultural belief system in successful school districts.
Research Question 2

Research Question 2 examined whether the MIG training program encouraged and
equipped school board members with the knowledge and skills necessary to adhere to behaviors
characteristic of effective governance. The majority of participants in the study indicated that the
MIG training program improved school board effectiveness by equipping school board members
with a governance framework from which to operate that focused on the central duty of school
75

boards—specifically, working as a unified team through clearly defined roles and responsibilities
with an unwavering focus on student achievement.
The data analysis supported that school board members participating in the MIG training
were equipped with a thorough understanding of their specific roles and responsibilities, thereby
contributing to their ability to govern effectively. These findings supported the research from
Delagardelle’s (2008) study that found that when board members had a clear understanding of
their specific governance role as policymakers, working collaboratively to ensure deliberate
policy development, their districts were more likely be considered successful. Also, Bolman and
Deal’s (2017) four-frame model for effective leadership emphasizes the importance of clearly
defined structures and procedures in the effectiveness of an organization.
School board members and superintendents cited collaboration as the core component to
effective governance. Moreover, participants perceived enhanced collaboration as a result of MIG
training. Interview transcripts described the training format as opportunities to learn from the
superintendent and other board members. Data showed that this opportunity was an influential
factor in their decision to attend or complete school board member training and, more impor-
tantly, to develop and enhance professional working relationships. Participants were cited as
more aware and using specific communication and team-building strategies to encourage
improved communication and overall effective governance. This finding was relevant to the
study, as it highlighted the need for research-based school board training programs that intention-
ally design activities for participants to work and learn from one another.
Interview data suggested that board members who participated in MIG training indicated
increased trust levels among their respective governance teams. Participants were mindful that
the board should act as a team and have a unified voice. CSBA’s (n.d.a) professional governance
76

standards identify governing within board-adopted structures, policies, and procedures as funda-
mental principles of effective education governance. With a clear understanding of their roles and
responsibilities, school boards worked as a unified governance team toward student achievement.
School board members perceived a high level of focus on developing policy rather than adminis-
trative management. Analysis of the data revealed that members understood that the school board
made decisions as a unit and not as individuals trustees. This study found that the MIG training
helped board members to work more collaboratively as team members as they understood that
authority had been issued to the board, not to each member.
Research Question 3

All three superintendents interviewed by the researcher agreed that school board members
who were MIG trained demonstrated an increased focus on student achievement. Most partici-
pants in this study indicated that student achievement must be the driving force behind all deci-
sion-making practices. This view result aligned with literature that implied that adherence to
effective governing practices and behaviors should include student learning at the forefront of all
board operations (Campbell & Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007). Decision-making practices should
serve as the driving force that keeps all efforts, operations, and decision making focused on what
is best for students (CSBA, 2007, Delagardelle, 2008; Marzano & Waters, 2006).
The study revealed that MIG training emphasized utilizing data to make informed deci-
sions for the educational community. This revelation coincided with literature that indicated that
student data should be the driving factor in developing the district’s vision. as it has an indirect
effect on student achievement (Bianchi, 2003; Delagardelle, 2008; Dillon, 2010). The results
supported the assertion that although the work of governance teams may not directly impact the
77

students, it does affect the quality of student learning and instruction that, in turn, impacts student
achievement (Berry & Howell, 2007).
Limitations

The study participants and the research team largely dictated the significant limitations of
this study. The design of this research study called for the participation of MIG-trained board
members and their corresponding superintendents. The exclusion of the untrained board members
resulted in a gap in available data regarding the impact of training on the overall ability of the
board to govern effectively. Some participants’ responses were limited and based on their recol-
lection of MIG training in which they had participated several years in the past. Additionally,
governance training was limited to only CSBA’s MIG program.
Implications

The research team’s goal was to determine whether there was a direct link between effec-
tive governance and school board members who had been through training. Also, the study
sought to determine whether professional relationships were enhanced because of training. Ulti-
mately, the research validated that school boards’ professional development contributed to effec-
tive governance practices by clarifying roles and responsibilities, improving collaboration, and
emphasizing student achievement.
This study cited specific research-based responsibilities and characteristics in defining
effective school board governance. An implication is that governance teams should participate in
MIG training in order to be conscious of their roles and responsibilities. The findings indicated
beneficial outcomes as board members with different experiences and backgrounds better under-
stood their functions through training. This finding signals a need for governance training for all
governance teams.
78

Another implication from the study is that there is recognized growth in professional rela-
tionships among school board members and superintendents. Superintendents attending training
alongside respective board members is an impactful way to encourage training through culture
and expectations. The evidence suggested that successful school leadership is a collaborative
effort and that shared commitment to training can enhance the school board’s work.
Finally, the study results implied that education governance teams indirectly impacted
student achievement through the board’s unified decisions in matters of vision and goal setting.
Governance training provides awareness and guidance to school board members and superinten-
dents entrusted with leading local school districts to increase student achievement while contend-
ing with various challenges.
Recommendations for Future Studies

Concerning the limitations, this study’s findings significantly contribute to the literature
on professional learning and its impact on school boards’ exhibiting behaviors of effective school
board governance. Although this research has concluded that governance training is valuable,
there are aspects for further research to advance the scope of knowledge on building professional
relationships and increasing student achievement.
There are 977 school districts in California; 62 of these districts participated in the study.

Future studies should include a larger population sample. In addition, it would be beneficial to
include statewide data without strict selection criteria. Future research should include surveying
and interviewing board members who have not participated in MIG training. Gathering data from
untrained board members would allow for comparing the experiences and perceptions of those
who have been trained and those who have not, thus adding depth to the data involving effective
governance practicing and the role of professional development in education governance.
79

Another recommendation is a performance evaluation of governance teams that examines inter-
actions among themselves, the superintendent, and the community. Such a quantitative or quali-
tative study should include data from a broad group of stakeholders, including but not limited to
parents, students, staff, and other citizens in the district. Future research should include a more
in-depth examination of student achievement data and its ties to highly effective school boards.
Conclusion

Training is a way for school board members to gain the skills that lead to effective gov-
ernance practices. Governance training provides community education leaders with the informa-
tion and support required to serve their districts best. Developing well-trained and effective
school board members will help to affect student performance and education positively. This
study found that board members chose to participate in the MIG training because they were self-
motivated and driven by cultural expectations. Trained board members exhibited effective gov-
ernance traits because they were more mindful of their roles and responsibilities. As a result of
the MIG training, governance teams displayed improved collaboration skills, were better at
having one unified voice, and made more informed decisions by utilizing student data. The work
of effective governance teams results in districts that share the purpose of improving student
achievement. Organizations that train and educate their board members make an essential invest-
ment in their leadership that directly affects the organization and its stakeholders.
80

References

Allen, A., & Mintrom, M. (2010). Responsibility and school governance. Educational Policy,
24(3), 439–464. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904808330172
Alsbury, T. L. (Ed.). (2008a). The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation.

Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Alsbury, T. L. (2008b). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 7(2), 202–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701748428
Berry, C. R., & Howell, W. G. (2007). Accountability and local elections: Rethinking retrospec-
tive voting. Journal of Politics, 69(3), 844–858. http://home.uchicago. edu/~whowell/m/
papers/mAccountabilityAndLocal.pdf
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.-volu
ntary/
Björk, L. (2009, October 26). The superintendent as an instructional leader. Paper presented at
the West Virginia Superintendents’ Institute, Charleston, WV.
Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). The school district superintendent
in the United States of America. Educational Leadership Faculty Publications (Paper 13).
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/eda_fac_pub/13?utm_source=ecommons.udayton.edu%2
Feda_fac_pub%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages the school
district superintendent
81

Bock, M. (2019, May 7). A conversation with Betsy DeVos: Live from EWA [Video and tran-
script]. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2019/05/conversation_with_betsy
_devos.html

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership

(6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrdLead
ershipBk.ashx
California Department of Education. (2017). California school dashboard: How does Califor-
nia’s accountability work? https://www.caschool dashboard.org/about/accountability
California Department of Education. (2019a). California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress (CAASPP) system. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ca/
California Department of Education. (2019b). General Dashboard FAQs. https://www.cde.ca

.gov/ta/ac/cm/generalcadashboardfaq.asp

California Department of Education. (2020a). Local Control Accountability Plan. https://www

.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/

California Department of Education. (2020b). Local Control Funding Formula. https://www.cde

.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp

California School Boards Association. (2017). The school board role in creating the conditions
for student achievement. https://www.csba.org/-/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/
Reports/201705 BoardResearch Report.ashx?la=en&rev=6aea555 a678e4fb6a40494f013e2
546f
82

California School Boards Association. (2018a). About CSBA. https://www.csba.org/About/About
CSBA
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Effective governance: Resources, training and
support. https://www.csba.org/en/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance
California School Boards Association. (2018c). Masters in Governance: Governance education
for school board members and superintendents. https://www.csba.org/en/TrainingAndEvent
s/MastersInGovernance
California School Boards Association. (2018d). What it takes to lead. https://www.csba.org/-/
media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/EffectiveGovernance/20180613_WhatItTakesToL
ead_Final.ashx?la=en&rev=b99adf0f20bb4e12aebf41edb468c4fb
California School Boards Association. (n.d.a). Professional Governance Standards. https://www

.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/ProfessionalGovStandards.
aspx
California School Boards Association. (n.d.b). Superintendent Governance Standards. https://
www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/ProfessionalGovStand
ards/ProfessionalGovernanceStandardsForDistrictSuperintendents.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.
Canal, S. A. (2013). California school boards: Professional development and the Masters in
Governance training (Publication No. 3563807) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
83

Center for Public Education. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards: Full report.
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-education/Eightcharacteristics-
of-effective-school-boards/Eight-characteristics-of-effective-school-boards.html
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Danzberger, J., (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring the local
school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 67–73.
Danzberger, J., Carol, L., Cunningham, L., Kirst, M., McCloud, B., & Usdan, M. (1987). School
boards: The forgotten players on the education team. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(1), 53–59.
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership
in the improvement of student achievement. In T. L. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school
board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 191–224). Rowman & Littlefield Educa-
tion.
Dervarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2019). Eight characteristics of effective school boards. Center for
Public Education. https://www.nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/cpe-eight-characteristics-of-
effective-school-boards-report-december-2019.pdf?la=en&hash=1E19C481DAAEE254060
08581AE75EB2ABA785930
Dillon, N. (2010). The importance of school board training. American School Board Journal,
197(7), 1–7.
Edwards, M. (2007). The modern school superintendent: An overview of the role and responsibil-
ities in the 21st century. iUniverse, Inc.
Education Data Partnership. (2019). California public schools enrollment. https://www.ed-data

.org/state/CA
84

Ehrensal, P. A., & First, P. F. (2008). Understanding school board politics: Balancing public
voice and professional power. In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds.),
Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 87–102). Routledge. https://doi.org/10
.4324/9780203887875

Feuerstein, A., & Opfer, V. D. (1998). School board chairmen and school superintendents: An
analysis of perceptions concerning special interest groups and educational governance.
Journal of School Leadership, 8(4), 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10526846980080
0403
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Corwin Press.
Gemberling, K., Smith, C., & Villiani, J. (2015). The key work of school boards: A guidebook.

National School Boards Association.

Glass, T. E., Björk, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school superinten-
dency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium. American
Association of School Administrators
Goodman, R. H., & Zimmerman, W. G. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for 21st
century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for high student
achievement. Educational Research Service.
Grissom, J. A. (2009). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations:
The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and The-
ory, 20(3), 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup043
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of
district governance. National School Boards Association.
85

Johnson, P. A. (2011). School board governance: The times they are a-changin’. Journal of Cases
in Educational Leadership, 20(10), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F155545891141 3887
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency. Jossey-
Bass.
Kirst, F. M. (2008). The evolving role of school boards: Retrospect and prospect. In T. L. Alsbury
(Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 37– 59).
Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Kirst, M. W., & Wirt, F. M. (2005). Local school board, politics, and the community. In M. W.
Kirst & F. M. Wirt (Eds.), The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed., pp. 133–
220). McCutchan Publishing.
Klein, A. (2018, October 3). Betsy DeVos: The K-12 system has ‘stolen decision-making power
from Families.’ Education Week. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2018/10/
betsy_devos_choice_rethink_schools_alabama.html
Klein, A. (2016, March 31). The Every Student Succeeds Act: An ESSA overview. Education
Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/every-student-succeeds-act/index.html
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L. G. Björk &

T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and devel-
opment (pp.1–18). Corwin Press.
Kowalski, T. J., & Brunner, C. C. (2011). The school superintendent: Roles, challenges, and
issues. In F. W. English (Ed.), Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in
theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 142–167). Sage Publications.
86

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
Legal Information Institute, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. (n.d.). § 34 CFR § 303.23—
Local educational agency. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/303.23
Maricle, C. (2014). Governing to achieve: A synthesis of research on school governance to
support student achievement. https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/~/
media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/GovernanceBriefs/201408GoverningToAchieve.a
shx
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementa-
tion (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
National School Board Association. (2019). About us. https://www.nsba.org/about

National School Board Association. (2020). About school boards and local governance. https://
www.nsba.org/About/About-School-Board-and-Local-Governance
Ohio School Boards Association. (2020). Accountability. https://www.ohioschoolboards.org/
accountability
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Bruce, J., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2000). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/superintendent team behav-
iors in school districts with extreme differences in student achievement (ED453172). Iowa
Association of School Boards. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453172.pdf
87

Richter, L. A. (2013). The impact of the Masters in Governance training program on California
school board governance (Publication No. 3563990) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(7),
701–713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Education Administra-
tion Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X08321509
Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining
school improvement. Harvard Education Press.
Texas Association of School Boards. (2020). What the TASB’s Effective Board Practices: An
Inventory for School Boards Says about Comprehensive District Goals. https://www.tasb
.org/services/board-development-services/resources/vision-and-goals/goals-in-the-audit.aspx
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The quest to
define effective leadership. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University and Howard Univer-
sity, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
Thomas, W., & Moran, K. (1992). Reconsidering the power of the superintendent in the pro-
gressive period. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 22–50. https://doi.org/
10.3102/00028312029001022
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Race to the Top fund. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/
racetothetop/index.html
88

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). https://www.ed.gov/
essa?src=rn
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effects of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for Education
and Learning. http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/ASC/4005RR_superintendent_
Leadership.pdf
Waters, J., & Marzano, R. (2007). The primacy of superintendent leadership. School Administra-
tor, 64(3), 10–16.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Weiss, G., Templeton, N., Thompson, R., & Tremont, J. W. (2014). Superintendent and school
board relations: Impacting achievement through collaborative understanding of roles and
responsibilities. School Leadership Review, 9(2), Article 4. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/
slr/vol9/iss2/4?utm_source=scholarworks.sfasu.edu%2Fslr%2Fvol9%2Fiss2%2F4&utm_me
dium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).

McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
89

Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails
School Board Recruitment and Information Email
Date

Dear School Board Member ,

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this email.

My name is . I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program has on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. This study may serve as a source of the benefits of MIG training for school governance
teams. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school governance
teams.

Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board has completed the
MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done to complete the EdD
program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will
be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training
on effective governance. You will also be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom
™

interview at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded with your
permission and include questions about effective governance.

Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time. Infor-
mation obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher
and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no
individual and/or district can be identified.

Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the School Board Member Survey via the
following link: .

I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact myself or Dr. Michael F. Escalante
at the University of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx- xxxx. Thank you in advance
for your time.

Sincerely,

, Researcher [ @usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
90

Superintendent Recruitment and Information Email

Date

Dear Superintendent ,

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in
this email.

My name is . I am part of a thematic research team under the direction
and guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may
shed light on the impact that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in
Governance (MIG) training program has on school board members’ relationships with superin-
tendents and the perceived success of school districts. The results of this study should indicate the
many benefits of MIG training for school governance teams.

Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board has com-
pleted the MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done to com-
plete the EdD program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate
in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to
rate the impact of MIG training on effective governance. You will also be asked to participate in
a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom
™
interview at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The
interview will be audio recorded with your permission and include questions about effective
governance.

Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your par-
ticipation, although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at
any time. Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anon-
ymous by the researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a
manner that will ensure that no individual and/or district can be identified.

Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the Superintendent Survey via the
following link: .

I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any
questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact myself or Dr.
Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-
xxxx.. Thank you in advance for your time.

Sincerely,

, Researcher [ @usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
91

Appendix B: School Board Member Survey

Our school board culture encourages participation in Masters in Q Strongly Agree
1 Governance (MIG) training. Q Agree

Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

2
MIG training should be encouraged for school governance teams
by the local district policy.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree

Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

School board training is mandated in 24 states. The MIG training Q Strongly Agree
3
should be mandated in California. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

What platform of the MIG training program would increase your Q Online
4
chances of participation (check all that apply)? Q Hybrid (online and in-person)
Q Locally hosted
Q Other

The primary factor that influenced my participation in the MIG Q School board expectation

training was . . . (check all that apply): Q Self-motivation

Q Encouraged by board members
5

Q Increasing student achievement

Q Increasing effective governance

Q Unable to determine
Q Other

The current cost of the MIG training program impedes school Q Strongly Agree
6
board members from participating. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

7
As a result of the MIG training, my focus is on achievement. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek community input Q Strongly Agree
8
through a variety of methods (email, town hall meetings, surveys,
etc.)
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

As a result of the MIG training, I understand the importance of Q Strongly Agree
9
aligning the decision-making process with the district’s vision and
goals.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

The MIG training clarified the differences between my roles and Q Strongly Agree
10
responsibilities as a school board member and those of the super-
intendent.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
92

The MIG training encourages school governance teams to contrib- Q Strongly Agree
11
ute to the effectiveness of our school board meetings. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

12
I would recommend the MIG training to school governance teams. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

The MIG training helps school board members to differentiate Q Strongly Agree
13
among policy, leadership, and management. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

14
It is important to attend MIG training with your superintendent. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern effectively. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

Please rank the following five MIG modules in order of importance Foundation in Governance

to your role as a member of the governance team. Policy and Judicial Review
16

School Finance

Human Resources
Community Relations

As a result of the MIG training, I encourage governance team mem- Q Strongly Agree
17
bers to consistently use data to make informed decisions regarding
student achievement.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

As a result of the MIG training, my ability to constructively accept Q Strongly Agree
18
the majority decision, even if I hold the minority view, has
improved.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

I believe that all California school board members could benefit Q Strongly Agree
19
from MIG training. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

Attending MIG training has positively impacted student achieve- Q Strongly Agree
20
ment. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
93

Appendix C: Superintendent Survey

Our school board culture encourages participation in Masters in Q Strongly Agree
1
Governance (MIG) training. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

2
MIG training should be encouraged for school governance teams
by the local district policy.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree

Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

School board training is mandated in 24 states. The MIG training Q Strongly Agree
3
should be mandated in California. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

What platform of the MIG training program would increase your Q Online
4
school board members’ chances of participation (check all that
apply)?
Q Hybrid (online and in-person)
Q Locally hosted
Q Other

The primary factor that influenced school board members to Q School board expectation

participate in MIG training was . . . (check all that apply): Q Self-motivation

Q Encouraged by board members
5
Q Increasing student achievement
Q Increasing effective governance

Q Other
Q Unable to determine

The current cost of the MIG training program impedes school Q Strongly Agree
6
board members from participating. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

School board members who have earned MIG certification demon- Q Strongly Agree
7
strate an increased focus on student achievement. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

School board members who are MIG certified actively engage the Q Strongly Agree
8
community and utilize a variety of communication methods (email,
town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

School board members who are MIG trained understand the impor- Q Strongly Agree
9
tance of aligning the decision-making process with the district’s
vision and goals.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

School board members who are MIG trained exhibit a clearer un- Q Strongly Agree
10
derstanding of the difference between their roles and responsibil-
ities and those of the superintendent.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
94

The MIG training encourages school governance teams to contrib- Q Strongly Agree
11
ute to the effectiveness of our school board meetings. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

12
I would recommend the MIG training to school governance teams. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

The MIG training helps school board members to differentiate Q Strongly Agree
13
among policy, leadership, and management. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

It is important to attend MIG training with your school board Q Strongly Agree
14
members. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern effectively. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

Please rank the following five MIG modules in order of importance Foundation in Governance

to your role as a member of the governance team. Policy and Judicial Review
16

School Finance

Human Resources
Community Relations

As a result of the MIG training, I encourage governance team mem- Q Strongly Agree
17
bers to consistently use data to make informed decisions regarding
student achievement.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

The MIG training has improved school board members’ ability to Q Strongly Agree
18
accept the majority decision, even when they hold the minority
view.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

I believe that all California school board members could benefit Q Strongly Agree
19
from MIG training. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

MIG training has positively impacted student achievement in my Q Strongly Agree
20
district. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
95

Appendix D: Interview Guide: School Board Members

1 What factors impacted your decision to complete a school board training program?

2
How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance, if at all?

3
Some individuals believe that school board training should be mandated in California. How do
you respond to them?

4
Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration

5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration
6 How could MIG be improved, if at all?

7
How has the MIG training affected how you govern your school district, if at all? If so, please
explain.

8
What role did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork) in
your district, if at all?
9 What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?

10
What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members/superin-
tendents?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12 How do you use what you learned in MIG training in your role as a board member, if at all?

13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your experience
with MIG training?
96

Appendix E: Interview Guide: Superintendents

1 What factors impacted your decision to complete a school board training program?

2
How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance, if at all?

3
Some individuals believe that school board training should be mandated in California. How do
you respond to them?

4
Which of the following modules was most important to your board members and why?
Which of the following modules was least important to your board members and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration

5
Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration
6 How could MIG be improved, if at all?

7
How has the MIG training affected how your school board members govern your school district,
if at all? If so, please explain.

8
What role did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork) in
your district, if any?
9 What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?

10
What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members/superin-
tendents?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12 How do you use what you learned in MIG training in your role as a superintendent, if at all?

13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your experience
with MIG training?
97

Appendix F: Informed Consent

Date:

Dear ,

My name is and I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of Education. I am
conducting a research study under the guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F. Escalante. The purpose of
this study is to examine the perceptions of school board members and superintendents regarding the
Masters in Governance (MIG) training and the impact on school governance and student achievement. I
will interview and survey superintendents and school board members.

You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the impact that
the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) MIG training program has on school board mem-
bers’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of school districts. This study may
serve as a source of the benefits of MIG training for school governance teams.

Your participation is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw at any time. The information collected
will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher and members of the dissertation committee.
Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no individual or district can be identified.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact me at
or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California.
Thank you, in advance, for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,

, Researcher [ @usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx

Dr. Michael F. Escalante, Dissertation Chair, mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-xxxx

( ) I have read this form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent to my participa-
tion in the research described above.

Participant’s Signature:
Participant’s Printed Name:
Date:
98

Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix

Instrument
RQ #1
What factors impact
the decision of school
board members to par-
ticipate in the MIG
training program?
RQ #2
How does the MIG
training program
encourage and equip
school board members
to exhibit the behaviors
of effective school
governance?
RQ #3
Does MIG training
have an impact on stu-
dent achievement and
growth?
School Board Member
Survey
1–6 7–16
18–19
5, 7, 9, 17, 20
Superintendent Survey 1–6 7–14 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
School Board Member
Interview Guide
1, 3, 10 2
4–9
12
11, 13
Superintendent Inter-
view Guide
1, 3, 10 2
4–9
12
11, 13

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of governance training, specifically the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training program, and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit effective governance characteristics. 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. This study engaged leadership through the lens of Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s 4 frames of leadership. The CSBA’s professional governance standards were used to establish expectations for school boards. Best practices were analyzed using research from the Lighthouse Inquiry, a study conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards. This study’s qualitative data consisted of 186 board members and 62 superintendents from their respective districts, representing 12 counties in California. All 62 participating superintendents completed surveys and interviews, 180 of 186 MIG-trained board members completed survey responses, and 177 of those board members participated in interviews. Data from surveys and interviews were collected and coded to answer the study’s 3 research questions: (a) what factors impacted the decision to participate in the MIG training program, (b) how the MIG training program equipped school board members to exhibit effective school governance behaviors, and (c) whether MIG training had an impact on student achievement. Findings from this research1suggested that MIG training supported effective governance practices by building shared efficacy through collaboration and clarification of education governance roles and responsibilities. This study adds to the current research regarding effective school district leadership and governance teams’ impact on student achievement.

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 formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness

PDF

California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement

PDF

California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training

PDF

Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance

PDF

School board training and governance in California

PDF

School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy

PDF

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards

PDF

School board governance training and student achievement

PDF

Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards

PDF

School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams

PDF

School board training: impact on governance and achievement

PDF

Does school board training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?

PDF

Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts

PDF

The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California school board governance

PDF

Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards

PDF

Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice

PDF

Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance

Asset Metadata

Creator Kwok, Benson (author)

Core Title The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/22/2021

Defense Date 01/29/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag California School Boards Association,education governance,effective governance,governance training,Masters in governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,School boards,school districts

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Doll, Michelle (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee member)

Creator Email bensonk@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-430410

Unique identifier UC11667854

Identifier etd-KwokBenson-9340.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-430410 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KwokBenson-9340.pdf

Dmrecord 430410

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kwok, Benson

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