University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

School board training and governance in California

(USC Thesis Other)

School board training and governance in California

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

School Board Training and Governance in California
by
Hedieh Khajavi

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 Hedieh Khajavi 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Hedieh Khajavi certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Rudy M. Castruita
Alex Cherniss
Gregory A. Franklin
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv

Abstract
The role and responsibilities of public-school board members can be considered one of the most
daunting roles in American public education today. Consequently, turnover in board positions
inhibits many public schools from reaching their academic, financial, and organizational goals.
As a result, any factors that may impact student achievement and the effectiveness of school
districts, such as the training and preparation of school boards, should be studied. The present
study examined the impact that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in
Governance (MIG) training program had on school board governance practice. The purpose of
the study was to determine whether the MIG training affected a board’s ability to adhere to best
practices for effective governance. This study was framed using the Lighthouse Inquiry
conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards, the CSBA’s Professional Governance
Standards, and Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s framework for leadership and management.
These frameworks provided an understanding of the impact of the MIG training on school board
leadership and practice. Data for this study were collected from 180 MIG trained school board
members and 62 superintendents in California and interviews with 2 or 3 school board members
from each school district with their corresponding superintendents. Data were collected to
examine their perceptions regarding the MIG training and its impact on school governance and
student achievement and to address the 3 research questions: (a) factors that impacted the
decision of school board members to participate in the MIG training program, (b) whether the
MIG training program encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors
of effective governance, and (c) in what ways the MIG training had an impact on student
achievement and growth. Findings from this research demonstrated that increased school board
member training and development could be beneficial to the effectiveness of the governance

team and, consequently, to the overall quality of student achievement. It was recommended that
further research be conducted on the subject of the effects of school board member training and
the development on the quality of school board governance.

vi

Dedication
To my beloved mother, Mones, who passed away before I started my doctoral studies and to my
father, Hooshang: Without their enormous personal sacrifices and unconditional love, my
siblings and I would have never become the individuals that we are today. I have promised my
parents to make them proud by the achievement of this academic goal, and I hope that I have
fulfilled that promise. All that I am is because of them. All that I do is to honor them.
To Alireza for his love, affection, advice, care, patience, and encouragement and because he
always understood.
To my brother, Mehrdad; my sisters, Hengameh and Shadi; and maman, Shahnaz, who have
been my inspiration and support: This humble work is a sign of my love for them.
To Dr. Erika Torres, County Administrator of the Inglewood Unified School District (IUSD),
who believed in me and provided me with a lifetime opportunity to serve the beautiful students
of IUSD. Dr. Torres’s fearless leadership, unconditional love for students and staff, her belief in
public education, and her tireless advocacy of equity and equality for all students have been
inspirational. I will always be grateful to her!

vii

Acknowledgements
The past 3 years have changed my understanding of TK-12 public education. The journey
was possible because of the knowledge, love, and generosity of my incredible community of
mentors, colleagues, friends, and family. I am eternally grateful to all who have in one way or
another encouraged, challenged, and supported me along my educational journey. It is because of
this journey that I have persevered. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Michael Escalante for
guiding me through this doctorate program and the dissertation process. His patience and
guidance strengthened my skills as a school district leader. I also thank Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr.
Alex Cherniss, and Dr. Greg Franklin for their guiding expertise and words of encouragement. I
am grateful to Dr. Froilan Mendoza for his words of encouragement to join the doctoral program.
Special thanks and appreciation go to my dissertation defense team—Maricela Ramirez,
Linda De La Torre, Gloria Olamendi, Eric Guerrero, and Elias Miles—whose diverse
experiences and support made my journey possible. I want to especially thank Linda, Maricela,
and Gloria, who believed in me and for their humor and kindness from day one of the doctoral
program.
Finally, I acknowledge the IUSD County Administrator, the Board of Education
members, the Executive Cabinet, the administrators, teachers, my Human Resources Division
team members, the classified staff, the Inglewood Teachers Association (ITA), and California
Professional Employees (CalPro) labor partners. Their dedicated work for the students of IUSD
is magical.

viii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 2
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 2
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 3
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 4
Delimitations ....................................................................................................................... 4
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 5
Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................................... 5
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 9
Historical Context and Profile of School Board Members ............................................... 10
Educational Reform and School Governance ................................................................... 14
School Boards and Student Achievement ......................................................................... 15
Effective School Boards ................................................................................................... 17
Challenges to Effective School Boards............................................................................. 19
History and Role of the Superintendent ............................................................................ 21
Relationship Between the School Board and the Superintendent ..................................... 25

ix

School Board Training ...................................................................................................... 29
Theoretical Frameworks and Models ................................................................................ 33
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 41
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ........................................................................................ 43
Research Design................................................................................................................ 44
School Districts and Participation ..................................................................................... 46
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 47
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 47
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 48
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 49
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 49
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 50
Chapter Four: Research Results .................................................................................................... 51
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 53
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 56
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 68
Results for Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 82
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 90
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 93
Research Team and Participants ....................................................................................... 94
Findings Related to the Research Questions ..................................................................... 95
Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................... 99
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 99

x

Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 100
Conclusion to the Study .................................................................................................. 102
References ................................................................................................................................... 104
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails .................................................................... 118
School Board Member Recruitment Email ..................................................................... 118
Superintendent Recruitment Email ................................................................................. 119
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey .............................................................................. 120
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 123
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ........................................................... 126
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ....................................................................... 127
Appendix F: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 128
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix .................................................................................. 129

xi

List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participants 54
Table 2: Number of Interviews Scheduled and Number Completed 55
Table 3: Participants’ Responses Regarding the Primary Factors That
Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the Masters in
Governance Training
58
Table 4: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Would
Recommend Masters in Governance Training to School Governance
Teams
62
Table 5: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether it was Important to
Attend Masters in Governance Training With Their Superintendent
63
Table 6: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether it is Important to Attend
Masters in Governance Training With Their School Board Members
64
Table 7: Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the Masters
in Governance Program Would Increase Chances of Participation
65
Table 8: Participants’ Responses to Whether the Current Cost of the Masters
in Governance Training Program Impeded School Board Members
From Participating
67
Table 9: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members
Who Were Masters in Governance Trained Exhibited a Clearer
Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and
Responsibilities and Those of Their Superintendent
71
Table 10: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in
Governance Training Clarified the Differences Between the Roles
and Responsibilities of a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent
71
Table 11: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance
Training Impacted Their Ability to Govern Effectively
75
Table 12: Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Should
Be Mandated in California
79
Table 13: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Believed That All
California School Board Members Could Benefit From Masters in
Governance Training
80

xii

Table 14: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of
Masters in Governance Training, Their Focus Was on Student
Achievement
84
Table 15: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members
Who Had Earned Masters in Governance Certification
Demonstrated an Increased Focus on Student Achievement
84
Table 16: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in
Governance Training Had Positively Impacted Student
Achievement in Their District
85
Table 17: 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
87
Table 18: 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
89
Table 19: 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
89

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
As in most school districts, governance and policy decisions are made by a locally
elected school board working in concert with a superintendent hired by the board. Citizens value
the role of the local school board despite citizens’ possible lack of understanding regarding their
school board’s governance skills, roles, and responsibilities (Danzberger, 1994). A review of the
literature indicates little research on how school board training and professional development
(PD) impact effective school governance and student achievement. Investigating the relationship
between school board members and superintendents through the lens of decision making can
provide insight into how to improve school board–superintendent relationships and, in turn,
student achievement. Thus, school board data were gathered on what trainings already existed or
were being used informally for school board governance and improving decision making. There
was some research on entities that provided training programs for board members and
superintendents. The literature indicated that professional associations (e.g., the California
School Boards Association [CSBA]) were the primary educators of school board members and
superintendents on their roles and responsibilities (Glass et al., 2000; Hess & Meeks, 2010).
California is one of 26 states that currently do not require school board training or
development (National School Boards Association [NSBA], 2001). Boards are offered training
through the CSBA, most notably through the Masters in Governance (MIG) program, which
started in the 1990s. The MIG training resonates with board members and superintendents in
California. According to the CSBA (2018b), over 2,000 board members have received training
and development on key content areas of school board governance including finance, education
law, and community relations. School board PD related to decision making is not always
2

comprehensive enough to be effective. Results from the study can be used to inform current
school board and superintendent PD programs at the local and/or state level.
Statement of the Problem
The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of the
informed decision making that influences the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance,
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relationships.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:

3

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 significance of the study is to contribute to the professional knowledge and
understanding about the impact of school board training on effective district governance
practices, particularly how MIG training in California affects governance practices by school
board members and school boards collectively. These findings should benefit school board
members who strive to improve conditions that lead to effective governance. This research
should be valuable to those who participate in the MIG training, as well as those responsible for
creating the MIG modules.
The study should be of significance to state policymakers in California, as consideration
may be given to making school board training mandatory as in some other states. Some critics
have contended that school boards are composed of unskilled and unprepared people elected by a
small voter turnout. Findings may be used to make a correlation between student achievement
and MIG training completion by the board members. Further, findings from the study can
provide CSBA members with data for types of districts that are finding success with effective
school board governance and a better relationship between the superintendent and school board
members.
This study should contribute to the literature by addressing how effective school board
governance affects student achievement. It is challenging to link effective school board
4

governance with positive student achievement. With myriad interventions implemented by
school districts, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to isolate one program, intervention
strategy, or practice as the trigger for positive student achievement. However, this research is a
small piece of the puzzle in understanding what effective school boards in effective school
districts do in an effort to produce positive student achievement outcomes.
Limitations
The following limitations applied to this study:
1. Responses were subjective and reflected personal viewpoints.
2. Viewpoints may not have represented all school board and superintendents.
3. Research was limited to the time allotted for completion of the surveys and
interviews.
4. Data collected from school board members were limited to participants’
recollections of their experiences during training.
5. Results of the study were limited to the participants in the study.
Delimitations
This research was delimited to school boards in 12 counties (Alameda, Los Angeles,
Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa
Clara, and Ventura) that governed school districts in K-12 public education. Only school board
members and superintendents who had participated in the MIG training and had completed at
least three out of the five modules provided by the CSBA were considered. No consideration was
given to socioeconomic status. Only public K-12 school districts were considered.
5

Assumptions
It was assumed that a qualitative approach as well as the chosen procedures and methods
were appropriate for this study. It was also assumed that the instruments chosen were valid and
reliable. It was assumed that the 12 counties surveyed would provide a comprehensive collection
of data. It was assumed that participants would provide honest and credible responses to all
survey and/or interview questions and that information provided by the CSBA in terms of
participants and training was accurate.
Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
Accountability: The concept that schools and school districts will be held responsible for
performance or producing documents and records, creating and following plans, and reporting
student performance on assessments.
Assessment: The annual summative evaluation of student learning through state-
sanctioned multiple-choice exams.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): A state
assessment consisting of the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment System and the
California Alternate Assessments (CAAs), including the CAA for Science, the California Science
Test, and the California Spanish Assessment (California Department of Education [CDE],
2020a).
CSBA: An organization entrusted with the responsibility to provide guidance, resources,
and training for school board members throughout California (CSBA, 2007).
DataQuest: The CDE’s (2020a) web-based data reporting system for publicly reporting
information about California students, teachers, and schools. DataQuest provides access to a
6

wide variety of reports, including school performance, test results, student enrollment, English
learner, graduation and dropout, school staffing, course enrollment, and student misconduct data.
Effective board leadership: School boards that do not interfere with the superintendent’s
obligations to manage the school system and conduct day-to day affairs by avoiding
micromanaging of the superintendent (D. Campbell & Greene, 1994; Leithwood et al., 2008;
Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through the
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000).
Institutional Review Board (IRB): An administrative body established to protect the rights
and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in research activities conducted
under the auspices of the institution with which it is affiliated.
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP):
A 3-year plan that describes the goals, actions, services, and expenditures to support
positive student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The LCAP provides an
opportunity for LEAs [local education agencies] to share their stories of how, what, and
why programs and services are selected to meet their local needs. (CDE, 2020c, LCAP
Overview section, para. 1)
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): The law enacted in 2013-2014 to simplify how
funding is provided to LEAs. Previously, funding included over 50 categorical funding lines
designed to give targeted services based on student demographics (CDE, 2020d).
Local education agency (LEA):

7

A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for
either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public
elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or
other political subdivision of a State, or for a combination of school districts or counties
as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools
or secondary schools. (Legal Information Institute, Electronic Code of Federal
Regulations, n.d., para. 1)
Mandate: An official order or commission to do something.
Masters in Governance (MIG): A training program sponsored by the CSBA (2018b)
consisting of five modules (Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction; Policy and
Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement; School Finance; Human Resources and
Collective Bargaining; and Community Relations, Advocacy, and Governance Integration)
designed to define roles and responsibilities and to improve governance and leadership through
increased knowledge and skills to support an effective governance structure and to maintain a
focus on student learning.
NSBA: The organization at the national level that works with and through state associations.
The Association represents more than 90,000 school board members who govern 13,809 school
districts serving 50 million public school students in the United States (NSBA, 2019).
PD: Training opportunities for school board members to improve their effectiveness (Land,
2002).
Public school: A 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 schools.
8

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 or board of trustees: “Locally elected public officials entrusted with
governing a community’s public schools” (CSBA, 2007, p. 3).
School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding over the
public meetings of school boards.
School district: Synonym for LEA; a public organization tasked with operating public
schools and serving students within a designated geographic area.
Student achievement: The performance by students on the annual summative assessment
given by the state of California.
Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district with
oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One has provided an
introduction to the study: the problem, the purpose, and the importance of the study; the research
questions; limitations and delimitations; assumptions; and definitions of terms as they are used in
this study. In Chapter Two a detailed background is provided to provide information on existing
literature and research on the topic of school board history, leadership, governance, roles and
responsibilities, and training. Chapter Three explains the methodology of the study, which
includes the research design, population and sample, instrumentation, validity and reliability,
collection of data, data analysis, and ethical considerations. Chapter Four reports the findings of
the study. In Chapter Five, the results are analyzed in relationship to the research questions and
the implications are synthesized.
9

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter reviews the literature regarding leadership and school board governance, the
historical contexts of school board members, the complexity of the role that school board
members play in effective school districts, the impact of school reform on school board
governance, influences on school boards, effectiveness of the school board, the historical context
of superintendents, the role of the superintendent, and the relationship between the school board
and the superintendent. Also discussed are the role of school board training on student
achievement, school board development across the nation, California school board training,
changing roles and responsibilities, and theoretical frameworks that will guide this study.
The 21st century’s dynamic education environment has challenging implications for local
school boards and superintendents. Within California, school board members continue to
experience governance challenging, affecting over 6 million students in nearly 1,000 school
districts. The sense of urgency is rising around teaching and learning, with various stakeholders
demanding and expecting continuous improvement, substantial alternatives, and efficient
solutions to ongoing challenges such as poverty and limited resources. The school boards and
superintendents facing these persistent challenges are expected to be accountable for closing the
achievement gap. School boards typically have three, five, or seven individuals who are
responsible for managing the superintendent as well as determining local policies to ensure that
state and federal laws are followed. Members’ ability to skillfully manage the relationship with
the superintendent is essential.
Governance practices are as important as the decisions a school board makes. According
to D. Campbell and Greene (1994), the way that a school board governs impacts its ability to
reach an agreement about the direction of the district, its effectiveness in establishing a positive
10

climate that achieves the best from its staff and students, and its credibility as an advocate for the
district and for the students. Hayes (2001) noted that “a school cannot truly achieve excellence
unless it’s managed and administered by ethical school board members and administrators” (p.
119). Hayes further explained the importance of school districts in providing training for the
school board. School board of education training emphasizes boardsmanship as essential in the
training curriculum (D. Campbell & Greene, 1994). A school board member must be current on
issues while developing a working relationship with the superintendent, fellow board members,
and the community served. Governing bodies are a channel of communication and information
between the school and its community. They therefore have a very specific role in “opening up”
the school (Gann, 1998). Effective governing school boards, above all else, concentrate on
carrying out their governing work fully and regularly answering three fundamental questions:
where the school district is going, what it is right now, and how it is performing (Houston &
Eadie, 2002).
Historical Context and Profile of School Board Members
Local school boards in the United States have governed public education for more than 2
decades (Kirst, 2008). There is a long history of local school board governance, dating back to
the New England colonies and the mid-19th century movement of common schools. The first
state board of education was established in Massachusetts in 1837. While the establishment of
state boards of education gave states a greater role in education, local school boards retained
most of the control over their schools (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). Local school boards
began to hire full-time superintendents in the 1830s when growth in student populations made it
impossible for unpaid, part-time school board members to manage schools. The yielding of
power to the superintendent was often tentative, and school boards would occasionally hire a
11

superintendent and later return school management to the school board (Institute for Educational
Leadership, 2001).
Today’s K-12 public education governance arrangements have resulted from an evolution
of structures and processes over the course of 2 centuries. The federal and state governments
have assumed a much greater role in the governance of education that continues to have
significant and far-reaching influence on control by local school boards. According to Whittle
(2006), improving public education would require a radical shift from local enterprises to
regional and national projects. Whittle stated that over the past century in America, virtually
every category of goods and services has made this shift except public education.
The board of education, board of directors, school board, or school committee is the title
given to the governing body of a school district. The reason that there are school boards is that
citizens’ oversight of local government is the cornerstone of democracy in the United States.
Therefore, the constituents entrust the governance of the schools to citizens elected by their
communities to oversee both school districts and county offices of education. School boards
provide direction and oversight for the professionals who manage the day-to-day operations of
the schools. They also provide accountability to the community (CSBA, 2007).
According to the NSBA (2019), the United States has more than 90,000 school board
officials, including those that make decisions on school governance in public schools in America.
School board officials constitute the largest category of elected public officials in the United
States (Anderson & Snyder, 2001). These local officials govern over 13,600 local school districts
serving more than 50 million public school students (NCES, 2019).
The CDE (2019) has indicated that in California, the public schools serve more than 6
million students. According to the CSBA (2018b), 5,006 school board members govern the 1,037
12

school districts and county offices of education in the state. California has the largest public
school system in the nation, with the most diverse student bodies (CSBA, 2007). To qualify for
the ballot as a school board candidate in California, a person must be 18 years of age or older, a
citizen of California, a resident of the school district, a registered voter in California, not a
current employee of the school district, not disqualified by the California state constitution or
laws from holding civil office, and not a convicted felon (Ballotpedia, 2020).
According to the CSBA (as cited in Grissom, 2007), 43% (over two fifths) of board
members have postgraduate degrees; 78% have college or higher degrees. Forty-one percent of
board members are employed full time; 24% (the second largest group) are retired.
National data have shown that student demographics continue to change in the area of
race and ethnic diversity. According to the CSBA (as cited in Grissom, 2007), 66% of local
school board members are White or Caucasian; 4%, Black or African American; 19%, Hispanic
or Latino; 4.75% identifying themselves as “other”; 0.85%, American Indian or Alaska Native;
5%, as Asian; and 0.4%, as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Hess and Meeks (2010)
indicated that large school districts were most likely to include minority board members in that
African Americans constituted 21.8% and Latinos, 6% in larger districts.
Hill (2003) found that diverse local school boards have increased the fragmentation of
school districts. He further mentioned that individual board members have their own agendas and
pay attention to particular interest groups, programs, and causes. A study by Grissom (2009)
found that boards comprised of the same race had fewer situations of conflict. He also found that
gender had no significant relationship with board conflict; however, the findings did show that
ideological heterogeneity was linked to greater conflict among board members but only in regard
to fiscal ideology rather than social ideology.
13

An area of debate is whether board members should be elected or appointed. Land (2002)
stated that most often, school board members are elected at-large, elected within subdivisions or
wards, or appointed. Hess (2002) reported that 96.2% of members were elected and 4%,
appointed. Hess and Meeks (2010) found that 94.5% of school board members reported being
elected to office and that 5.5% were appointed.
California school board members are generally elected by residents of the school district,
although some school board members are appointed to county boards of education and to fill
vacancies until the next election for the seat is held. In California, there are three methods of
school board elections (CSBA, 2007):
• At-large: All voters residing in the school district may vote for any candidates
running, regardless of geographic location.
• Trustee area: Only voters residing in a specific geographic area within the school
district may vote on certain candidates, who must also reside in that specific
geographic area.
• Trustee area at-large: All voters residing in the school district may vote for any
candidates running, but candidates must reside in specific geographic areas within
the school district.
School boards can consist of three, five, or seven members and serve 4-year terms, which
are often staggered every 2 years to avoid a complete turnover of the board (Ballotpedia, 2020).
California does not impose statewide term limits on school board members (NSBA, 2014);
however, term limits on school board members can still be imposed at the local level.
Regardless of the process used for individuals to become local school board members,
critics of local school boards have become increasingly vocal about whether boards are needed.
14

The National Commission on Governing America’s Schools (1999) and Smoley (1999) have
argued that instead of eliminating school boards altogether or transforming them into something
other than a community representative body, the better policy response is to determine ways in
which weak school boards—and indeed all school boards—can be supported to raise their level
of success.
Educational Reform and School Governance
The school boards are legislatively created bodies empowered to set policy within the
confines of law and statute (Glass et al., 2000). Because statutes differ from state to state, the
range of governance responsibilities of school boards is diverse. Due to the current demands and
needs in education, the board is responsible for providing the proper resources for students to
learn and achieve to their highest potential. The primary responsibility of the school board is
closing the achievement gap and involving the community in achieving that goal (Gemberling et
al., 2000). School board members can reach the school district’s achievement goals by fostering
a solid relationship with the superintendent, by operating with clarity around their roles and
responsibilities, and by setting policy that supports academic achievement (D. Campbell &
Greene, 1994; Clemmer, 1991; Land 2002).
The demands of testing, state and federal accountability standards, and the pressure of
accountability is high on school board members. When student achievement gains do not
measure up with expectations, the school board members are not immune to criticism (Smoley,
1999). In today’s educational climate, the school board alone cannot solve the challenges.
Therefore, more than ever, the school board must communicate effectively with the community
to gain cooperation and trust in accomplishing the school district’s goals (Van Clay &
Soldwedel, 2009).
15

School Boards and Student Achievement
The education research included several studies that had identified different roles and
responsibilities for school boards. School boards are legislative bodies that exercise their
authority to organize and operate a school district from the state. The law states that school
boards are responsible for the district, policies, budgets, and programs (Blumberg & Blumberg,
1985). The relationship between the school board and the superintendent is different in a sense
that the board makes policy and the superintendent carries it out. However, one of the many
challenges of the superintendent is with board members who frequently do not understand how
complex systems are administrated and are often, despite their dedication, politically motivated
(Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991).
The changes and development of the roles and responsibilities of school boards
originated out of local community hall meetings that would create committees to address the
communities’ unique needs and support systems, one of which would be the responsibility for
hiring teachers for local public schools (A. K. Goodman, 2012). The members of these
committees were not serving in an “official” capacity—rather, they were afforded the necessary
authority to enact and enforce policies and procedures because they were considered responsible
for the overall performance of the school district (R. P. Campbell, 2001).
The list of responsibilities and expectations of school boards can be extensive, and some
boards are not effective in producing positive results (Sell, 2006). Individuals who criticize
school boards often state that board members often allow political demands to interfere in
providing quality education (Sell, 2006). Advocates of school boards believe that education is
too important to rely entirely on educators and administrators. Supporters of school boards have
argued that they balance the needs of the students and the community with the assistance of
16

experts in education such as principals, teachers, and other staff and are an establishment in the
democratic tradition of America (Sell, 2006).
According to the Lighthouse Inquiry study conducted by the Iowa Association of School
Boards (IASB) and the NSBA (D. Rice et al., 2000), school boards have a pivotal role in
increasing student achievement. The Lighthouse study examined the role and impact of school
boards in closing the achievement gap. The study suggested that school board actions are a key
part of culture improvement. Based on their nature, boards do not create learning; rather, they
work through others by creating conditions that promote learning. The NSBA’s (2018)
framework for leadership and governance in promoting student achievement is by setting vision,
standards, assessment, accountability, alignment, climate, collaborative relationships, and
continuous improvement.
Waters and Marzano (2006) found a positive correlation between district leadership and
student achievement. Their studies, which examined the relationship between district-level
leadership and student achievement, identified five leadership responsibilities that had a
statistically significant correlation with student achievement. One of the five is regarding the role
of the school board. Districts with higher levels of student achievement show clear alignment of
board, district, and school efforts in support of non-negotiable goals. In these districts, local
school boards “ensure these goals remain the primary focus of the district’s efforts and that no
other initiatives detract attention or resources from accomplishing these goals” (p. 4).
Smoley’s (1999) work with school boards has identified the following responsibilities for
boards:
• It guides the school district’s purposes, structure, and goals particularly focused on
increased achievement for all students.
17

• It reviews key projects identified to improve programs and operations, and decides
on matters related to the ongoing operation and its programs.
• It selects, directs, and evaluates the superintendent of the school district.
• It oversees the hiring and firing of personnel.
• It is a liaison between the community and the district, both in listening to
community desires and in building collaborative and transparent relationships
with all stakeholders.
• It ensures fiscal solvency and legal and programmatic accountability.
The primary role of school boards remains to oversee and evaluate the role and work of
superintendents (Prezas, 2013). Aside from a supervisory capacity, there are no rules, mandates,
or expectations for school boards to nurture and foster meaningful two-way relationships (other
than through goal-focused collaborative efforts) with their superintendents, even though this
dynamic between the two entities can be considered vital and critical to the success of students
and public schools. Increased responsibilities with fiscal solvency, combined with increasing
expectations related to student achievement, are capturing the public’s attention and demanding
more effective school board governance (Tucker, 2010; Wong, 1995).
Effective School Boards
The district’s strategic governing team consists of the school board members and the
superintendent and is referred to the “leadership team” (CSBA, 2007). The team has divided
roles: The school board sets policy and provides leadership for change through vision, goals, and
politics; and the superintendent is empowered by the school board to manage the district. It is
important for school board members to know their roles well to accomplish the district’s goals.
According to the NSBA (2006), the school board and the superintendent have distinct differences
18

in their roles; however, they should own each other’s responsibilities. The board members
believe that functioning as a group and having shared goals, respect, and trust are indicators of
their effectiveness (Smoley, 1999).
The Center for Public Education (CPE; 2011) established a basis to support the claim that
effective school boards impact student achievement. The CPE identified characteristics of
effective school boards that were used by the NSBA in the development of the guidebook, Key
Work of School Boards. Effective school board members:
• Are aware of school improvement projects and for the most part are able to
describe actions being taken to improve student learning;
• Do not focus on external pressures as the main reason for lack of student success,
such as lack of parental support, societal factors, or lack of motivation;
• Offer positive comments about students and teachers;
• Do not micromanage the day-to-day operations of staff;
• Focus on the agenda process and the chain of command;
• Are included in the information flow, with sufficient communication between the
board and superintendent;
• Encourage parent interest in education;
• Use of data from a “supportive” perspective, describing teachers, students, and
families as major reasons for high performance;
• Are able to define a vision;
• Hire a superintendent who agree with their vision and mission of the district; and
• Receive professional development together.
19

Challenges to Effective School Boards
In the ongoing societal changes in the 21st century, school boards have juggled diverse
and changing conditions surrounding public school districts. The modern era of accountability in
education engenders a great responsibility to assure that the district makes progress in the area of
student achievement. The movement to higher standards, such as career- and college-ready
standards or the Common Core learning have forced school boards to examine just how a school
district can create and sustain high levels of achievement for all students. Under Common Core’s
accountability provisions, school boards have found themselves in the position of approving
resources necessary to be successful such as good curricula aligned to Common Core, good
learning materials for staff and students, and staff development to help staff teach and to keep
parents and community informed. In light of the recent education reforms, school boards are
faced with initiating dramatic changes to address students’ needs to achieve adequate yearly
progress. School board effectiveness is now measured largely in terms of success in increasing
student achievement (D. Campbell & Greene, 1994; Ward & Griffin, 2005). The mechanics of
school improvement are complicated—more so for school board members, most of whom have
no prior experience with schools or education reform (Hess & Meeks, 2011). Only 13% of
school board members come from an educational background (Maeroff, 2010). This factor
means that most board school board members do not possess a strong understanding of schools
at the onset of service; however, a recent study suggests that noneducators are often more
effective school board members and bring a wider perspective to the role than former educators
(Shober & Hartney, 2014).
Today’s school boards are faced with changes in demographics. The Institute for
Educational Leadership (2001) recognized the increased noninstructional needs of a growing
20

percentage of the school-age population. According to Petersen and Fusarelli (2001), 1 in 4
children live in poverty, and the gap between rich and poor is increasing. Additionally, the Latino
population in the United States has increased at a rate 5 times that of non-Latino Whites
(Petersen & Fusarelli, 2001). Due to these dramatic changes, school boards must make quick
decisions to adopt appropriate curricula, institute bilingual instruction, and increase
noninstructional resources to address linguistic and cultural differences (Land 2002). School
accountability has also increased. Constituents want more involvement (Resnick, 1999) as
parents, community members, special interest groups, and advocacy organizations demand
equity in high-quality instruction and a rigorous curriculum for all students. These various
constituent groups may cause fragmentation in school district decision making and board
agendas (Kirst, 2008). The recent involvement of the Gates Foundation and the Council for
Exceptional Children has added external influences to school board deliberations. In addition,
school board members find themselves pressured between growing federal mandates,
congressional legislation, special interest groups, community demands, and local collective
bargaining contracts (Kirst, 2008). School boards may have less authority to make decisions, yet
are held increasingly accountable for student performance (Mountford, 2008).
In the past few years, school boards have struggled with balancing budgets in the middle
of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression (Brookings Institution, 2009).
Superintendents reported a financial crisis along with unprecedented reductions in an effort to
balance district budgets. Besides these challenges, ongoing threats to funding have also come in
the form of charter schools, vouchers, tuition tax credits, contracting out to educational
management organizations, and a reinvigorated home school movement (Petersen & Fusarelli,
2001).
21

Over the past few decades, the increase in charter school enrollment is likely to create
negative pressure on school districts in urban areas (Moody’s Investors Service, 2013). School
board members may continue to make budget cuts—a situation that often results in demoralized
employees, loss of vital instructional programs, and community dissatisfaction.
The school boards also face trouble at home. This, perhaps, is the greatest challenge for
school board members: to maintain a sense of public unanimity and consensus throughout the
functions of the governance. Danzberger (1994) explained that school boards commonly appear
as dysfunctional due to internal conflicts among school board members, an inability for them to
set a vision or direction for the school district, and a lack of understanding concerning the
board’s role. Board members describe the difficulty of unifying the individual members of the
school board as a collective group (Danzberger et al., 1992). This challenge often manifests itself
as a lack of cohesiveness, unity, and discretion in boards’ decision making. These factors may
impact school board members by bringing a negative or single-issue orientation to their service
that may also impede board unanimity (Mountford & Brunner, 2001).
Clearly, school boards and superintendents lead in dynamic contexts (Björk, 2008; Kirst,
2008). To continue their credibility as a governing authority, school boards may need to both
reexamine their role within the current educational context and modify themselves accordingly
(Kirst, 1994).
History and Role of the Superintendent
The role of the superintendent has undergone many changes over the last 2 decades
(Giaquinto, 2010). Since the 19th century, the position has become more complex and dynamic
(Glass, 2000). According to Kowalski (2013), it was not until the mid-1800s when urban school
districts began to create the position of superintendent as a means to manage the operations of
22

schools. The first superintendent position created was in Buffalo, New York, in 1837 (Brunner,
Grogan, & Björk, 2002). Kowalski (2008) suggested that this position was initially created to
perform clerical duties but later transformed into a position of management and leadership as a
result of day-to-day problems that overwhelmed schools in the areas of finance, recruitment, and
performance management of teachers, bargaining associations, curriculum, and facilities. These
operational needs necessitated hiring a full-time individual to manage the daily operations and
responsibilities of the school district (R. P. Campbell, 2001). The rapid growth in numbers of
students, especially in urban areas, was a major contributing factor to the creation of the
superintendent position. As the numbers increased, the amount of time and effort demanded from
school board members who volunteered to serve in this role increased as well (Institute for
Educational Leadership, 2001). Therefore, the need for the creation of the superintendent
position became a necessity to alleviate the pressure on board members.
Today, the role of the school superintendent is one of the most demanding roles to carry
out in urban public-school education (Williams, 2010). Superintendents continue to manage the
increasing demands and pressures of today’s challenges in education, such as ever-changing
mandates, restrictive policies, inequitable school funding, closing the achievement gap, a decline
in enrollment, changes in demographics, and high-stakes accountability (Lofton, 2010).
Superintendents face pressures from groups such as social and youth organizations; civic groups;
universities and colleges; corporate leaders; local communities; unions; teachers and staff; and
local, state, and federal government agencies that demand attention and focus on their interests
(Lofton, 2010; Wissler & Ortiz, 1988).
Kowalski et al. (2011) further described the role of the superintendent and broke it down
into five categories: (a) “teacher scholar (seen as thought leader in effective teaching, pedagogy,
23

knowledge of curriculum, and professional accomplishments)”; (b) “business manager (focused
on the logistical, fiscal, and operational aspects of running a school district)”; (c) “democratic
leader (skilled in the area of democratic leadership to solicit and influence political support for
public education)”; (d) “applied social scientist (able to study and analyze socio-related issues
affecting schools through the application of observation and data)”; and (e) “communicator (able
to be a collaborative and effective communicator to convey the needs and goals of the
organization to all stakeholders involved)” (pp. 17–24).
Because this study will focus on school board members in southern California, it is
imperative to understand the rules and guidelines regarding the superintendent’s role under the
California Education Code Section 35035 (2017), which states the duties of the superintendent as
follows:
The superintendent of each school district shall, in addition to other powers and duties
granted to or imposed upon him or her:
(a) Be the chief executive officer of the governing board of the school district.
(b) Except in a school district where the governing board has appointed or designated
an employee other than the superintendent, or a deputy, or assistant
superintendent, to prepare and submit a budget, prepare and submit to the
governing board of the school district, at the time it may direct, the budget of the
school district for the next ensuing school year, and revise and take other action in
connection with the budget as the governing board of the school district may
desire.
(c) Be responsible for the preparation and submission to the governing board of the
school district, at the time the governing board may direct, the local control and
24

accountability plan of the school district for the subsequent school year, and revise
and take other action in connection with the local control and accountability plan
as the governing board of the school district may desire.
(d) Except in a school district where the governing board has appointed or designated
an employee other than the superintendent, or a deputy, or assistant
superintendent, ensure that the local control and accountability plan is
implemented.
(e) Subject to the approval of the governing board of the school district, assign all
employees of the school district employed in positions requiring certification
qualifications to the positions in which they are to serve. This power to assign
includes the power to transfer a teacher from one school to another school at
which the teacher is certificated to serve within the school district when the
superintendent concludes that the transfer is in the best interest of the school
district.
(f) Upon adoption by the school district board of a school district policy concerning
transfers of teachers from one school to another school within the school district,
have authority to transfer teachers consistent with that policy.
(g) Determine that each employee of the school district in a position requiring
certification qualifications has a valid certificated document registered as required
by law authorizing him or her to serve in the position to which he or she is assigned.
(h) Enter into contracts for and on behalf of the school district pursuant to Section
17064.

25

(i) Submit financial and budgetary reports to the governing board of the school
district as required by Section 42130. (paras. 1–10)
A review of the California Education Code (2017) for the position indicates that the
expectations of performance for superintendents in the state of California are highly complex and
diverse. These expectations fall in line with many of the highlighted expectations and demands
placed upon superintendents discussed in this literature review, although it must be noted that not
included in these rules and guidelines were the political demands and relational dynamics that
come with the position. These demands only add layers of complexity to this intricate and
complex role and position.
Relationship Between the School Board and the Superintendent
An important factor in school governance is the relationship between the school board
and the superintendent (McAdams, 2006). According to Reeves (2006), the superintendent’s
success depends on his or her ability to work with the school board. Reeves stated that the
relationship between both parties is a delicate dynamic, and people who have knowledge about
this subject place the relationship or understanding of their individual roles as being among the
most crucial factors. Research suggests that the type of relationship between the school board
and the superintendent has a direct impact on student achievement (Alsbury, 2008; Delagardelle,
2015). Marzano and Waters (2009) confirmed this view by indicating that the quality of the
relationship between the two directly influences student achievement. The NSBA (2018)
identified relationships between the superintendent and the school board as one of six key drivers
directly influencing the quality of education received by students of their respective districts.
According to R. H. Goodman and Zimmerman (2000), when the school board and
superintendent establish mutual support and collaboration, they can become an effective
26

leadership team. As a result, they can focus on their roles such as increasing student
achievement, providing PD for staff, and addressing community needs; student-focused policy
development; strategic planning; progress toward goals; and fiscal solvency. An effective
relationship between both will affect the quality of governance success more than any other
factor involved (Kimball, 2005).
School boards employ only one employee: the district school superintendent (Shelton,
2010). When school boards consider the selection of a superintendent, they define a specific job
description that covers roles and responsibilities, and they also must consider the necessary
competencies that they believe the superintendent will need to lead their school district.
Ultimately, the responsibility to hire the right superintendent is the school board’s responsibility
(Lofton, 2010). Consequently, it is imperative that school boards develop quality relationships
with the superintendents, especially the ones they hired, by collaborating toward common goals
built on a foundation of mutual respect and trust. In addition, the school board members are the
evaluators of the superintendent; therefore, it is imperative that a solid relationship is established
between them (R. H. Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000). A formal evaluation essentially supports
the retention, extension, or expiration of a superintendent’s contract, along with any possible
increases in compensation (Gore, 2016). Thus, the superintendent’s evaluation process can be
considered a great stressor for superintendents and a contributing factor to the quality of
superintendent–school board relationships (Cartier & Cunningham, 1997; DiPaola, 2010). It is
critical to understand that school board members may consider certain factors and essential
information for the evaluation of the superintendent based on personal experiences, how they see
themselves in the role they serve, and how they see themselves in the relationship between the
school board and the superintendent (Gore, 2016). Shober and Hartney (2014) further supported
27

the factor that other characteristics, such as the prior employment history as well as the political
and religious views of school board members, may affect the perspectives and issues they
consider when carrying out a superintendent evaluation. It must be acknowledged that the
superintendent evaluation process can provide an excellent opportunity to analyze all aspects of
the quality of the relationship between school boards and superintendents. During this time, an
opportunity can be provided to study and reflect upon such aspects as relational perceptions,
roles, dynamics, and mutual expectations between both parties so that these can be identified,
considered, and clarified (Gore, 2016).
One particular aspect that contributes to the overall quality of the superintendent
evaluation and the relationship between superintendents and school boards is the lack of
preparation and PD by school boards to establish a quality evaluation process (DiPaola &
Strange, 2003). School boards generally develop and establish the evaluation process and the
instruments they utilize as part of the rights that come with local control. Unfortunately, board
members have historically received little to no PD and preparation in developing a high-quality
evaluation process with appropriate instruments, thus potentially creating huge ramifications for
the relationship between school boards and superintendents (Robedee, 2010).
It is especially crucial that the school board and the superintendent establish and
demonstrate effective relationships in the presence of the public to demonstrate unity due to the
volatile and unpredictable political climate (Williams, 2010). Establishing an effective
relationship is challenging for both parties, because their roles and responsibilities are different
(Gore, 2016). The divergent agendas such as prioritizing facilities, accountability measures over
student learning outcomes, or personal agendas of the school board and the superintendent can
28

harm and challenge their relationship (Patterson et al., 2006) while also demonstrating the
premise of dissatisfaction theory and Bolman and Deal’s (2008) frames.
Initially, it was difficult for school boards to hand over power and authority to
superintendents. The boards would often prefer to hire “yes men” who would essentially revert
school management back to the board upon hiring (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2001).
In today’s educational system, the responsibilities have grown to overwhelming proportions
because the role of superintendents has required them to become politicians, managers,
instructional leaders, and human resources managers for their respective public-school districts
(Monroe, 2005).
Throughout the years, the shift and description of roles have increased the demands for
superintendents to address the demands of the job, which have necessitated the establishment and
continuity of effective superintendent–board relationships (Giaquinto, 2010). As a result, it has
become one of their major responsibilities for superintendents to build and maintain strategically
significant relationships with their school boards for the purpose of securing the necessary
support to successfully implement change (Houston & Eadie, 2002). Ultimately, the work of
school boards and superintendents is highly interdependent and cannot be accomplished without
each other. Nonetheless, roles for each could not be more different, because working as a team
has required an understanding and respect for each of the roles they play and the establishment of
a collaborative plan to support it (A. K. Goodman, 2012).
Even though the nature of school politics and the relationships between superintendents
and local school board members has captured the interest of scholars since the early 19th century
(Björk & Lindle, 2001), any research produced on the relationships between superintendents and
school board members is highly useful and needed (Shelton, 2010). Effective school leaders
29

develop this relationship to form unity and a collaborative team. To establish and maintain high-
quality relationships between both entities, it is critical that all have a clear understanding of one
another’s roles and responsibilities. Merrins (2010) stated that a clear understanding of the
respective roles and responsibilities by both parties will support effective and successful
relationships between them. To establish and maintain good superintendent–school board
relationships is difficult because foundations for strong relationships, like all relationships, are
built on strong collaboration and mutual trust (Barth, 2011). Even though it is possible for
superintendents to have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities by providing their
expert knowledge, such as curriculum development, testing, special education, and school
reform, challenges continue to exist (Gore, 2016). Glass et al. (2000) suggested that the public
thinks of the superintendent as the expert on all school matters; that the school boards look to the
superintendent for expert advice on teaching curriculum, testing, special education, and school
reforms; and that good leadership will result in peace and harmony in the district. The
superintendent is hired by the school board to lead the school district; the issue of leadership is at
the core of any discussion on school superintendents.
School Board Training
The review of literature indicates that the behavior of school board members and the
consequences of their actions considerably impact the longevity of a superintendent’s tenure and
the rate of superintendent turnover (A. K. Goodman, 2012; Hess, 2007; Kamrath, 2007; Melver,
2011). This dynamic presents the possibility of further research and analysis on the value and
efficacy that training and PD for school board members bring to the quality of the relationship
between them and superintendents (Halik, 2012). Houston and Eadie (2002) noted that school
boards that plan to set clear, detailed performance standards and targets for themselves tend to do
30

a better job of governing than school boards that avoid self-monitoring. What it takes for school
board members to lead effectively has been a focus of attention in the literature. Areas of
leadership that involve improving student achievement include participating in professional
development in the area of community relations; attracting and retaining quality board members;
attracting, preparing, and retaining quality educators to be superintendents; and engaging in
superintendent–school board PD opportunities (R. H. Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000).
Recent studies have demonstrated the need for school board members, regardless of their
level of experience or tenure, to receive training and PD precisely because of the benefits to their
performance (Pollard, 2012; P. L. Rice, 2010). Anderson and Snyder (2001) contended that many
school board members are leaders but few have ever had training that specifically targets the
multifaceted and demanding leadership roles required of school boards. In the United States,
board members have higher incomes and are better educated than the average American (Hess,
2002; Nylander, 2007). These assumptions could lead the public to an assumption that school
board members come to their positions prepared for the leadership responsibilities of their
position. However, Anderson and Snyder indicated that board members of any demographic are
not necessarily informed about the complexities of governing a school district. For instance,
school boards that have struggled have not had systems in place for decision making, such as
how to vote on agenda items when a quorum is routinely not met (Delagardelle, 2006; D. Rice et
al., 2000).
A trained school board does not necessarily guarantee good governance, but training
almost always improves a school board and can sometimes make a great board (McAdams,
2003). According to the Education Policy and Leadership Center’s (2004) report, the work of
31

school boards could be strengthened if all board members were required to participate
periodically in PD.
The stakeholders expect the school board to understand and operate under numerous
local, state, and federal regulations and to manage complicated public school financial systems
and budgets, while effectively ensuring and securing high achievement for the students in their
districts (Gore, 2016). With all of these pressures and responsibilities, it is understandable that
school board members have little time to consider and reflect on behaviors and actions and how
these could impact the quality of relationships with their superintendent, or how training and PD
could improve their performance in the process (A. K. Goodman, 2012).
Although many school board members have previously held leadership positions in
varying capacities, few if any, have had the necessary training and preparation that fully prepares
them for the multidimensional responsibilities that come with the position (Anderson & Snyder,
2001). All that is required of prospective school board members is to be registered to vote, to
maintain a local residence, and not to have any felony convictions. Aside from these
requirements, no prerequisites, qualifications, or necessity for background knowledge exists
(Gore, 2016).
There are professional associations that provide training programs for school board
members. For example, the CSBA provides comprehensive training programs for school board
members and superintendents on their roles and responsibilities (Glass et al., 2000; Hess &
Meeks, 2010). Nevertheless, California is one of 26 states that do not require school board
training or development (National School Board Foundation, 2001). Boards are offered training
through the CSBA, most notably through the MIG program that started in the 1990s. Over 2,000
school board members and superintendents have received training and development on key
32

content areas of school board governance including finance, human resources, education law,
and community relations (CSBA, 2018b). What is not covered through the MIG training at the
school board level is development for internal communication strategies or decision-making
protocols such as Robert’s Rules of Order (as cited in Griffin, 1951); and strength, weakness,
opportunity, and threat (SWOT) analyses (Fine, 2009). Such protocols establish norms to ensure
that school board meetings adhere to agenda items, prohibit side conversations, and focus to
meet stated outcomes. They may also establish an operating culture for the school board where
ideas are respectfully probed and challenged and/or conflicts are resolved. The research shows
SWOT analyses demonstrate results in change management in corporate sectors as well as the
educational sector at the school-site level (Khoboli & O’Toole, 2012; Roach et al., 2009;
Salamati et al., 2014). Few of the training resources addressed the processes required for
sustainability. Moreover, 1to 2-day sporadic training sessions can present only a limited amount
of information.
Mountford (2004) interviewed 20 board members from rural to urban districts and found
that board members and superintendents needed dedicated time to examine the impact on
relationships from personal values and agendas. Land (2002) showed that the highest performing
school districts had established processes to make decisions on key district matters. It is those
processes that must be addressed through trainings. However, the time and money investment
required of board members presents challenges, and board member turnover jeopardizes the
continuity of the knowledge that board members receive during their tenure.
33

Theoretical Frameworks and Models
Four Frames
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) organizational frames provide a framework to analyze school
board governance. The frames provide an analysis of an organization’s leadership structure or
strategic planning processes as well as an understanding of factors that lead to organizational
successes and challenges. The authors contended that effective managers and leaders not only are
aware of the four frames but also know of when to reframe based on the situation. Bolman and
Deal (2003) explained: “They reframe until they understand the situation at hand. They do this
by using more than one frame, or perspective, to develop both a diagnosis of what they are up
against and strategies for moving forward” (p. 15).
The structural frame indicates how board members make policy decisions and examines
how board members and superintendents perceive their roles and responsibilities as well as
establish practices, such as how order is maintained during meetings and how disagreements are
resolved. Bolman and Deal (2013) defined the structural leadership framework or perspective as
a leadership style that focuses on strategy, structure, implementation, adaptation, environment,
and experimentation. Leaders who follow this framework often tend to think clearly and
logically, particularly when it comes to developing goals and policies (Kline & Saunders, 1998).
Bolman and Deal (2013) noted that leaders who exhibit structural leadership often do not hesitate
to hold people accountable for results. Therefore, in light of this theory, school board members
should assess and identify individuals responsible for declining performance at the district as
well as any emerging tension between individuals.
The political frame is a leadership style that mainly focuses on coalition and building
(Schein, 2013; Senge et al., 2012). This frame shows how positional power supersedes the other
34

frames; addresses how decisions are influenced by relationships with other board members, the
superintendent, or constituents; and informs the degree to which public opinion influences both
decision making and relationships at the school board level.
Moreover, the political perspective aims to bridge the communication gap between the
conflicting parties with the organization (Sheninger, 2014; Sutton & Rao, 2014). In light of this
perspective, organizations are viewed as places where various individuals and interest groups
compete for power and limited resources. The competition results in conflict and the formation
of collations based on special interests. For instance, the competition and differences in tactics
among board members may result in conflict. This situation, in turn, results in individuals at the
district or community level forming sides, with some supporting one board member while some
are supporting others. Because the board members work together immediately after their
appointment, they should be in a position to independently discuss with the superintendent the
main challenges they are facing in the course of their duties. In essence, communicating with the
superintendent separately would enable them to get honest opinion from him or her. After
ascertaining the roots of the conflict among board members, the superintendent should consider
advocating for a leadership approach that he or she believes would be successful in managing the
district. As political leaders, the board members should put their interests aside and summon the
superintendent to adjust the leadership approach that they believe is appropriate for the district.
The human resource frame is a leadership style that focuses on supporting, advocating,
and empowering people. This leadership style could also play a significant role in solving the
emerging conflict between individuals as well as addressing the increasing poor performance and
indiscipline cases at the district (Gladis & Goldsmith, 2013; Schein, 2013; Schmoker, 2011).
35

Supporters of this frame such as Burns (2010) and Bush (2011) have indicated that human
resource leaders believe in people and communicate that belief. The human resource model of
leadership views the organization is an extended family that comprises individuals with their
own needs, styles, needs, and preferences. Therefore, as noted by Burns (2010), it is the work of
leaders to listen, motivate, coach, develop strong interpersonal relationships, and empower
people. For instance, the board members must empower and provide adequate support to the
superintendent. Another example is that if the board members seem to be very passive when it
comes to overseeing the superintendent, the situation may result in each individual
demonstrating different tactics, which, in turn, result in a conflict between the board members
and superintendent and the staff as well. Consequently, the increasing conflicts within the staff
seem to be affecting the district negatively, as the performance of the district may decline
significantly. The board members should strive to identify the best tactic and plan that best
reflect the interest of the majority of staff members at the district. Besides, they should also
ensure that the chosen approach is capable of improving the performance of the students.
Accordingly, the arising conflict could be best described using the Douglas McGregor’s
theory X and theory Y (as cited in Bolman & Deal, 2013). Specifically, theory Y tends to treat
each worker in an organization as a mature and responsible individual. In light of the human
resource frame, board members should be capable of treating the superintendent as an individual
capable of demonstrating accountability and transparency when it comes to the operational
management of the district. Therefore, they should direct the superintendent to work
collaboratively to help the district to achieve its goals. On the other hand, Maxwell (2013) noted
that it is through the human resource perspective that leaders express their emotional
intelligence. In line with the human resource frame, board members should not be influenced by
36

their interests. Instead, they should demonstrate their emotional intelligence by not letting their
personal preference for any individual affect their decision to empower and advocate for the
most appropriate leadership approach suitable for instilling discipline and closing the
achievement gap.
According to Bolman and Deal (2008), the symbolic frame promotes ideas via the
decisions that an organization makes, the values it projects, and the visions and symbols that it
shares. As school board members carry out policy development, fiduciary matters, and selection
and termination of the superintendent, their decisions in effect become part of the symbolic
frame. A vote for hiring a superintendent symbolizes trust; a vote to keep pathways, such as
robotics in the secondary schools, symbolizes support for the science; a vote for the school
budget symbolizes judiciary accountability; and a vote for a new bargaining agreement
symbolizes collaboration. Thus, the school board itself serves as a symbol of something—local
democracy, citizen control, accountability, or a governance structure. In summary, the symbolic
frame places meaning on and predictability for what is considered a disordered world. Leaders
who are dominant in the symbolic frame are attentive to ceremony, ritual, and stories.
The work of the symbolic school of organizational theorists, Cohen and March (1974), is
an important background to these views. Leaders who use the symbolic frame see their role as
catalysts or facilitators of ongoing processes. The meanings are not to seen as given but rather
are created in the organization. Culture is seen as the glue that, by bonding the people, helps the
organization to fulfill its vision. Vision as shared fantasy turns the organization’s sense of
purpose toward the future. The leaders who adhere to this frame attempt to create meanings by
influencing the culture in subtle ways. Stories, artefacts, rituals, and ceremonies serve as an
37

important function in meaning creation. The symbolic leader perceives that the spirit is the
essence of high performance (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
School board members who demonstrate the symbolic leadership frame are those who
adopt the task of identity building—promotion of identity change at both the superintendent and
district levels. The adopted task, however, is seen to be difficult and even frustrating. With
respect to the success of the district, it will be much more dependent on that the community in its
entirety being more responsible for it. The board members have a difficult task of convincing all
members of the district community to see the importance of shared success. Detaching
individuals from the traditional idea of divided expertise is challenging. The board members’
main tools for identity building are communicating and creating a working atmosphere that
would support staff members’ courage to undertake new trials and joint responsibility. The old
ways of leading the district should be abolished in order to build a district where board members
can jointly work toward the goals set by themselves and integrate effective leadership practices
for the district community. Board members’ symbolic, frame-related comments are evidence of
their personal level belief that meaning in the organization is constructed on the individual level
and that this idea should be taken into account when choosing the way and language for
discussing district matters with different audiences. The board members may exercise the
symbolic frame to promote a common language across the entire district to build coalition to
ultimately close the achievement gap.
IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry
A research study called the Lighthouse Project, conducted by the IASB (D. Rice et al.,
2000) is now reaching its 20th year of an effort to identify a link between school board
leadership and student achievement. This project, along with other current research, has
38

identified several differences between high- and low-achieving school districts. A compilation of
this research (Bartusek, 2000; LaMonte & Delagardelle, 2009; Marzano & Waters, 2009)
indicates that school boards from high-achieving schools have the following in common:
1. They have clear goals;
2. Board members have high expectations for students and staff;
3. A positive and productive culture exists with school leadership; and
4. Board members work collaboratively with the superintendent, parents, and
stakeholders to improve engagement and information sharing.
The study’s purpose was to identify links between school boards and student
achievement. Prior to this study, little was known about the effect that school boards had on
students’ learning outcomes. To formally document differences in student achievement, the IASB
collaborated with the Council for School Improvement and the Georgia School Boards
Association to identify high-achieving and low-achieving districts to include in the Lighthouse
study (D. Rice et al., 2000).
Six districts were selected based on their comparability to one another as well as to
schools in Iowa. Over a period of time, the IASB research team studied school board–
superintendent teams in districts with sustained levels of low and high student achievement. The
study indicated that school boards in high-achieving schools were significantly different than
those found in low-achieving schools. The Council for School Improvement ensured that the
differences were not a product of student demographics:
The high-achieving schools accomplished more in comparison with schools serving
similar populations and in comparison with schools in the state as a whole. In addition,
information collected during the interviews indicated relative consistency in terms of the
39

occupation, demographics, and personal history of participants. (D. Rice et al., 2000, p.
5)
High-achieving school districts were found to hold an uplifting view of students, while
low-achieving school districts felt limited by the characteristics of their districts. Those schools
identified by their high achievement were led by individuals that continually sought
opportunities for positive improvements. Those struggling focused their work on management of
the current system rather than change (D. Rice et al., 2000).
Another difference was found in the way that low- and high-achieving school districts
faced an effort toward improvement. School board members in high-achieving districts were
knowledgeable of the conditions and topics necessary for school renewal. They were able to
describe initiatives for improvement in their districts and had a clear understanding of goals,
curriculum, instruction, assessment, and staff development. In contrast, low-achieving schools
had boards that seldom described actions taken in their district toward improvement or what role
the board had in those action steps. Knowledge of improvement strategies was represented in the
buildings and classrooms of high-achieving districts, with staff having the ability to link building
and district goals. The same situation was not found in low-achieving schools, where staff
members were unable to draw connections across the district (D. Rice et al., 2000).
Similarities were found among both the high-achieving and low-achieving districts. All
school board members and superintendents seemed to care about doing what was right for
children. They agreed that amicable relationships existed between the superintendent and the
board of education and that school boards were satisfied with their superintendents. The majority
of school board members and staff had close ties to their districts, with approximately 75% to
80% having grown up in the district, adjacent county, or region. All districts felt tension about
40

equity and continuity among different school sites in the district and had not been successful in
closing the achievement gap for students with special needs (D. Rice et al., 2000).
The Lighthouse research did conclude that the beliefs and presence of the seven
conditions of the board members for implementing productive change were different in high-
achieving and low-achieving districts. The seven conditions identified as essential for school
renewal were the following: (a) “Emphasis on Building a Human Organizational System,” (b)
“Ability to Create and Sustain Initiatives,” (c) “Supportive Workplace for Staff,” (d) “Staff
Development,” (e) “Supports for School Sites through Data and Information,” (f) “Continuous
Involvement,” and (g) “Integrated Leadership” (D. Rice et al., 2000, p. 7).
The view of students and knowledge of improvement focus appeared to be systemwide
and was an integral component of the district culture. School boards could be linked to productive
change, but with change comes challenges (D. Rice et al., 2000).
The Lighthouse Inquiry recommended board training to increase content knowledge of
district issues, to improve community communication with constituents, and to develop systems
to create and sustain reform efforts. Training might focus on norms and processes of decision
making, such as asking clarifying objective questions. Increased decision-making capacity could
strengthen board member–superintendent relationships—for example, lessening the time that
superintendents provide information to board members or time lost during closed session
meetings that may include mostly off-topic conversations. Improved relationships would lessen
superintendent turnover attributed to challenges with the school board (D. Rice et al., 2000).
CSBA’s MIG Training
In 2006 the CSBA developed the Effective Governance Series, which illustrates CSBA’s
insights into effective governance (CSBA, 2018a). Since its beginning, the series has been
41

revised to the following responsibility areas: (a) foundation of effective governance and setting
direction, (b) policy and judicial review for student learning and achievement, (c) school finance
(d) human resources and collective bargaining, (e) community relations and advocacy and
governance integration, (CSBA, 2018a). The CSBA recommends that school boards focus on these
governance responsibilities for effective district governance.
In summary, the frameworks of Bolman and Deal (2008), the IASB’s Lighthouse study
(D. Rice et al., 2000), and CSBA (2007) provide guidance for the issue of school governance and
school board members and a unique perspective in defining effective school board governance.
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) multi-frame orientation produces the most effective leaders, and their
theories of leadership effectiveness and style have contributed greatly to a broader and more
inclusive understanding of leadership behavior. The IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (D. Rice et al.,
2000) indicates that school boards in high-achieving districts are significantly different in their
knowledge and beliefs than school boards in low achieving districts. Finally, the Effective
Governance Series (CSBA, 2007) provides training and support for identifying and developing
the roles, responsibilities, and setting of the school board.
Chapter Summary
The current political climate is causing an extraordinary paradigm shift in education that
affects school districts of all sizes throughout the country. These changes also influence the
governance and function of local school boards. “Unique developments have dramatically altered
or ‘flattened’ the environment in which school boards operate, breaking their monopoly on
public education within their boundaries, further loosening their already tenuous grip on policy,
and empowering citizens, parents, and staff members” (Boyd, 2007, p. xv). This transference of
power presents many challenges to local school boards as pressure mounts toward an increase in
42

board accountability and transparency while at the same time calling for boards to address
concerns regarding student achievement and school funding.
While the research shared throughout this paper may seem to indicate that school board
members of today need to become educational experts with an astute interest in micromanaging
district affairs, this is not the case. School board members do, however, need to be motivated and
willing to learn about the existing needs of all their district’s students and at the same time work
to develop an adequate level of understanding regarding the conditions that support effective and
quality school improvement. The historic assumptions and traditional practices of many boards
may need to change to adapt to current findings if they hope to make a more positive impact on
student learning within their schools. “The willingness of boards to evolve, to adapt, to develop
their own capacity for leadership will dictate the extent of their health and longevity” (Williams-
Boyd, 2002, p. 73). Board members can be dynamic and productive members of a strong and
effective school team when their efforts are focused and their skills are utilized to support the
efforts of the superintendent, teachers, and students.
Compounding these issues is the fact that many states, including California, do not
mandate training for board members. Given the limited access to school board members, there is
little research on the effects of training (specifically on decision-making processes) on student
achievement. The current study should inform PD opportunities for board members and
superintendents by providing insight into what factors influence the decision-making process as
well as highlighting conditions that lead to successes and challenges in school board governance.

43

Chapter Three: Research Methodology
This study was designed to contribute to the understanding of how the MIG training for
school board members affects student achievement, school governance, and the decision of
school board members to participate in the training program. As described in the previous
chapter, there are changing expectations and laws as well as pressures within the new
accountability context for school board members and school districts, all of which pose a threat to
district stability and reform. The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board
training improved the relationship between school boards and superintendents, improved the
effectiveness of school board governance, 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 decision of school board
members and superintendents to participate in the MIG training and the impact on school
governance and student achievement. This chapter describes the research design, including
sampling, selection process, instrumentation, and data collection, and the plan to link the data to
a useful analysis. Three research questions guided this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
44

Research Design
A qualitative study approach was selected to address the three research questions. The
advantage of a qualitative study is that it allows for flexibility and adaptability when undertaking
research so that a study can be adapted and tailored in response to emerging issues and problems
(Patton, 2002). It also provides the opportunity to collaborate with participants and to include
them as an active part of the research process. For these reasons, qualitative research was the
most appropriate methodology for the study.
The research team consisted of 20 doctoral candidates from the Rossier School of
Education of the University of Southern California (USC), under the leadership of Dr. Michael
Escalante. For the data collection, school boards and superintendents completed separate surveys
that presented fixed-choice questions. Due to the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19
pandemic, interviews were conducted via Zoom
™
by the cohort with current school board
members who met the eligibility criteria and who agreed to participate in the study. Surveys of
school boards and superintendents, structured interviews of school board members and
superintendents, and research data regarding school district characteristics and performance
assisted in triangulating the data. The instruments were designed collaboratively by the research
team, aligned with the three research questions, and directly correlated with the theoretical
frameworks: the four-frame model for effective leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2017), the IASB’s
Lighthouse Inquiry study (D. Rice et al., 2000), and CSBA’s (2018a) effective governance
standards.
Zoom interviews were conducted with each participant at a time mutually agreed upon by
the participant and researcher. A strong emphasis was placed upon creating a safe place for
participants to share the experiences and perceptions that come with serving as a school board
45

member. This process also provided triangulation of sources, as the same individuals participated
at different points in time (Patton, 2002). According to Creswell et al. (2007), in qualitative
research case studies are used for developing a deeper understanding of the topic or providing
insights and geared toward developing a greater understanding of a phenomenon. Therefore, the
two instruments (surveys and interviews) were used to enlist the participation and self-reflective
perspectives of school board members and superintendents as part of the qualitative inquiry.
Two surveys (one for school board members and one for superintendents) with fixed-
choice questions were emailed to all school board members and superintendents in 12 California
counties: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura. The survey questions for board members
and superintendents were similar but addressed their perspectives on the topic of research. For
example, school board members were asked to respond to the statement, “After participating in
California School Board Association training, I am better prepared for my roles and
responsibilities as a school board member”; and superintendents were asked to respond to the
statement, “After participating in California School Board Association training, my school board
member is better prepared for their roles and responsibilities.”
Survey data allowed for presentation of the findings in aggregate form. As part of the
qualitative descriptive design, structured interview protocols were developed with the intent to
understand the training program, its processes, and outcomes. School board members and
superintendents of three districts surveyed participated in structured interviews. Data collected
through the interviews provided an understanding of the impact of governance training on school
board members and superintendents, the willingness of board members and superintendents to
participate in the MIG training, and the impact of school board governance on student
46

achievement. For example, questions that asked participants to list training received and to
reflect on how that training impacted practice provided information on how the participants’
practice had been shaped by training. Additional questions were designed to identify individuals’
perceived PD needs as school board members. Questions that probed board members’ needs and
interests in training, as well as those that seek justification for initial and continuing training,
were also included. The latter were designed both to gauge interests for future training and to
elicit a detectable response from participants as they justified the necessity of this type of PD for
school board members.
School Districts and Participation
The students of the doctoral cohort were provided, in a Microsoft Excel
™
format, with a
list of all school districts in California with the contact information for their superintendents.
Purposeful sampling was used in selecting the counties and consequently the school boards and
superintendents to participate in the study. Patton (2002) described the deliberate, or
nonprobability, method selection of interview participants as purposive sampling. Participants in
this study were selected in a nonrandom fashion based on (a) their service in a California public
K-12 school district, (b) being from one of 12 California counties, (c) their availability and
willingness to participate, and (d) a majority of the district’s school board members having
completed at least three out of five MIG training modules. These selection factors corresponded
with three cases of purposive sampling described respectively by Patton as (a) criterion, (b)
maximum variation, and (c) convenience. School districts with public elementary, unified, union
school districts, county offices of education within the 12 counties with a majority of school
board members who had participated in MIG training were considered.
47

Instrumentation
The interview protocols and surveys used in this study were developed by the students of
the doctoral cohort led by Dr. Michael Escalante, lead researcher and dissertation chair. The
intent of the interview questions and surveys was to collect data to specifically address the
research questions regarding how MIG training assisted school board members in effective
school governance, roles and responsible leadership, and effective leadership strategies.
Data Collection
The data collection process for the quantitative section began in the spring of 2020, with
a recruitment and information letter sent to school board members and superintendents
(Appendix A) and distribution of a school board member survey (Appendix B) and a
superintendent survey (Appendix C). The school board member interview guide (Appendix D)
and superintendent interview guide (Appendix E) were used for participants selected for
interviewing. The informed consent document for participants is contained in Appendix F. The
Question Alignment Matrix in Appendix G illustrates how the surveys and interview protocols
were aligned with the research questions.
Each student in the doctoral cohort identified his or her districts of choice and distributed
the survey to school board members who had been trained in the MIG program offered by the
CSBA. The survey was emailed to the respective superintendents and school board members
who received the MIG training and met the other established criteria for participation.
The interview format allowed for the use of multiple lenses, a constructivist approach, and close
collaboration between participant and interviewer (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Interviews were
conducted with selected participants at a time mutually agreed upon. A strong emphasis was
placed on explaining the purpose of the study before the interview began and creating a safe place
48

for the participant to share the experiences and perceptions that came with serving as a school
board member.
Data Analysis
The initial analysis of the interview data consisted of first listening to and transcribing the
recordings and then reviewing them in light of any notes made during the interviews. The
pertinent information on notepads was transcribed shortly after the interviews to avoid not
remembering some of the reasons for recording emerging items or interviewees’ comments.
Once the data were cleaned, review of the interview transcripts included coding the data
based on a priori codes. Emergent codes were developed and assigned along the way when a
priori codes did not adequately describe the data. The next step employed was to develop pattern
or umbrella codes for the group and to synthesize the data into more manageable chunks and
categories. Finally, an attempt was made to find patterns in the chunks and categories to develop
assertions and conclusions that addressed the original research questions.
The entire process could be portrayed as a triangle. Discrete data were contained at the
wide base of the triangle. The data were then consolidated, filtered, and refined upward into
themes and categories until they reached the vertex at the top of the triangle. The top of the
triangle represented a focused idea or assertion about the findings or answers to the research
question.
Survey items had been pre-coded to ensure that the items aligned with the framework(s)
and to the three research questions (Appendix G). A spreadsheet was designed to document the
relationships among survey items, research questions, and frameworks. In addition, response
codes set numerical values to assist with the data analysis.
49

Ethical Considerations
Ethics is an important element of quantitative studies and must be considered by all
researchers (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). There are multiple considerations for
ethical practice as researchers conduct their study (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). In the data collection process, one of the most critical considerations is obtaining
informed consent from participants at the beginning of the study (Creswell, 2013). Maxwell
(2013) suggested that consent is an ethical matter and must be considered to protect both
participants and the researcher. Therefore, the purpose and scope of the study were shared with
the participants.
In the data analysis process, an important ethical consideration was doing whatever one
can to prevent misstatements and misrepresentation (Patton, 2002). Given the time limitations for
this study, the information retrieved might have been inadequate to make meaningful
conclusions. Therefore, there were concerns about making misstatements or misrepresentations;
however, in developing patterns, themes, and conclusions, the falsifications did not occur.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Patton (2002) reasoned that credibility and trustworthiness are tied into four distinct
inquiry elements: systematic, in-depth fieldwork; systematic and conscientious analysis of data;
credibility of the inquirer; and a philosophical belief of readers and users in the value of
qualitative inquiry. The first three elements seem to be related to a researcher’s training and
experience, while the last element is a result of how well the first three elements are conducted. A
qualitative researcher could employ several strategies to support the four elements and,
ultimately, the credibility and trustworthiness of a qualitative research study (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, Patton 2002).
50

The study inherently allowed for triangulation of data sources. Interviews and surveys
were used. The data from these sources were cross-checked to support and refute ideas, thoughts,
patterns, themes, and assertions. A variety of data points from different sources allowed for the
formation of themes that, in turn, provided a certain level of confidence in the statements of
opinion (assertions). To develop data respondent validation and participant checks during
interviews, probing further with additional questions was used to clarify responses.
Chapter Summary
This chapter reviewed the purpose and research questions for the study. Research design,
population and sampling, instrumentation, and data collection and analysis procedures were
described. The surveys were designed to enable cross-referencing of data between school boards
and superintendents, while interviews allowed for triangulation. Interviews provided narrative
information for context. The design of the study was a nonexperimental descriptive survey to
identify insights related to attending the MIG training program from the perspectives of
California public school board members and their superintendents in 12 counties. All data
collection methods were approved by the USC IRB.

51

Chapter Four: Research Results
This chapter presents a qualitative descriptive study of school board members’ school
governance expertise through the MIG training offered in California by the CSBA. The MIG
training focuses on foundations of effective governance, policy and judicial review, school
finance, human resources, and community relationships (CSBA, 2018a).
The 21st century’s dynamic education environment has challenging implications for local
school boards and superintendents. Within California, school board members continue to
experience governance challenging, affecting over 6 million students in nearly 1,000 school
districts. The sense of urgency is rising around teaching and learning, with various stakeholders
demanding and expecting continuous improvement, substantial alternatives, and efficient
solutions to ongoing challenges such as poverty and limited resources. The school boards and
superintendents facing these persistent challenges are expected to close the achievement gap.
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. 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. Based on the literature review in Chapter Two,
information was obtained on the importance of school board members receiving training
regardless of their years of service as board members. The literature review revealed that some of
the MIG training modules were more beneficial for governance over the other modules.
According to the research, board members should receive training in topics that clarify the board
and superintendents’ roles and responsibilities (CSBA, 2018b; Glass et al., 2000; Hess & Meeks,
2010; Pollard, 2012; P. L. Rice, 2010). The survey questions focused on discovering which topics
52

board presidents and superintendents considered as being important. The researcher assessed
whether the training made a difference. According to the research, topics that boards should
receive training in should include the responsibilities of the board and the superintendent, policy
development, budget and finance, facilities, human resources and negotiations, superintendent
evaluation, accountability, school governance, and legislative issues—to name a few.
According to the leadership frameworks of Bolman and Deal (2008), the IASB’s
Lighthouse study (D. Rice et al., 2000) and the CSBA (2007) guided the issue of school
governance and school board members and provided a unique perspective in defining effective
school board governance. Bolman and Deal’s (2008) multi-frame orientation produces the most
influential leaders. These authors’ leadership effectiveness and style theories have contributed
significantly to a broader and more inclusive understanding of leadership behavior. The IASB’s
Lighthouse Inquiry (D. Rice et al., 2000) indicated that school boards in high-achieving districts
were significantly different in their knowledge and beliefs than school boards in low-achieving
districts. Finally, the Effective Governance Series (CSBA, 2018a) provides training and support
for identifying and developing the school board’s roles, responsibilities, and setting. To this end,
the literature review and leadership theories were considered, and school board members were
surveyed and interviewed. To assist in triangulating data, superintendents were surveyed and
interviewed.
This chapter presents and examines the findings of the study in reference to the research
questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
53

2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
3. Does the MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Using qualitative methods, this study aimed to investigate whether the MIG training
provided by CSBA provided participants with best practices for effective governance. Four
instruments, described in Chapter Three, were used in the collection of the data: (a) a School
Board Member Survey (Appendix B), (b) a Superintendent Survey (Appendix C), (c) an
Interview Guide for School Board Members (Appendix D), and an Interview Guide for
Superintendents (Appendix E).
Participants
The team of 20 doctoral candidates interviewed and surveyed participants from 12 counties
in the state of California. Each researcher selected three school districts that were determined to
meet the criteria outlined in Chapter Three.
The research team first surveyed 186 school board members and 62 superintendents. A
total of 62 superintendents completed the survey, and a total of 180 board members responded to
the survey (see Table 1). The next phase of the research included conducting interviews with two
or three school board members from each school district with their corresponding superintendents
(three) to collect data to examine their perceptions regarding the MIG training and its impact on
school governance and student achievement. The interviews were designed to collect more data
to address the three research questions.

54

Table 1
Summary of Participants

Participants

f

%

Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses

62

100
Interviews 62 100

Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses

180

97
Interviews 177 95

The researcher interviewed two to three school board members and their respective
superintendent, for a total of three superintendents and eight school board members (see Table
2). The three superintendents interviewed had been in their position for more than 2 years, and
the three school board members had served in their respective districts for more than 2 years. All
three of the superintendents had been in their roles for more than 4 years. Two of the school
districts were in Los Angeles County; the third was in Orange County. For this study, the districts
and superintendents are referred to as A, B, and C; school board members are referred to as A1,
A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, and C3.

55

Table 2
Number of Interviews Scheduled and Number Completed
Participants Interviews Scheduled Interviews Completed
Superintendents 3 3
Board Members 9 8
Totals 12 11

All three districts had a dedicated commitment to increasing all students’ achievement
and eliminating the achievement gap that existed in their districts at the time of the study. The
districts shared a common goal to develop all students’ skills and talents through rigorous
academic programs, a well-established wellness program, supportive resources and relationships,
and social justice at the forefront of all decisions. The emphasis was on teaching, instruction, and
setting high expectations for students. As a result, there were high expectations from the board
members, superintendent, and staff to develop strategies and policies to achieve the district’s
goals.
Two of the districts were in transition concerning the board governance team. A couple of
board members had either resigned or their terms were ending. In one district an experienced
board member had left in the middle of the board term of service; subsequently, the
superintendent worked with a consulting firm to fill the unexpected vacancy. The district decided
to run an interview process to select the new board member. An appointment was made with the
school board. Also, two other board members had joined the board in the previous 2 years.
56

Given the current state of new and inexperienced board members of the school districts
interviewed and surveyed, there had been an increasing need to expedite the onboarding and
training of new board members. Superintendent B explained:
I spent a lot of time explaining their [new board member] roles and dos and do nots of
their jobs. I have been juggling my superintendent day-to-day work and managing the new
board members’ daily informal training. It is exhausting and takes me away from the
work that we need to do as a district for our students.
The inevitable turnover of board members and recognizing the importance of the board
governance team’s role and responsibilities necessitate a strategic plan for a well-established PD
program. Board members’ role is significant in continuing the momentum of the work of the
school district in which they are serving.
Results for Research Question 1
The first research question was, “What factors impact the decision of school board
members to complete a school board MIG training program?” There is no prerequisite for board
members to complete a training program. They have complex roles and responsibilities and no
obligation to train to govern a school district. Even though the MIG training is not mandatory in
California, the purpose of this question was to determine what factors led the school board
members to complete the MIG training program.
Three major themes emerged from responses related to this question. Board members
wanted to participate in the MIG training because they wanted to be aligned with the cultural
expectations within their school district. The second factor that affected board members’ decision
to take the MIG training was accessibility issues, such as cost. The data showed that board
members did not desire to burden the school district with the MIG training costs, such as the
57

program’s cost, accommodations, meals, and any other expenses. The third factor was location,
which might have prevented some board members from participating. Some board members had
jobs and families that made it inconvenient for them to travel.
District Culture and Expectations
The MIG training by CSBA is known for the most part to be an effective training
program among the governing board community. The school board members interviewed and
surveyed responded that they encouraged their fellow board members to complete the MIG
training program as a PD necessity for school governance. The board members demonstrated
Bolman and Deal’s (2013) symbolic frame as it related to creating the right culture in an
organization. They created symbols by attending the MIG training and then clarified the culture
and directed their districts in times of crisis or confusion. People who are strong in the symbolic
frame become role models for others (Bolman & Deal, 2013).
As Board Member B1 stated, “in our district, it is not only the expectation of all school
board members but also the superintendent to participate in the MIG training program offered by
CSBA.” The board member added that “MIG training is the quickest way to learn about each
board member’s roles and responsibilities. It also teaches us what to ask and when to ask
questions.”
Board Member A1 noted that,
when a new board member joins the governing body, I tell them that they should
complete the MIG program because they will be better board members. I want to be the
best that I can be. I believe that when I know my role, I will be better positioned to
impact student achievement directly.
58

Board Member C3 responded, “I encourage and sometimes have to pressure other board
members [to complete MIG]. I tell them that if they want to help students, they should learn how
to be an effective board member.”
Superintendent B mentioned that,
we expect in our district that all board members go through the CSBA MIG training. I
always join them and go through the training each time a new board member is seated. I
believe that we get to learn about each other and will help with team building.
The results of the survey question regarding the primary factors influencing board
members to participate in MIG training indicated that 84 board members and 33 superintendents
identified school board expectation and that 71 board members and 35 superintendents identified
being encouraged by other board members as the primary factors that influenced school board
members to participate (see Table 3).

Table 3
Participants’ Responses Regarding the Primary Factors That Influenced School Board Members
to Participate in the Masters in Governance Training
Response Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
School board expectation 33 84
Self-motivation 37 133
Encouraged by board members 35 71
Increasing student achievement 9 53
Increasing effective government 31 128
Unable to determine 0 0
Other 3 10

Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
59

Intrinsic Motivation
According to Bolman and Deal (2008), leaders who use the symbolic frame see their role
as catalysts or facilitators of ongoing processes. The meanings are not to be seen as given but
rather are created in the organization. Culture is seen as the glue that, by bonding the people,
helps the organization to fulfill its vision. Vision, as shared fantasy, turns the organization’s sense
of purpose toward the future; and the leaders who adhere to this frame attempt to create meanings
by influencing the culture in subtle ways. Stories, artifacts, rituals, and ceremonies serve as an
essential function in meaning creation. The symbolic leader perceives that the spirit is the essence
of high performance. In the case of school board training, both superintendents and school board
members attributed their internal motivation to their organization’s culture. One participant
described this type of teamwork experience as “That’s what we do here” and “Others after us will
continue to do after we are gone” (Board Member A1). The district’s leadership placed a value
for board members and superintendents on attending MIG training.
Board members shared how they believed it was their responsibility to be prepared for
their roles and responsibilities. They took it upon themselves before becoming board members to
prepare for their new role; 133 board members and 37 superintendents identified self-motivation
as a primary factor influencing school board members to participate in the MIG training (see
Table 3). Board Member A1 mentioned that she met with experienced board members. She
would attend most of the board meetings and review the board agenda’s meeting minutes to
understand what type of challenges the district was dealing with. Board Member C3 stated that,
I would read books about governance. I also met with the board member of the district
that I am currently employed. I know the president of the board of education. They
encouraged me to run for the board seat. I have taken it upon myself to attend some
60

training in leadership and conflict resolution. I thought that it would make me a stronger
candidate and eventually an effective leader and board member.
Board Member B1 was proactive and started asking the experienced board members and
other board members from other neighboring school districts. She visited the CSBA website and
received information about the MIG training program. It was essential to learn about
constituents’ expectations to ensure that she set accountability measures for herself. The board
member also asked the superintendent for advice on how to be an influential board member.
Board Member C2 described that she voluntarily joined the board meetings and watched
other board meetings of the districts that were televised. She also shared her experience as a
board member in her professional experiences. Board Member A2 described that the fact that she
had a leadership role in her current job helped in understanding some of the fiscal and human
resources matters. She also stated that she played a big part in the recent bond campaign for the
district. These committees and activities had helped in gaining knowledge about the district.
However, she shared that no matter how much she put in time and effort to prepare for the role, it
seemed that this was never enough.
The role of a board member is very complicated with a broad range of areas for which to
be responsible. All the interviewed board members reported that they felt the massive burden of
responsibility to learn the dos and don’ts of a board member’s job expeditiously. They were
aware that the learning curve was steep and the job too important to take lightly.
The existing and experienced board members took the initiation to meet with the new
board members and walk them through the one-on-one basics of what school board members
need to know to do their jobs well. Board Member B1 stated that the hours of support that she
received from the board president were helpful. The board president was welcoming and
61

generous in sharing information with the new board members. It was common for existing board
members to call newly elected or appointed board members—sometimes taking them out to lunch
or coffee for conversation. These encounters were all initiated by either the board president or an
experienced board member. They would take the time to spend hours explaining the role and
responsibility of the new board member. One board president stated that there was an expectation
for existing board members to be welcoming and to reach out directly to the new board members.
They would encourage the new board members to participate in the MIG training program. They
would share the benefits of completing the MIG training. One member described the MIG
training as “very important” and noted that she could benefit from the training modules during the
first days of being a board member. She explained that one of the benefits of MIG training is team
building. A dysfunctional board may influence the dynamics of the team differently than a united
board. One participant cautioned that there could be political implications if the new board
member is a “single-issue” candidate with a view different from the board’s remainder. If a new
board member filled the seat after a well-liked incumbent board member, there could be some
difficulties in how existing board members supported the new board member.
Survey results indicated that 174 board members and 62 superintendents strongly agreed
or agreed that they would recommend the MIG training to school governance teams (see Table
4).

62

Table 4
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Would Recommend Masters in Governance
Training to School Governance Teams
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 48 77 128 71
Agree 14 23 46 26
Disagree 0 0 6 4
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0

In general, there was much support for the board to take an active role in the process: “It
is our job to make sure they understand the scope of the job and what it is as well as what it isn’t
and establish the relationship” (Board Member B1). The responsibility “belongs to the board, not
the district” (Board Member B2). The president reflected that it was the board’s responsibility to
make sure the appropriate support was being provided and the new board member’s needs were
met. The board president explained that they had taken the new member aside and described the
difference between the roles of the superintendent and the board and where the gray area existed.
This same board member stated that when a new board started the position, other board members
continued to check in with him or her when new situations came up, even after the member was
“in rhythm,” which was helpful.
The board members and superintendents shared a standard best practice in their district of
attending the MIG training with the new board members. Both the board members and
superintendents were motivated as well in the board training process; 120 superintendents and 57
63

board members strongly agreed or agreed to participate in the training as a team (see Tables 5 and
6).

Table 5
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether it was Important to Attend Masters in
Governance Training With Their Superintendent
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 53 30
Agree 67 37
Disagree 53 30
Strongly Disagree 7 3

64

Table 6
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether it is Important to Attend Masters in Governance
Training With Their School Board Members
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 38 61
Agree 19 31
Disagree 5 8
Strongly Agree 0 0

Accessibility to MIG Training
The MIG training has five modules: (a) Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting
Direction, (b) Human Resources/Collective Bargaining; (c) Policy and Judicial Review/Student
Learning and Achievement, (d) School Finance, and (e) Community Relations and Advocacy/
Governance Integration (CSBA, 2018). The training is offered in various locations in California.
Each module takes an entire day to complete. Altogether, participants must devote 60 hours to
instruction and participation and, as of 2019, the enrollment fee was $2,400. This fee did not
include traveling expenses. Survey and interview data suggested that there were problems in
accessing MIG training due to the program’s length, cost, and location.
MIG’s delivery method is also a factor in board members decide whether or not to sign
up for the training program. Based on survey results, school board members did feel that an
online MIG certification program would make it more accessible for school board members to
participate, but their preference was a hybrid model; 54 board members preferred online training,
and 105 indicated a hybrid platform increased the chances of participation (see Table 7). After
65

the COVID-19 pandemic, online training was the preferred method of participation; however,
board members stated that the hybrid model was a more effective MIG training program
platform.

Table 7
Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the Masters in Governance Program
Would Increase Chances of Participation
Response Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Online 14 54
Hybrid 29 105
Locally hosted 45 125
Other 2 4

Note. Some participants contributed mor than one answer.

66

In the data collected through the interviews, Board Members A1, B2, and C2 expressed
that in-person training was more valuable than online courses. All three board member groups
agreed that it was essential to meet other board members, and they valued the opportunity to
establish networks during the five training modules. However, Board Members A2, B1, and C3
stated that the online or hybrid platforms were convenient due to the COVID-19 pandemic, time
constraints, and the high cost of the MIG training.
Board Member B1 noted that “what was helpful about [the MIG training] is that we had
board members from other school districts participating [in the training] that I got to meet and
[we talked] about [issues].” Board Member A2 also agreed and shared that it made a difference
when the training was in-person. The teamwork and networking were invaluable and a significant
benefit of the MIG training program. The board members had the opportunity to be in breakout
rooms: “You can ask questions and interact with other people and hear other people’s issues and
how they handle them” (Board Member C1). Board Member C1 commented that “everybody
was engaged and focused on the content, activities, and discussions. But, now, with COVID, I
will miss the networking piece.”
Cost Factor
Participants in the survey were asked whether the cost of training was a factor in their
decision making to attend the MIG PD. Some board members and superintendents found that the
cost was another problem with the MIG training accessibility; 76 board members and 14
superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that the current cost of the MIG training impeded
school board members from participating (see Table 8). Board Member A2 noted that more
school board members would take the MIG training if the cost were subsidized or free.
Superintendent A shared a similar response that if the MIG training cost were subsidized or free,
67

more school board members would participate. It is important to note that the majority of the
school board members and superintendents stated that the MIG program’s cost was not a reason
for participating in the training.

Table 8
Participants’ Responses to Whether the Current Cost of the Masters in Governance Training
Program Impeded School Board Members From Participating
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 30 48 104 58
Agree 30 48 72 40
Disagree 2 4 4 2
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0

68

During the interview, Board Member A2 stated that taking the MIG is a “financial
[issue].” Board Members B2 and C3 also noted that cost contributed to a lack of participation.
Board Member C2 commented, “There was an expense [when traveling to another training out of
town], and obviously you don’t want to spend taxpayers’ money except for educating students.”
Superintendent B stated that “whereas there is no great fiscal impact when the training costs a
few thousand dollars and the district’s budget is in the millions of dollars, the cost of the training
for one person affects the rate of participation.” Superintendent A stated that the training should
be necessary enough for districts to set this amount aside for training purposes to ensure that all
board members were prepared for their jobs. When asked what factors were keeping the rest of
the board members from being trained, Superintendent B simply noted, “It is expensive.”
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
This study’s objective was to determine the perceptions of school board members and
superintendents relative to the MIG training that is believed to be necessary for both newly
elected or experienced board members. Additionally, data were collected on whether the MIG
training was making a difference in their governance capabilities. School board members and
superintendents acknowledged that the MIG training provided by the CSBA made a difference in
the effectiveness of school governance. Well-developed methods of delivery, location, and cost
of the MIG training program were reasons that school board members chose to participate in the
school board training program.
Results for Research Question 2
The second research question was, “How does the MIG training program encourage and
equip school board members to exhibit effective governance behaviors?” School board members
are legislative bodies that exercise their authority to organize and operate a school district from
69

the state. School boards are responsible for the district, policy setting, fiscal solvency, programs,
and student achievement. According to the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry study (D. Rice et al.,
2000), school boards have a pivotal role in increasing student achievement. The Lighthouse
study examined the role and impact of school boards in closing the achievement gap. The study
suggested that school boards’ actions are a vital part of culture improvement. Based on their
nature, boards do not create learning; instead, they work through others by creating conditions
that promote learning (D. Rice et al., 2000).
The purpose of Research Question 2 was to explore whether the MIG training equips
board members to be successful in their role. Because training or PD is not mandatory in
California, the researchers examined whether the MIG training prepared them to be effective
board members. In other words, the focus of this research question was board members
exhibiting the characteristics of effective governance due to the MIG training.
Three major themes emerged from the responses to this research question. MIG training
equips board members as it teaches and clarifies their roles and responsibilities. Board members
who have been trained in the MIG program focus on policy development that will benefit
students. They tend to ask for data and staff’s recommendations before making informed
decisions related to student achievement. They also understand and respect the role of the
superintendent; they tend not to micromanage the work of the superintendent and staff. The MIG
training also helps governing boards to build relationships, network, and collaborate with other
board members from other school districts. They reach out to their counterparts to brainstorm
ideas and seek advice from seasoned board members.
70

Clarification of Roles and Responsibilities
The survey questions related to this research question asked how well the MIG training
had helped board members and superintendents to clarify their roles and responsibilities,
focusing on student learning and achievement; policy development, school finance, and the use
of student data; collaboration; and holding effective board meetings. The Effective Governance
Series (CSBA, 2018a) provides training and support for identifying and developing the school
board’s roles, responsibilities, and setting. The data suggested that the MIG clarified the board’s
roles and responsibilities.
Roles and Responsibilities: Board Versus Superintendent
According to the NSBA (2006), the school board and the superintendent have distinct
differences in their roles; however, they should own each other’s responsibilities. The board
members believed that functioning as a group and having shared goals, respect, and trust were
indicators of their effectiveness (Smoley, 1999).
One survey question asked whether the MIG training had clarified the differences
between the responsibilities as a school board member and those of the superintendent; 171 board
members and 60 superintendents strongly agreed or agreed with every survey statement on this
subject (see Tables 9 and 10).

71

Table 9
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles
and Responsibilities and Those of Their Superintendent
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 1 2

Table 10
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Clarified the
Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 117 65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly Disagree 1 1

72

During the interviews, the superintendents reported that one of their essential roles as
superintendents was to explain their roles and responsibilities to the board members.
Superintendents A, B, and C stated that, as superintendents, they continuously reviewed board
members’ roles and responsibilities. They also agreed that the MIG training was a well-known
program among board members—one that they could trust to prepare and educate them on their
roles to govern the school district. Superintendent C stated that CSBA clarified and validated
what the superintendent said.
It is essential to understand the difference between the roles of the board and the
superintendent because, as Superintendent A noted, “The board has the responsibility to maintain
the district’s fiscal solvency. We do not want to be [one] of those districts that are under state
receivership.” Superintendent B explained:
I invested a lot of time and effort in the beginning when I joined the district to
continuously review board members and their understanding of their roles and
responsibilities. It has helped me to be a more effective superintendent. I can focus on
student achievement without being micromanaged.
Superintendent B further noted that “they [board members] even leave my staff alone.”
Superintendent C commented:
I have one board member that does not agree to go through the MIG training. I find
myself spending a lot of my time with this board member. On the other hand, the ones
[board members] that have been to the training respect and understand my role as a
superintendent. They are clear about their roles and responsibilities. They ask for data
before making a policy, program, or budget decision.
73

According to Superintendent B, the trained board members tend not to micromanage the
superintendent and staff. They knew their boundaries and stayed within their roles:
I know which board members might benefit from the training. They have to want to do the
training and not pressured; otherwise, they will not put in the effort to gain from the training.
When somebody completes the training, it does not guarantee that they will understand their
roles and responsibilities. I have a board member who has completed the MIG training, but I
continuously remind them of their role as board members. The training does not teach them
common sense or leadership maturity. It is in the culture of our district for any new board
member to be trained. I always go along with them. I believe that it builds relationships. It also
provides us to get to know each other. I learn about their interests and goals.
Superintendent C noted that,
trained board members tend to be polished because they know their roles and
responsibilities. On the other hand, a board member who is not trained tends to
micromanage my staff and me. They often do not follow the chain of command. On a few
occasions, they believe that they have power over me and my staff because they are a
board member. I have a board member that goes directly to one of my staff for personal
favors. For example, this board member needed storage for a personal vehicle. The board
member asks one of the maintenance employees to make it happen. The employee was
fearful of losing their job. I had to intervene and explain to the board member that they
should not go directly to staff, and they also should not ask for personal favors for their
gain.
Board Member B2 shared that the MIG training prepared her to be a more effective
leader. She learned to ask the right questions from staff before voting in a board meeting on the
74

budget, student achievement, policy, or adoption of a program. She said that she was a better
board member as a result of the MIG training. For example, her decisions were aligned with the
district’s mission, vision, and goals. She believed that she was better equipped to close the
achievement gap.
Effective Governance
The Lighthouse Inquiry study (D. Rice et al., 2000) recommended board training to
increase district achievement, to improve community communication with constituents, and to
develop systems to create and sustain reform efforts. Training might focus on the norms and
processes of decision making, such as asking clarifying objective questions. Increased decision-
making capacity could strengthen board member–superintendent relationships, such as lessening
the time that superintendents spend to provide information to board members or time lost during
closed-session meetings that might include mostly off-topic conversations. Improved
relationships would reduce superintendent turnover attributed to the school board (D. Rice et al.,
2000). In the ongoing societal changes in the 21st century, school boards have juggled diverse
and changing conditions surrounding public school districts. The modern era of accountability in
education engenders a great responsibility to assure that the district makes progress in student
achievement. The movement to higher standards, such as career- and college-ready standards or
the Common Core learning, has forced school boards to examine just how a school district can
create and sustain high achievement levels for all students. The MIG training program employs
effective governance ideals in a five-module training program for school board members. The
importance of Research Question 2 was to determine whether effective training led to effective
practice.
75

The results from interviews demonstrated that 52 board members ranked Foundations of
Effective Governance as one of the most relevant and important modules of the MIG training.
An interview question asked the board members which of the five modules was most important
to their role as school board members. Their responses supported the superintendents’ responses.
Additionally, one survey question asked whether the MIG training impacted a board member’s
ability to govern effectively; 154 board members and 56 superintendents strongly agreed or
agreed that it would do so (see Table 11).

Table 11
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Impacted Their
Ability to Govern Effectively
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 20 32 72 40
Agree 36 58 82 46
Disagree 6 10 20 11
Strongly Disagree 0 0 6 3

76

During the interviews with the board members, Board Member A1 stated that,
CSBA training [the MIG training] gave me the tools to be a better board member. It gave
me the confidence to effectively govern the school district. I have the knowledge of
school finance to make financial decisions that are in the best interest of our students.
Agreeing, Board Member C2 noted that,
most board members do not have prior knowledge or experience in governance. In the
beginning I was confused and lost in my role. Since I have completed MIG twice, I have
been a more effective board member. Now I make decisions based on data. I know what
questions to ask from other board members and the superintendent. The School Finance
module has been very helpful. As a board member I am responsible for the fiscal
solvency of the district. I do not want to make a decision that will hurt our students.
All three superintendents rated Foundations in Judicial Review as a relevant link to
effective governance. They responded strongly agree or agree to all the questions related to the
MIG training and its importance in school board governance. They agreed that the board
members who were MIG trained (a) asked for data before making a decision; (b) were
knowledgeable in basic school finance; (c) had student achievement as their focus; (d) did not
micromanage the superintendent and staff; (e) were team players and had a united voice as a
governing board; (f) built a strong network with board members from other school districts; and
(g) aligned with the district’s vision, mission, and goals.
Superintendent B1 supported the survey and interview questions as they related to MIG
training and school board governance:
I was in my 4th year as a superintendent in my current district, when the board elections
changed the board governing team members. One of the three new board members was
77

not open to MIG training. It was clear to me that this board member needed the most
training because he believed that he knows it all. In reality, he had no knowledge and
experience in school governance. It became a big issue that the one new board member
did not want to go. So, I decided that I will go with the two new and the two current board
members to training. It was an opportunity to go through the training with the majority of
the board members. We were able to do team building. Because of the MIG training, we
are a united governing team and on the same page on the issues at hand. The one board
member that did not go to training demonstrates lack of effective governance.
The interview with the three board members who completed MIG training matched the
superintendent’s responses. All three shared that they had a difficult time with the board member
who did not attend MIG. Board Member B1 stated that,
quite often we disagree with this board member. The disconnect creates a tense and
stressful environment for us. The situation distracts us from what we were elected to do.
We are here to govern the district and not get into arguments with each other. I am
worried about public perception. The community does not see us that we have one voice.
The current board structure negatively impacts student achievement. I believe that MIG
brought us together. We learned so much about school governance. I learned about school
finance and effective governance. I also learned not to get in the business of the
superintendent and staff.
These finding were further supported by Board Member B2:
I feel that the people that have attended [MIG training] have gotten something out of it. I
think the collaboration has been better. We understand each other a little bit better. We
78

understand our goals a little bit better, but for those that have attended—and I say that
because some people have not attended—so it does.
According to the literature review in Chapter Two, the Lighthouse Inquiry (D. Rice et al., 2000),
the beliefs and presence of the seven conditions of the board members for implementing
productive change were different in high-achieving and low-achieving districts. The
seven conditions identified as essential for school renewal were the following: (a)
“Emphasis on Building a Human Organizational System,” (b) “Ability to Create and
Sustain Initiatives,” (c) “Supportive Workplace for Staff,” (d) “Staff Development,” (e)
“Supports for School Sites Through Data and Information,” (f) “Continuous
Involvement,” and (g) “Integrated Leadership.” (p. 7)
School boards could be linked to productive change, but with change comes challenges
(D. Rice et al., 2000). The Lighthouse Inquiry recommended board training to increase content
knowledge of district issues, to improve community communication with constituents, and to
develop systems to create and sustain reform efforts. Training might focus on norms and
processes of decision making, such as asking clarifying objective questions. Increased decision-
making capacity improves the relationship between the board members and the superintendent
and, as a result, decreases the turnover rate for superintendents (D. Rice et al., 2000).
The findings for one survey question demonstrated the primary factor that influenced
school board members to participate in the MIG training; 128 board members and 31
superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that factor was to increase governance effectiveness
(see Table 3).
79

Mandated or Nonmandated MIG Training in California
Although training for school board members has been emphasized in the literature as a
critical component of school board leadership, not all states mandate training for local school
boards. The state of California does not mandate training for school board members. Table 12
summarizes the number of board members and superintendents who strongly agreed or agreed to
the survey item related to whether MIG training should be mandated in California.

Table 12
Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Should Be Mandated in California
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 40 65 73 41
Agree 17 27 65 36
Disagree 5 8 37 21
Strongly Disagree 0 0 5 2

80

Although MIG training is not mandated in California, 180 of the board members in this
research study had completed at least one of the five of the training modules. Table 13
summarizes the number of board members and superintendents who strongly agreed or agreed to
the survey item related to whether California school board members could benefit from MIG
training. The results showed that 62 superintendents strongly agreed or agreed, and 171 board
members indicated that they could benefit from MIG training (see Table 13).

Table 13
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Believed That All California School Board
Members Could Benefit From Masters in Governance Training
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 30 48 104 58
Agree 30 48 72 40
Disagree 2 4 4 2
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0

81

Board Member B1 contended:
Driving in California requires a driver’s license. I support state of California mandating
board member training prior to running for school board. It is important to how to govern
a school district. We [school board members] have a big job and responsibility. I am not
sure if all of us understand what it takes to be good in what we are elected to do.
Superintendent B made the same comment as Board Member B1:
If the state mandates MIG training, it will make my job easier. I find myself educating
board members of their roles and constantly reminding them of what to say or not say.
The training will bring us all together as a team and not all on me to carry the district.
The board members who have completed the training, work as a team. The ones that have
not been trained, take most of my time.
Board Member A1 commented that
MIG brings us together. When we are a team, there is respect for each other. I learned a
lot from the CSBA training [MIG training]. The state has to make it law. We [board
members] and the superintendent have to make it a priority. In the long run, our students
will benefit if we know what we are doing. We even look good in the eyes of our
constituents. The training makes us look like we care about the whole student. Their
[students’] achievement and well-being.
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
The results indicated that the MIG training assists school board members of today to
become educational experts while not micromanaging the superintendent and district staff. Even
though California does not mandate training, school board members are motivated and willing to
learn about the current needs of all their district’s students and, at the same time, work to develop
82

an adequate level of understanding regarding the conditions that support effective and quality
school improvement. The board members tend to understand that they need to change to adapt to
the current demands in education if they hope to impact student learning within their schools
positively. They know that if they are willing to evolve, adapt, and develop their leadership
capacity, it will dictate the extent of their longevity. The results indicated that board members
can be dynamic and productive members of a strong and effective school team when their efforts
are focused. Their skills are utilized to support the efforts of the superintendent, teachers, and
students.
In summary, school board members who had participated in MIG training strongly agreed
that the training provided them with resources that had assisted them with the school board
governance. The interviews and survey results of board members and superintendents indicated
that the knowledge and experience gained through the MIG training were relevant to a school
governance team’s work.
Results for Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “Does the MIG training have an impact on student
achievement and growth?” The United States has a moral and ethical responsibility to educate all
students. The right to an education is the American dream. Locally elected school boards have
received significant scrutiny as questions have been asked about their ability to provide adequate
and effective governance such that student achievement increases. This research study provided
support for the effectiveness of publicly elected school boards being linked to improved student
achievement results.
83

Indirect Impact on Student Achievement
According to the literature, when student achievement gains do not measure up with
expectations, the school board members are not immune to criticism (Smoley, 1999). In today’s
educational climate, the school board alone cannot solve the challenges; therefore, more than
ever, the school board must communicate effectively with the community to gain cooperation
and trust in accomplishing the school district’s goals (Van Clay & Soldwedel, 2009).
According to the Lighthouse Inquiry study conducted by the IASB and the NSBA (D.
Rice et al., 2000), the school board’s role is to close the achievement gap. The study’s findings
indicated that the school board has an important role in promoting the culture of academic
growth. The NSBA’s (2018) framework for leadership and governance in boosting student
achievement is setting the vision, standards, assessment, accountability, alignment, climate,
collaborative relationships, and continuous improvement. The MIG training offered by the CSBA
(2007) provides the framework to define the roles and responsibilities of school board
governance and to provide the tools and resources to help the board governance teams to focus
on student achievement (CSBA, 2007).
The survey results indicated that 140 board members and 58 superintendents strongly
agreed or agreed that the MIG training demonstrated an increased focus on student achievement
(see Table 14 and 15).

84

Table 14
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,
Their Focus Was on Student Achievement
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 49 27
Agree 91 50
Disagree 39 22
Strongly Disagree 1 1

Table 15
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Had Earned Masters in
Governance Certification Demonstrated an Increased Focus on Student Achievement
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 14 23
Agree 44 71
Disagree 4 6
Strongly Agree 0 0

85

There were mixed results from the focus group interviews. Board Member C3 responded,
“I do not see the connection [of MIG training] to student achievement.” However,
Superintendent C did not support this board member’s response to the interview question. Board
Member C1 noted that “as a result of the [MIG] training, I know how to make decisions which is
related to student achievement. I believe that the training has a direct impact on student
achievement. In a good way.”
Another related survey question supported the earlier results. It showed that 128 board
members and 54 superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that as a result of the attending the
MIG training, there had been a positive impact on student achievement in their district (see Table
16).

Table 16
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in Governance Training Had
Positively Impacted Student Achievement in Their District
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 8 13 39 22
Agree 46 74 89 49
Disagree 8 13 50 28
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1

86

Building Board Capacity
Waters and Marzano (2006) found a positive correlation between district leadership and
student achievement. Their studies, which examined the relationship between district-level
leadership and student achievement, identified five leadership responsibilities that significantly
correlated with student achievement, one of which was regarding the role of the school board.
Districts with higher levels of student achievement show the exact alignment of the board,
district, and school efforts in support of non-negotiable goals. In these districts, local school
boards “ensure these goals remain the primary focus of the district’s efforts and that no other
initiatives detract attention or resources from accomplishing these goals” (p. 4).
Areas of leadership that involve improving student achievement include participating in
PD in the area of community relations; attracting and retaining quality board members;
attracting, preparing, and retaining quality educators to be superintendents; and engaging in
superintendent– school board PD opportunities ®. H. Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000).
The board members who used the leadership frame of the CSBA’s Professional Growth
Standards (CSBA, 2007) owned the individual and governance team responsibilities. Individual
responsibility includes values that advocate for public education, participating in PD,
understanding the roles of the board, and respecting the role of the superintendent and the district
staff. The board works as a team and not as individuals. The CSBA’s (2007) standards for a
governance team focus on student achievement, communication, a shared vision, open operation
that demonstrates trust and integrity, governing with dignity and professionalism, governing
within board-adopted policies and procedures, collective responsibility for the board’s
performance, periodic evaluation of its effectiveness, and opportunities for the diverse range of
87

views in the community to inform board decisions. The CSBA standards provide the board with
the opportunity for capacity building through the MIG training program.
Board Member A2 responded, “I learned to ask for data from the superintendent. Data
helps me with making an educated decision about our students.” Superintendent A confirmed the
board member’s statement about the use of data in the district. Board Member A2 noted, “I do
not make any decision without asking questions from staff. At board meetings, I am the one who
asks for data. Staff already know that I will ask for data. How can I make decisions without
data?” Superintendent C confirmed the board member’s statement. According to the survey
results, 157 board members and 59 superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that as a result of
the MIG training, they encouraged governance team members to use data to make informed
decisions regarding student achievement consistently (see Table 17).

Table 17
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether, as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,
They Encouraged Governance Team Members to Consistently Use Data to Make Informed
Decisions Regarding Student Achievement
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 31 50 69 38
Agree 28 45 88 49
Disagree 3 5 21 12
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1

88

Clear Goals and High Expectations
Smoley’s (1999) work with school boards identified that one of the board’s
responsibilities is to guide the school district’s purposes, structure, and goals, mainly focused on
increased achievement. According to Bolman and Deal (2013), a structural leader relies on
clearly defined roles and relationships to benefit the larger organization’s collective and
individual good. Board members who use this frame assume that the organization’s most
important task is to achieve targeted goals and objectives.
The three focus groups that were interviewed shared a common goal. The superintendents
and board members stated that the most crucial goal was student achievement. Board Member B1
indicated that student achievement was the focus of every decision made. Board Members A2 and
C2 shared a similar interest in student achievement.
Superintendent B note that “because of MIG training, board members feel accountable.
They are careful when they make any decision related to students.” Board Member B1 stated, “I
think twice when I have to decide students. It is easy. … I make decisions that are in the best
interest of students. This could be a program, budget, or policy.”
The survey results showed that 166 board members and 61 superintendents strongly
agreed or agreed that as a result of the MIG training, they understood the importance of aligning
the decision-making process with the district’s vision and goals (see Tables 18 and 19).

89

Table 18
School Board Members’ Responses Regarding Whether Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With
the District’s Vision and Goals
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 104 58
Agree 62 34
Disagree 13 7
Strongly Disagree 1 1

Table 19
Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With
the District’s Vision and Goals
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 31 50
Agree 30 48
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 0 0

90

Summary of Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was asked to gain insight into the perceptions of school board
members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school governance
and student achievement. The surveys completed by superintendents and school board members
as well as the interviews indicated that the MIG training indirectly impacted student achievement.
Although this study results pointed to supporting MIG training due to its relevance to student
achievement, the indirect connection can be capitalized to build board capacity and to set clear
goals and high expectations. The MIG program would benefit board members with their
professional growth. It will provide them with the knowledge and skill set to be an effective
governance team and on which to base their data decisions. With the increased accountability in
education, the MIG program should be viewed as an essential responsibility of the board
governance team.
Summary of Findings
Three research questions were explored in this study. These questions were asked to
determine whether school board training improved the relationship between school boards and
superintendents and affected performance indicators for school districts. The researchers
examined the benefit of the MIG training and its implications for school board members’ ability
to exhibit effective governance characteristics. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to
examine the perceptions of school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG
training and its impact on school governance and student achievement.
The current political climate is causing an extraordinary paradigm shift in education that
affects school districts of all sizes throughout the country. These changes also influence the
governance and function of local school boards. “Unique developments have dramatically altered
91

or ‘flattened’ the environment in which school boards operate, breaking their monopoly on
public education within their boundaries, further loosening their already tenuous grip on policy,
and empowering citizens, parents, and staff members” (Boyd, 2007, p. xv). This transference of
power presents many challenges to local school boards as pressure mounts toward an increase in
board accountability and transparency while at the same time calling for boards to address
concerns regarding student achievement and school funding.
While the research shared throughout this study seemed to indicate that today’s school
board members need to become educational experts with an astute interest in micromanaging
district affairs, this is not the case. School board members do, however, have to be motivated and
willing to learn about the current needs of all their district’s students and, at the same time, work
to develop an adequate level of understanding regarding the conditions that support effective and
quality school improvement. The historic assumptions and traditional practices of many boards
may need to change to adapt to current findings if they hope to positively impact student
achievement within their schools. This study demonstrated that board members can be dynamic
and productive members of a strong and effective school team when their efforts are focused and
their skills are utilized to support the superintendent, teachers, and students’ efforts.
Compounding these issues is that many states, including California, do not mandate
training for board members. Given the limited access to standardized PD for school board
members, the MIG program is one of the most credible trainings available. Data showed that
both superintendents and board members agreed that the MIG training should be mandated in
California. They also shared that the high cost, accessibility, and time constraints to complete the
training were a few of the challenges in attending the trainings. The board members were
focused on the cost implications to the district’s already limited budget. Although they shared a
92

common sentiment that every board member should be trained to be effective, the financial
burden on districts was a potential concern for supporting the mandate.
The study informed PD opportunities for board members and superintendents by
providing insight into what factors influenced the decision-making process and highlighting
conditions that led to successes and challenges in school board governance. Board members and
superintendents shared that they were each intrinsically motivated to attend the training;
however, the school culture’s expectation was more a reason for them to complete the MIG
program.
The school board plays a role in student achievement. The study showed that the MIG
program provided the governance team with resources and skills such as setting the school
district’s direction and creating policies that were focused on student achievement for all
students. The board members and superintendents shared that data were used in the decision-
making and the policymaking process. Board members who had attended the training asked for
relevant data from the superintendent to make well-informed decisions that would positively
impact student achievement.

93

Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. 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 21st-century’s dynamic education environment has challenging implications for local
school boards and superintendents. Within California, school board members continue to
experience governance challenges that affect over 6 million students in nearly 1,000 school districts.
The sense of urgency is rising around teaching and learning, with various stakeholders
demanding continuous improvement, substantial alternatives, and efficient solutions to ongoing
challenges such as poverty and limited resources. The school boards and superintendents facing
these persistent challenges are expected to be accountable for closing the achievement gap.
School boards are responsible for managing the superintendent and the fiscal solvency, effective
governance, and determining local policies to ensure that state and federal laws are followed.
Members’ ability to skillfully manage their complicated roles and responsibilities is essential to
students’ success. Because training for these roles and responsibilities is not mandated for school
board members in California, it is up to the individual board member to attend the training.
Although many school board members have previously held leadership positions in
varying capacities, few, if any, have had the necessary training and preparation that fully prepares
them for the multidimensional responsibilities that come with the position (Anderson & Snyder,
2001). All that is required of prospective school board members is to be registered to vote, to
maintain a local residence, and not to have any felony convictions. Aside from these
94

requirements no prerequisites, qualifications, or necessity for background knowledge exist
(Gore, 2016).
Three research questions were developed to determine whether effective governance
teams (superintendents and school board members) attributed their success to training. If so,
should training for school board members be a requirement (mandate) for school board service?
The three questions were the following:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a school
board training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board governance?
Research Team and Participants
The research team consisted of 20 doctoral candidates from the USC Rossier School of
Education under the leadership of Dr. Michael Escalante. The team divided responsibility for the
data collection in 12 counties, with each member sending survey packets to predetermined
effective governance teams within that member’s selected district. Each team member was
responsible for three school districts, totaling 62 superintendents and 180 school board members.
When surveys were returned, the data were collectively processed and shared. Each team
member was charged with interviewing three superintendents and two to three school board
members within his or her respective school districts. Interview data were shared by cohort
members, thus making the reported data robust.
Surveys of school boards and superintendents, structured interviews of school board
members and superintendents, and research data regarding school district characteristics and
95

performance helped to triangulate the data. The instruments were designed collaboratively by the
research team, aligned with the three research questions, and directly correlated with the
theoretical frameworks: the four-frame model for effective leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2017),
the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry study (D. Rice et al., 2000), and CSBA’s (2018a) effective
governance standards.
Findings Related to the Research Questions
Data analysis was done on an individual basis. Data were derived from the results of
surveys and interviews. This analysis revealed three themes pertaining to each research question.
Related to Research Question 1, it was concluded that school board members and
superintendents had acknowledged that the MIG training provided by CSBA made a difference
in the effectiveness of school governance. Related to Research Question 2, it was concluded that
school board members who had participated in MIG training strongly agreed that the training
provided them with resources that had assisted them with the school board governance. Related
to Research Question 3, it was concluded that governance teams agreed that MIG school board
training was effective and that MIG training indirectly impacted student achievement.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked about the factors that impacted school board members’
decision to complete a school board MIG training program. Reviewing the data pertaining to
Research Question 1 revealed that school board members and superintendents acknowledged that
the MIG training provided by CSBA made a difference in the effectiveness of school governance.
Board members were intrinsically motivated to participate in the MIG training because they
wanted to be aligned with the cultural expectation within their school district. The second factor
that affected the board members’ decision to participate in the MIG training was related to
96

accessibility issues, such as cost. The data showed that board members did not desire to burden
the school district with MIG training costs (e.g., cost of the program, accommodations, meals,
and any other expenses). The third factor was that location prevented some board members from
participating. Some board members had jobs and families that made it inconvenient for them to
travel.
The school board members encouraged their fellow board members to complete the MIG
training program as a PD necessity for school governance. The board members demonstrated the
symbolic frame (Bolman & Deal, 2003) related to creating the right culture in an organization.
The finding was supported by Bolman and Deal’s (2003) leadership framework; school board
members created symbols by attending the MIG training, clarified the culture, and directed their
districts in times of crisis or confusion. People who are strong in the symbolic frame become role
models for others (Bolman & Deal, 2013).
The school board members were motivated in multiple ways to complete training
programs. According to Bolman and Deal (2008), leaders who use the symbolic frame see their
role as catalysts or facilitators of ongoing processes. The meanings are not to be seen as givens
but rather are created in the organization. Culture is seen as the glue that, by bonding the people,
helps the organization to fulfill its vision. In the case of school board training, both
superintendents and school board members attributed their internal motivation to their
organization’s culture. The district’s leadership placed a value for board members and
superintendents on attending MIG training. Board members shared how they believed it was
their responsibility to be prepared for their roles and responsibilities.
This study clearly showed that effective school board members and their superintendents
reported that school board training was an expectation within their school district. In alignment
97

with the culture of their districts, they encouraged and supported others to seek training. The
expectation that school board members and superintendents attend training builds a strong
cultural belief system that is present in effective school districts.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked whether MIG training equipped school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance. School board members and superintendents
reported that the MIG program trained them to focus on policy development to benefit students.
They tended to ask for data and staff’s recommendations before making informed decisions
related to student achievement. They also understood and respected the role of the
superintendent. The majority of board members reported that the MIG training helped governing
boards to build relationships and to network and collaborate with board members from other
school districts. These practices directly aligned with the research on effective governance (D.
Rice et al., 2001; Waters & Marzano, 2006).
According to the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry study (D. Rice et al., 2001), school boards
have a pivotal role in increasing student achievement. The Lighthouse study examined the role
and impact of school boards in closing the achievement gap. The study suggested that school
board actions are a key part of culture improvement. Based on their nature, boards do not create
learning; instead, they work through others by creating conditions that promote learning. Trained
board members stated that they set expectations and accountability measures aligned with data.
The present study suggested that MIG training encouraged and equipped school board members
to establish and exhibit effective practices through the five MIG modules. The training provided
by the CSBA provided board members with an opportunity to build a governance team with a
98

common understanding of their roles and responsibilities. These skills resources were unique to
governance teams who had participated in the MIG training program.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked whether MIG training had an impact on student achievement
and growth. The study results showed alignment with the Lighthouse Inquiry study (D. Rice et
al., 2000). The board members and the superintendents strongly agreed that the school boards had
a pivotal role in increasing student achievement. According to the Lighthouse study, the board
members have an important role to impact closing the achievement gap. The governance
members’ actions were a key part of culture improvement. Board members are responsible for
promoting the culture of learning and fostering academic growth. The NSBA’s (2018) framework
for leadership and governance in promoting student achievement is by setting the vision,
standards, assessment, accountability, alignment, climate, collaborative relationships, and
continuous improvement.
This study demonstrated that the MIG training offered by the CSBA provided the
framework to define the roles and responsibilities of school board governance as well as
provided the tools and resources to help the board governance teams to focus on student
achievement.
This study was aligned to the work of Waters and Marzano (2006) on leadership by
finding a positive correlation between district leadership and student achievement levels. Their
studies, which examined the relationship between district-level leadership and student
achievement, identified five leadership responsibilities that significantly correlated with student
achievement, one of which related to the role of the school board. Districts with higher levels of
99

student achievement show clear alignment of board, district, and school efforts in support of non-
negotiable goals.
Areas of leadership that involve improving student achievement include participating in
PD in the area of community relations; attracting and retaining quality board members;
attracting, preparing, and retaining quality educators to be superintendents; and engaging in
superintendent–school board PD opportunities ®. H. Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000). The board
members who implemented the CSBA’s (2007) Professional Growth Standards learned about
their roles and responsibilities as a governance team through the MIG training. The majority of
board members and superintendents in this study indicated that the CSBA standards provided the
board with capacity building through the MIG training program.
Limitations of the Study
A limitation of this research was that participants’ responses were subjective and reflected
personal viewpoints. The sample population was limited to 62 school districts in California, and
the viewpoints did not represent all school boards and superintendents. Some of the participants
attended the MIG training years ago; therefore, the research was limited to the time allotted to
complete of the surveys and interviews, and the data collected from school board members were
limited to participants’ recollections of their experiences during training. Additionally, the results
of the study were limited to the participants in the study. Because the board members and
superintendents in this study had attended the MIG training, they naturally advocated for the
CSBA’s standards of governance.
Implications for Practice
This study aimed to determine whether there was a direct relationship between effective
school board governance and school board members who had been trained. Another goal of this
100

study was to determine whether there was a relationship between MIG-trained board members
and student achievement. This relationship led to some implications for practice for governance
teams.
Although a direct relationship could not be confirmed between MIG training and
effective governance, this study’s outcomes serve to measure credibility and support for the MIG
training. The results demonstrated that increased school board member training and development
could be beneficial to the governance team and, consequently, to the overall quality of student
achievement. These findings suggested that school districts with trained school board members
and superintendents have an increased student achievement. The fact that the relationship among
board members and the superintendent was collaborative contributed to effective governance.
The MIG training in these districts was part of the culture that encouraged and advocated for the
training as a collective team.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was conducted in 12 counties in California during a 3-month period. The
sample consisted of 62 superintendents and 180 school board members. All participating school
board members were required to have completed at least one out of the five modules of the MIG
training program. Although conclusions can be made from this research and these participants,
additional questions remain. The following are recommendations for further research; the
suggestions provided are made to advance the scope of knowledge about school board training,
focusing on MIG training:
• According to the research presented and the data analyzed for this study, one
recommendation for future studies is to gain further insight into how school board
101

members perceive the efficacy of current training and school board development
practices in California.
• A future study could take a deeper look at the impact of board member training
and PD on student achievement and the district’s overall performance.
• Further studies are needed to determine how board members’ training and PD
impact the school board–superintendent relationship.
• Future research could be conducted focusing on additional factors contributing to
effective board governance. Additional survey and interview questions were
added to elicit information about board members who had completed other
governance training compared to the MIG training. In addition, questions should
be added to gather information about board members who have completed the
five modules of the MIG training and then analyze the difference in results with
board members who have not completed all the five modules.
• A study could be conducted to focus on the effectiveness of training formats
related to building stronger team relationships between superintendents and their
school boards.
• To gain a broad understanding of the impacts of the governance training on the
effectiveness of school board members, this study can be utilized for nationwide
studies.
The relationship between school boards and superintendents can be considered the most
critical influence that contributes to the overall success of a school district. When the relationship
is positive and healthy, necessary growth, development, and progress can be achieved and seen
through varied performance results (academic, financial, organizational, etc.). When the
102

relationship is negative and damaged, progress and development stop, thereby potentially hurting
entire generations of students and communities as a whole in the process. By focusing on factors
that may contribute to the overall quality of this delicate, yet difficult dynamic that is the school
board–superintendent relationship, knowledge and awareness of the subject will increase and
sustain the performance of schools through what can be considered the most important
relationship in the American public school system today.
Conclusion to the Study
In the ongoing societal changes in the 21st century, school boards have juggled diverse
and changing conditions surrounding public school districts. The modern era of accountability in
education creates a great responsibility to assure that the district makes progress in student
achievement. The movement to higher standards, such as career- and college-ready standards or
the Common Core learning, has forced school boards to examine just how a school district can
create and sustain high levels of achievement for all students. The visible and high accountability
measures put on board members make it increasingly important for all involved in school
governance to have the skills and knowledge to be an effective governing team. In this era of
high accountability for student achievement along with the fiscal crisis in public education, it is
important for every board member to be knowledgeable about his or her roles and
responsibilities with respect to the school governance team.
The research shared in this study should be a motivational factor for board members to
proactively learn about the current needs of all of their district’s students and, at the same time,
work to develop an adequate level of understanding regarding the conditions that support
effective and quality school improvement. The historic assumptions and traditional practices of
many boards must change to adapt to current findings if they hope to positively impact student
103

learning within their schools. “The willingness of boards to evolve, to adapt, to develop their
leadership capacity will dictate the extent of their health and longevity” (Williams-Boyd, 2002,
p. 73). The MIG training program provides the professional support to board members to be
dynamic and productive members of a strong and effective school team when their efforts are
focused, and their skills are utilized to support the superintendent, teachers, and students.

104

References
Alsbury, T. L. (2008). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 7(2), 202–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701748428
Anderson, R., & Snyder, K. (1980). Leadership training for the school board members: One
approach. Education, 100(3), 227–234.
Ballotpedia. (2020). Public education in California.
https://ballotpedia.org/Public_education_in_California
Barth, P. (2011). Eight traits of effective school boards: Research is clear that high achieving
boards exhibit different habits and characteristics. American School Board Journal,
198(3), 28. https://www.ia-sb.org/main/downloads/tools/visionary/SelfAssessment/8-
traits-of-effective-school-board.pdf
Bartusek, L. (Ed.). (2000). IASB’s Lighthouse Study: School boards and student achievement
(Vol. 2). Iowa Association of School Boards.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.
Björk, L. (2008) Leading in an era of change: The micropolitics of superintendent–board
relations. In T. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and
revelation (pp. 61–80). Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Björk, L., & Lindle, J. C. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1),
76–91. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904801015001005
Blumberg, A., & Blumberg, P. (1985). The school superintendent: Living with conflict. Teachers
College Press.
105

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party’s report.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77–96.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Boyd, W. L. (2007). Foreword: Tracing school board governance and research: From democracy
and effectiveness (1975) to effectiveness with accountability in a “flat world.” In T. L.
Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. xv–
xix). Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Brookings Institution. (2009). Lessons from the Great Depression for 2009: A discussion with
Christina Romer. http://www .brookings .edu/events/2009/3009_lessons.aspx
Brunner, C. C., Grogan, M., & Björk, L. (2002). Shifts in the discourse defining the
superintendency: Historical and current foundations of the position. In J. Murphy (Ed.),
The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp.
211–238). University of Chicago Press.
Burns, J. M. (2010). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Bush, T. (2011). Theories of educational leadership and management (4th ed.). Sage
Publications.
106

California Department of Education. (2019). Fingertip facts on education in California—CalEd
facts.
California Department of Education. (2020a). About DataQuest.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/dataquest.asp
California Department of Education. (2020b). California Assessment of Student Performance
and Progress (CAASPP). http://www.caaspp.org/administration/about/testing/index.html
California Department of Education. (2020c). Local Control Accountability Plan.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
California Department of Education. (2020d). Local Control Funding Formula.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
California Education Code § 35035. (2017).
https://law.onecle.com/california/education/35035.html
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards.
https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrdLeadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2018a). Effective governance: Resources, training and
support.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance.aspx
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Masters in Governance: Governance education
for school board members and superintendents.
https://www.csba.org/TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance.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.
107

Campbell, R. P. (2001). Aspiring to the superintendency: Factors that influence the decision
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Maine.
Cartier, G., & Cunningham, W. (1997). The American school superintendent: Leading in an age
of pressure. Jossey-Bass.
Center for Public Education. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards: Full report.
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-education/Eight-
characteristics-of-effective-school-boards/Eight-characteristics-of-effective-school-
boards.html Clemmer, E. F. (1991). The school policy handbook: A primer for
administrators and school board members. Allyn and Bacon.
Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college
president. McGraw-Hill.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research
designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236–264.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0011000006287390
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local school
boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 367–373.
Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (1992). Governing public schools: New times,
new requirements. Institute for Educational Leadership.
108

Delagardelle, M. L. (2006). Roles and responsibilities of local school board members in relation
to student achievement (Publication No. 3229066) [Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State
University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Delagardelle, M. L. (2015). Board leadership that matters most: Lessons learned from the
Lighthouse Studies. In T. L. Alsbury & P. Gore (Eds.), Improving school board
effectiveness: A balanced governance approach (pp. 53–64). Harvard Education Press.
DiPaola, M. F. (2010). Evaluating the superintendent: A white paper from the American
Association of School Administrators.
https://aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Resources/AASA_White_Paper_on_Superintendent_Evalu
ation.pdf
DiPaola, M. F., & Strange, J. H. (2003). Superintendent evaluation handbook. Scarecrow Press.
Education Policy and Leadership Center. (2004). Report on K-12 Governance:
Strengthening the work of school boards in Pennsylvania.
https://www.eplc.org/K12GovernanceReport.pdf
Fine, L. G. (2009). The SWOT analysis: Using your strength to overcome weaknesses, using
opportunities to overcome threats. http://lawrencefine.com/downloads/SWOT%20-
%20PD F.pdf
Gann, N. (1998). Improving school governance. Palmer Press.
Gemberling, K., Smith, C., & Villani, J. (2000). The key work of school boards guidebook.
National School Boards Association.
Giaquinto, A. C. (2010). Longevity in the superintendency: A case study of New Jersey district
factor group CD superintendents [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Seton Hall
University.
109

Gladis, S. D., & Goldsmith, M. (2013). Positive leadership: The game changer at work. Steve
Gladis Leadership Partners.
Glass, T. E. (2000). The politics of school board evaluation. School Community Journal, 10(2),
83–98.
Glass, T. E., Björk, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.
American Association of School Administrators.
Goodman, A. K. (2012). South Carolina superintendents’ perceptions regarding longevity
(Publication No. 3523114) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
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.
Gore, P. H. (2016). Factors and sources of information school boards consider when evaluating
a superintendent (Doctoral dissertation). University of Washington.
Griffin, L. M. (1951). Robert’s rules of order revised. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 37(3), 387.
Grissom, J. A. (2007). Who sits on school boards in California? Institute for Research on
Education Policy and Practice reports. Stanford University.
Grissom, J. A. (2009). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations:
The case of California school boards. Unpublished manuscript, University of Missouri.
Halik, J. M. (2012). Does the training of school board members make a difference? (Publication
No. 3507499) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Global.
110

Hayes, W. (2001). So you want to be a school board member. Scarecrow Press.
Hess, F. (2002). The dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of district governance.
National School Boards Association.
Hess, F. M., & Meeks, O. (2010). School boards circa 2010: Governance in the accountability
era (ED515849). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED515849.pdf
Hill, P. (2003). School boards: Focus on school performance, not money and patronage
(ED477345). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED477345.pdf
Houston, P., & Eadie, D. (2002). The board savvy superintendent. Scarecrow Press.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Restructuring
school district leadership—a report of the Task Force on School District Leadership
(ED458684). ERIC.
Kamrath, B. J. (2007). High superintendent turnover: A multicase study of small rural school
districts [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Minnesota.
Khoboli, B., & O’Toole, J. (2012). The concerns-based adoption model: Teachers’participation
in action research. Systemic Practice & Action Research, 25(2), 137–148.
https://doi.org/10.1007 s11213-011-9214-8
Kimball, D. (2005). The cornerstone relationship between CEO and board president. School
Administrator, 62(1), 6. https://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=8854
Kirst, M. W. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5),
378–381.
Kirst, M. W. (2008). The evolving role of school boards. In T. L. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of
school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 37–59.). Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
111

Kline, P., & Saunders, B. (1998). Ten steps to a learning organization (2nd ed.). Great Ocean
Publishing, Inc.
Kowalski, T. J. (2008). Preparing and licensing superintendents in three contiguous states.
Planning and Changing, 39, 240-260.
Kowalski, T. J. (2013). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Peterson, G. J., Young, P., & Ellerson, N. M. (2011). The
American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Lamonte, H., & Delagardelle, M. (2009). Seeing the light. American School Board Journal,
196(8), 27–30.
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
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27–42.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060
Lofton, R. S. (2010). The roles and leadership competencies of nontraditional and traditional
superintendents: Learning from experience [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
Columbia University.
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A.C. (1991). Educational administration, concepts and practices.
Wadsworth Publishing Co.
112

Maeroff, G. I. (2010). School boards in America: A flawed exercise in democracy. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works. Solution Tree Press.
Maxwell, J. C. (2013). How successful people lead: Taking your influence to the next
level. Center Street.
McAdams, D. R.(2003). Training your board to lead. The School Administrator, 60(10), 7.
McAdams, D. R. (2006). What school boards can do: Reform governance for urban
schools. Teachers College Press.
Melver, T. A. (2011). Causes of job turnover in the public school superintendency: An
explanatory analysis in the western United States [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
University of Las Vegas.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Merrins, J. M. (2010). Template for clarifying roles of the board of education and superintendent
of schools. http://www.superintendentofschools.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TT_-
_Roles_of_the_Bd_and_Supt_Template.pdf
Moody’s Investor Service. (2013). Charter schools pose greatest credit challenge to school
districts in economically weak urban areas. https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-
Charter-schools-pose-greatest-credit-challenge-to-school-districts--
PR_284505?WT.mc_id= NLTITLE_YYYYMMDD_PR_284505
Monroe, R. F. (2005). What are the perceived sources of conflict between school superintendents
and school board members and between school superintendents and high school
principals, what are the frequency and average intensity levels of those conflicts, and
113

what strategies are perceived as successful in reducing such conflicts (Publication No.
3178287) [Doctoral dissertation, Cardinal Stritch University]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Global.
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school
board–superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 704–
741. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X04268843
Mountford, M. (2008). Historical and current tensions among board–superintendent teams:
Symptoms or cause? In T. L. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school board governance:
Relevancy and revelation (pp. 81–114). Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Mountford, M., & Brunner, C. C. (2001). Motivations for school board membership:
Implications for decision making. In C. C. Brunner & L. G. Björk (Eds.), Advances in
research and theories of school management: The new superintendency (Vol. 6, pp. 135–
152). Elsevier.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). The condition of education 2019.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019144.pdf
National Commission on Governing America’s Schools. (1999). Governing America’s schools:
Changing the rules. Education Commission of the States.
National School Boards Association. (2006). Becoming a better board member: A guide to
effective board service (3rd ed.; ED218797). ERIC.
National School Boards Association. (2014). Survey of the state school boards associations term
limits for local school board members.
https://cdn-files.nsba.org/s3fs-
public/reports/K12_National_Survey.pdf?5XEOPBQlubbzr9x.8_5rFrBRugkHKS7N
114

National School Boards Association. (2018). The key work of school boards guidebook.
https://tsba.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Key-Work-Cover-and-Text-20Jan15.pdf
National School Boards Association. (2019). About us. https://www.nsba.org/about
National School Boards Foundation. (2001). Improving school board decision-making: The data
connection.
Nylander, A. (2007). National school board survey [Unpublished manuscript]. Delta State
University.
Patterson, J. A., Koenigs, A., Mohn, G., & Rasmussen, C. (2006). Working against ourselves:
Decision making in a small rural school district. Journal of Educational Administration,
44(2), 142–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230610652033
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F14733 25002001003636
Petersen, G. J., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2001). Changing times, changing relationships: An
exploration of the relationship between superintendents and board of education
(ED463583). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of
Educational Administration, Cincinnati, OH. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED463583.pdf
Pollard, D. B. (2012). School board leadership: A study of training for school board members
across the United States [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Virginia Polytechnic and
State University.
Prezas, J. A. (2013). Factors influencing the tenure of superintendents as perceived by
superintendents and school board presidents in Texas (Publication No. 3606903)
115

[Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
Global.
Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and tomorrow’s
promise. Education Commission of the States.
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Bruce, J., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2000). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/superintendent team
behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student achievement
(ED453172). Iowa Association of School Boards. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453172.pdf
Rice, P. L. (2010). An analysis of the impact of school board training and evaluation as
perceived by school board members and superintendents (Publication No. 3408650)
[Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
Roach, A. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Frank, J. L. (2009). School-based consultants as change
facilitators: Adaptation of the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM) to support the
implementation of research-based practices. Journal of Educational & Psychological
Consultation, 19(4), 300–320.
Robedee, K. (2010). Evaluating the public school superintendents in the state of Texas
(Publication No. 3425027) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
116

Salamati, P., Eghbali, A., & Zarghampour, M. (2014). SWOT analysis in Sina Trauma and
Surgery Research Center. Acta Medica Iranica, 52(2), 130–136.
Schein, L. (2013). Humble inquiry: The gentle art of asking instead of telling. Crown Business.
Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically improve student
learning. Assessment and Curriculum Development.
Sell, S. (2006). Running an effective school district: School boards in the 21st century. Journal of
Education, 186(3), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002205740618600309
Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2012).
Schools that learn. Crown Business.
Shelton, T. D. (2010). The effects of school system superintendents, school boards and their
interactions on longitudinal measures of district’s student’s mathematics (Publication
No. 3451142) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Global
Sheninger, E. C. (2014). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times. Sage
Publications.
Shober, A. F., & Hartney, M. T. (2014). Does school board leadership matter? https://edex.s3-
us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/Does-School-Board-Leadership-Matter-
FINAL. pdf
Smoley, E. R. (1999). Effective school boards: Strategies for improving board performance.
Jossey-Bass.
Sutton, R. I., & Rao, H. (2014). Scaling up excellence: Getting to more without settling for less.
Crown Business.
117

Tucker, M. (2010). Changing the system is the only solution. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 28–30.
Van Clay, M., & Soldwedel, P. (2009). The school board fieldbook. Solution Tree Press.
Ward, C., & Griffin, A. (2005). Five traits of an effective school board: A multifaced role,
defined. https://www.edutopia.org/five-characteristics-effective-school-board
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Whittle, C. (2006). Crash course: A radical plan for improving public education. Penguin
Publishing.
Williams, S. M. (2010). Effects of servant leadership behaviors on public school
superintendent’s length of tenure (Publication No. 3435619) [Doctoral dissertation,
Gannon University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Williams-Boyd, P. (2002). Educational leadership: A reference handbook. ABC-CLIO Press.
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Wissler, D. F., & Ortiz, F. I. (1988). The superintendent’s leadership in school reform. Falmer
Press.
Wong, K. (1995). Toward redesigning school board governance. Teachers College Record,
96(3), 569–576.

118

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

Date___________________

Dear School Board Member ______________________,

Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
119

Superintendent Recruitment Email

Date___________________

Dear Superintendent ______________________,

Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
120

Appendix B: School Board Member Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your chances of participation?
(check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced my
participation in the MIG training was . . . (check
all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Unable to determine
❏ Other
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
As a result of MIG training, my focus is on
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree

8
As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek
community input through a variety of methods
(email, town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
121

9
As a result of the MIG training, I understand the
importance of aligning the decision-making
process with the district’s vision and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
The MIG training clarified the differences
between my roles and responsibilities as a school
board member and those of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data
consistently to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
122

18
As a result of the MIG training, my ability to
accept the majority decision constructively, even
if I hold the minority view, has improved.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board
members could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
Attending MIG training has positively impacted
student achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree

123

Appendix C: Superintendent Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your school board members’
chances of participation? (check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced school board
members to participate in MIG training was . . .
(check all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Other
❏ Unable to determine
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
School board members who have earned MIG
certification demonstrate an increased focus on
student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree

8
School board members who are MIG certified
actively engage the community and utilize a
variety of communication methods (email, town
hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
124

9
School board members who are MIG trained
understand the importance of aligning the
decision-making process with the district’s vision
and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
School board members who are MIG trained
exhibit a clearer understanding of the difference
between their roles and responsibilities and those
of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
school board members.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the school governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data consistently
to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
125

18
The MIG training has improved school board
members’ ability to accept the majority decision,
even when they hold the minority view.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members
could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
MIG training has positively impacted student
achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree

126

Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3
Some people believe that school board training should be mandated in California. How
do you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has the MIG training affected how you govern your school district, if at all?
8
What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if at all?
9 What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a board member, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?

127

Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school governance teams to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3 Some people argue that school board training should be mandated in California. How do
you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to your board members and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has MIG training affected how your school board members govern your school
district, if at all?
8 What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if any?
a What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make MIG training more accessible to all superintendents?
11 How does MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a superintendent, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?

128

Appendix F: Informed Consent
Date: _______________

Dear _______________,

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

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

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

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
me at _______________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California.

Thank you, in advance, for your time and assistance.

Sincerely,

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

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

( ) I have read this form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent to my
participation in the research described above.
Participant’s Signature: _________________________________________________________
Participant’s Printed Name: ______________________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________________________________________

129

Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument RQ 1
What factors impact
the decision of school
board members to
participate in the MIG
training program?
RQ 2
How does the MIG
training program
encourage and equip
school board
members to exhibit
the behaviors of
effective school
governance?
RQ 3
Does MIG training
have an impact on
student achievement
and growth?
School Board
Member Survey
1-6 7-16,18-19 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
Superintendent
Survey
1-6 7-14 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
School Board
Member Interview
Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Superintendent
Interview Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance

PDF

School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

School board governance training and student achievement

PDF

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards

PDF

K−12 school board training in California

PDF

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

PDF

School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams

PDF

School board training: impact on governance and achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts

PDF

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

PDF

Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness

PDF

The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

Asset Metadata

Creator Khajavi, Hedieh (author)

Core Title School board training and governance in California

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/08/2021

Defense Date 01/29/2021

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

Tag California K-12 public education,Masters in Governance training,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development for school board members,public education,school board members,school board training,superintendents

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Escalante, Michael F. (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy M. (committee member), Cherniss, Alex (committee member), Franklin, Gregory A. (committee member)

Creator Email hediehkh@yahoo.com,hkhajavi@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-438039

Unique identifier UC11667852

Identifier etd-KhajaviHed-9418.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-438039 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KhajaviHed-9418.pdf

Dmrecord 438039

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Khajavi, Hedieh

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