University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts

(USC Thesis Other)

The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content The Impact of Formalized School Board Training on California
School Districts
by
Ryan Patrick Parry
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 Ryan Patrick Parry 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Ryan Patrick Parry certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Rudy M. Castruita
Michele Taney Doll
Michael F. Escalante
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
Abstract
School boards are responsible for setting the direction of the school district, establishing structure,
and developing policy to ensure the success of the school district. This qualitative study examined
the impact of the California School Board Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG)
training had on California school board members. This study used 3 frameworks to guide the
research. Lee Bolman and Terence Deal’s 4 leadership frames were used to define leadership. The
Lighthouse Inquiry, conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards, looked at best practices
of effective school boards. The CSBA’s professional standards for school board members were
used to provide insight into the expectations of school governance teams. Perspectives from 62
public school districts were examined to answer this study’s 3 research questions: (a) factors that
impacted the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG training program, (b)
how the MIG training program equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective school governance, and (c) whether MIG training had an impact on student achievement
and growth. The common themes were also supported by survey data. The goal of the 3 research
questions was to examine the benefit of the MIG training and its implications for school board
members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of
this study was to examine the perceptions of school board members and superintendents regarding
the MIG training and its impact on school governance and student achievement. The research
conducted in this study revealed that school board members who attended the MIG training
program felt more equipped to carry out the necessary functions of school board members. The
study also found that school board members were in favor of mandated training being required.
School board members and superintendents in this study believed that participation in the MIG
training allowed school governance teams the opportunity to build stronger working relationships.
iv
Study participants also found a correlation between the professional development of school
governance teams and student achievement.
v
Dedication
To the people who encouraged me and stood by my side throughout this process: Tisha, Presley,
and Cash. As Presley and Cash’s education continues, I hope that I have been an example to them
and that they know that with hard work and dedication, anything is possible. I have spent countless
hours locked in my office working to complete this goal, and Tisha has held down the fort and
offered me the support that I needed. Without her constant encouragement, this achievement
would not have been possible.
To my parents, Dain and Rhonda: The work ethic that they instilled in me as a child provided me
with the tools necessary to complete this process.
To all of my friends and extended family: Without their support and encouragement, none of this
would have been possible.
vi
Acknowledgments
It is my great honor to thank and recognize those individuals who have supported me
throughout the doctoral program at USC as well as throughout the dissertation writing process. I
would like to start by thanking my Thursday team: Stephanie, Julie, and Benson. Without their
support, I would have never made it to this point. The constant proofreading, text messages, and
moral support were huge, and I am forever grateful.
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Richard Sheeran, who encouraged me to attend USC and
to “get it done.” I would also like to thank the collection of USC alum: Dr. Eminhizer, Dr. Black-
more, Dr. Burciaga, Dr. Umana, and all the others from whom I have asked advice over the years
—thank you!
My extended USC team—Will, Devon, Jen, and Jayne—all made this experience what I
had hoped it to be. The guidance and wisdom of my dissertation chair, Dr. Michael Escalante,
made what was once thought impossible possible. I also want to thank the dissertation committee
members: Dr. Michele Doll, Dr. David Cash, and Dr. Richard Sheeran. Their thoughtful insights
allowed me to grow as an educational leader. I thank the members of the Rossier School of
Education. Finally, I would like to thank my editor, Phyllis Parmet, for her assistance and advice.
As I sit here writing this, I can finally say that I have finished eating the elephant “one bite at a
time.” Fight on!
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract iv
Dedication vi
Acknowledgments vii
List of Tables xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Purpose of the Study 2
Research Questions 2
Importance of the Study 3
Assumptions 3
Limitations of the Study 4
Delimitations 5
Definition of Terms 5
Organization of the Study 7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 9
History of School Boards 9
Role of School Board Members 12
Setting the Vision of the School District 12
Establishing an Effective and Efficient Structure 13
Providing Support for the Superintendent and Personnel 15
Ensuring Accountability to the Public 16
Community Leaders 16
History of the Superintendency 16
Superintendent as a Teacher-Scholar 17
Superintendent as Manager 18
Democratic Leader 18
Applied Social Scientist 19
Effective Communicator 19
Role of the Superintendent 20
Collaborative Goal Setting 22
Non-negotiable Goals for Achievement and Instruction 22
Board Alignment and Support of District Goals 22
Monitoring Achievement and Instruction Goals 22
Use of Resources to Support Goals 23
MIG Training 23
School Board Accountability 26
School Board Accountability to Government Mandates 26
School Board Accountability to the Community 27
School Board Voting Methods 28
School Board Accountability to Superintendent and Teachers 29
Theoretical Frameworks 29
The Lighthouse Inquiry 30
viii
CSBA 32
Bolman and Deal: Four Frames 34
Chapter Summary 37
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 39
Research Questions 39
Research Team 40
Research Design 40
Sample Population and Participants 42
Instrumentation 43
Data Collection 43
Data Analysis 45
Ethical Considerations 45
Chapter Summary 45
Chapter Four: Results 46
Participants 47
District A 48
District B 48
District C 50
Results for Research Question 1 51
Self-Motivation and Learning 52
District Culture and Influence 54
Increased Governance Capacity 56
Summary for Research Question 1 60
Results for Research Question 2 60
Clearly Defined Roles and Responsibilities 61
Relationship Building 64
Support for Mandated Training 68
Summary for Research Question 2 70
Results for Research Question 3 70
Focus on Student Achievement 71
Alignment of Decision Making to Support Student Achievement 74
MIG Supports Student Achievement 76
Summary for Research Question 3 79
Chapter Summary 79
Chapter Five: Discussion 81
Purpose of the Study Restated 81
Summary of Findings 82
Research Question 1 82
Research Question 2 83
Research Question 3 84
Limitations 85
Implications 85
ix
Recommendations for Future Research 86
Conclusion 87
References 88
Appendices
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails 99
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey 101
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey 103
Appendix D: Interview Guide: School Board Members 105
Appendix E: Interview Guide: Superintendents 106
Appendix F: Informed Consent 107
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix 108
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participants 48
Table 2: Summary of Pseudonyms Used in Study 49
Table 3: Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the
Masters in Governance Training 52
Table 4: Participants’ Responses to Whether Their School Board Culture Encouraged
Participation in Masters in Governance Training 54
Table 5: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training
Should Be Encouraged for School Governance Teams by Local District Policy 56
Table 6: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training
Had Impacted Their Ability to Govern Effectively 58
Table 7: Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Helped
School Board Members to Differentiate Among Policy, Leadership, and
Management 59
Table 8: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training
Clarified the Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of a School
Board Member and Those of the Superintendent (N = 180) 62
Table 9: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Were
Masters in Governance Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the
Difference Between Their Roles and Responsibilities and Those of Their
Superintendent (N = 62) 62
Table 10: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance
Training Had Improved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept
the Majority Decision, Even When They Held the Minority View (N = 180) 65
Table 11: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training
Had Improved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the Majority
Decision, Even When They Held the Minority View (N = 62) 65
Table 12: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether It Was Important for Board
Members to Attend Masters in Governance Training With Their Superintendent
(N = 180) 66
Table 13: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether It Was Important for Board Members to
Attend Masters in Governance Training With Their Superintendent (N = 62) 66
xi
Table 14: Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Should Be Mandated
in California 68
Table 15: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Had
Earned Masters in Governance Certification Demonstrated an Increased Focus
on Student Achievement (N = 62) 72
Table 16: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in
Governance Training, Their Focus Was on Student Achievement (N = 180) 72
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 75
Table 18: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in Governance
Training Had Positively Impacted Student Achievement in Their District 76
xii
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
School boards are comprised of elected officials from within local school district bound-
aries. According to the California School Board Association (CSBA; 2017), school boards are
responsible for setting the direction of the school district, establishing an effective and efficient
structure for the school district, providing support for the superintendent and personnel, ensuring
accountability to the public, and providing community leadership. Further explanation of these
roles is described in the following subsections. This study explored the importance of the CSBA’s
(2018c) Masters in Governance (MIG) professional development (PD) training on school board
members’ ability to effectively govern school districts and the effect that MIG training has had on
student achievement. Through a qualitative approach, this study looked at the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and the effect it has had on
the governance practices of board members.
School boards were designed to provide an opportunity for the local school district popu-
lation to have a voice in the direction of the school district. Traditionally the school board makes
decisions on the allotment of finances, hiring the school district superintendent, and establishing
the vision of the school district. PD is offered to all stakeholders within a school district: teachers,
counselors, administrators and superintendents. School board members are often overlooked or
choose not to participate in PD. The number of responsibilities, the impact of decisions made by
board members, and the lack of training constitute a prevailing problem (Hess, 2002; Resnick,
1999).
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
2
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 relations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG
training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
3
Importance of the Study
School board members have ever-increasing responsibilities and are being held accountable
by stakeholders in the community. Many board members have reported that they feel under-
prepared to assume the roles and responsibilities of the position (Hess, 2002; Resnick, 1999). Few
school board members have a professional background in the field of education, and many feel that
the job is more difficult than expected; less than half of all board members seek a second term
(Resnick, 1999).
The importance of this study was to determine whether there was a link between CSBA’s
MIG training and effective school board governance in California. This study offers data on school
board training and identifies the effective components of CSBA’s (2012b) MIG training program.
The study provides training agencies with the opportunity to gain valuable insight as to what
participants value in a school board member training program. It was also the plan of the research
team to identify potential links between training and practice that motivate school board members
to attend training even when not required under current board policy. The study should provide
guidance to policymakers in making future decisions regarding school board member training and
requirements. This study was designed to determine whether formalized school board member
training encouraged effective school board governance but should provide lawmakers with
qualitative data when considering the potential of mandating school board member training.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in regard to the study:
1. That the participants, board members and superintendents, would answer honestly to the
survey questions and the interview questions;
2. That a qualitative approach to the study would be the most appropriate;
4
3. That the MIG training is research-based and that attending the training increased school
board members’ ability to govern effectively;
4. That school board members have a direct impact on the governance of their school
districts;
5. That training for board members improves the effectiveness of the board’s ability to
govern; and
6. That training for board members improves school board–superintendent relationships.
Limitations of the Study
There were several limitations to this study:
1. The research team was not considering other forms of school board member training and
solely focused on the CSBA’s MIG training program.
2. The research team was focusing on school districts where a simple majority of school
board members had participated in at least one of the five training modules.
3. The research team limited its research to participants in 12 California counties: Alameda,
Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego,
Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura. Limiting the research process to 12 counties did
not provide the perspectives of superintendents and school board members from other
California counties.
4. The study was limited to participants’ recollections of the CSBA MIG training and to
the time allowed to complete the survey and interviews.
5. The validity of this study might have been limited by how well the participants under-
stood the survey directions and how truthfully they provided their responses.
5
6. This study was limited by the number of board members and superintendents who
completed the survey and agreed to participate in the study.
7. The interview process was disrupted due to the stay-at-home orders necessitated by the
pandemic coronavirus outbreak and required telephone or Zoom
™
virtual interviews to
occur instead of face-to-face interviews.
Delimitations
Although participants were selected from the aforementioned counties, there were several
other selection criteria for participating districts:
1. Only public elementary, secondary, and unified school districts were considered;
2. A majority of school board members had completed at least one of the five modules of
the MIG training;
3. No consideration was given to school districts’ economic status; and
4. School districts that had not participated in the CSBA MIG training were not consid-
ered.
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
the performance or producing documents and records, creating and following plans, and reporting
student performance on assessments.
CSBA:
The nonprofit education association representing the elected officials who govern public
school districts and county offices of education. With a membership of nearly 1,000 educa-
tional agencies statewide, CSBA brings together school governing boards and administra-
6
tors from districts and county offices of education to advocate for effective policies that
advance the education and well-being of the state’s more than 6 million school-age chil-
dren. A membership-driven association, the CSBA provides policy resources and training
to members and represents the statewide interests of public education through legal,
political, legislative, community, and media advocacy. (CSBA, 2018a, para. 1)
Effective school board leadership: Leadership provided by school board members such
that they do not interfere with the superintendent’s obligations to manage the school system and to
conduct day-to-day affairs by avoiding micromanaging of the superintendent.
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through the
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2007; Gember-
ling et al., 2000).
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP):
A 3-year plan that describes the goals, actions, services, and expenditures to support
positive student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The LCAP provides an
opportunity for LEAs [local education agencies] to share their stories of how, what, and
why programs and services are selected to meet their local needs. (California Department
of Education [CDE], 2020b, LCAP Overview section, para. 1)
MIG: A training program sponsored by the CSBA that consists of five modules designed to
define roles and responsibilities, improve governance and leadership through increased knowledge
and skills to support an effective governance structure, and maintaining a focus on student learn-
ing.
PD: Training opportunities for school board members to improve their effectiveness (Land,
2002).
7
School board or board of trustees: 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 member or trustee: Locally elected public officials entrusted with governing
a community’s public schools (CSBA, 2018b).
School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding over the
public meetings of school boards.
School district: Synonym for LEA; system of public schools within a geographical area
that is governed by a school board, which appoints a superintendent to function as the chief
executive administrator. In this study, a school district can be elementary, union, joint, or unified.
Student achievement: The performance by students on the annual summative assessment
given by the state of California
Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer (CEO) of a public school district with
oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
Organization of the Study
The dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter One has provided an overview of the
study: a statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, research questions, importance of the
study, assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and definitions of terms. Chapter Two provides a
review of the literature pertaining to formalized school board training and effective school board
governance. The chapter also deals with background information on the history of school boards
and the position of the superintendent. Chapter Three outlines the methodology used for the study
and the research design, including participant sampling, research instruments, and data collection
analysis procedures. Chapter Four presents the research findings as well as an analysis of the data
8
as they related to each of the research questions. Chapter Five provides a summary of the study
and implications for future research.
9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The educational system in the United States is a complex and constantly changing system.
The system is expected to meet the needs of an ever-changing diverse population with very unique
needs. The local educational system is governed by the local school board, comprised of elected
representatives charged with the task of maintaining the financial well-being of the school district,
hiring the district superintendent, and establishing policy and regulations that support the academic
achievement of the students in the school district. The superintendent of schools must work with
the school board to implement the policy and vision of the school board and keep the school board
abreast of all pertinent information. If school boards are to be effective, members must work with
one another and the superintendent on a shared vision and the established goals of the school
board. This chapter reviews the literature regarding the roles and responsibilities of both school
board members and the superintendent. This chapter also reviews the literature related to the role
of school board member training.
History of School Boards
Public schools began to emerge in the 17th century in New England. The Compulsory
Education Act of 1647 required towns to establish and maintain schools. Similar acts were enacted
in other New England colonies around the same time (Hess, 2002; Land 2002). Schools were
managed by local statesmen and were expected to sustain schools through town meetings. Grow-
ing populations led to greater responsibility and increased responsibilities in local government
which led to the separation of education from town governance (Kirst, 2008; Land, 2002). The
development of the school board can be traced back to towns in Massachusetts that formed
committees of laymen who were responsible for overseeing public schools (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
The school board model developed in Massachusetts spread across New England as school
10
districts were developed. These new districts, having their own authority, were funded by local
taxes (Land, 2002). In 1827, Horace Mann, founder of the American school system, proclaimed
that the common school was to be free, financed by local and state government, controlled by lay
boards of education, and mixing all social groups under one roof. The school board was to be
nonpartisan and nonsectarian (Kirst, 2008). It is still the governance prototype used by school
boards and public schools today (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002).
School boards began to experience significant changes in structure and role by the early
19th century. The move to separate partisan politics from education became the primary focus.
Activists of the time viewed political corruption as the primary cause of the inefficiency of the
public school system. Reformers argued that the decentralized committee system for administering
public schools created opportunities for political influence (Alsbury, 2008a; Danzberger, 1994;
Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The school boards of the time were usually large and comprised
of subcommittees, which activists felt were fragmenting executive authority (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
The school board governance structure was eventually transformed into smaller school boards;
members were elected at large and had no political affiliations.
Reformers believed that better management, accountability, and large-scale improvements
could be achieved through the centralization of power in a professional educator, a chief executive
who had considerable delegated authority from the board (Danzberger, 1994; Kirst, 2008; Land,
2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). This new model of governance shifted the focus of the school board
from the day-to-day administration to a focus on policymaking. The day-to-day operation of the
school district became the responsibility of the superintendent of schools. This shift from daily
administration to that of policymakers is the model that school boards use today. There are more
11
than 15,000 school boards across the nation, most comprised of five to seven elected or appointed
members (Hess, 2002).
During the 1950s there was a growth in the influence of both state and federal government
in public education. The most notable example of such influence is the Brown v. Board of Edu-
cation (1954) Supreme Court case which required equal educational opportunities for all students.
The supreme court’s decision required the desegregation of public schools. However, the case left
how school districts would implement the change to local school boards. The signing of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 is another example of the federal
government implementing policy into the public school system. ESEA provided direct funding to
schools with historically underserved families (Alsbury, 2008a; Hess, 2002; Land, 2002; Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). ESEA has undergone various reauthorizations, including the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB; 2002) of the Bush administration. NCLB again tied funding to state and federal
requirements, expanding the involvement in education policy. The most recent reauthorization of
ESEA, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; Klein, 2016; U.S. Department of Education,
n.d.), reduced the federal influence in the public school system and returned some authority to
states and local school boards (Klein, 2016). In an effort to cut federal education spending, the
Trump administration signed an executive order to investigate the involvement of the federal
government in public education. U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos noted that the central-
ized approach of the federal government, including the distribution of funds, is a disruption to the
ability of the local governments to meet their own needs (Bock, 2019; Klein, 2018).
The purpose of the local school board is to act as the voice of the public. Since its incep-
tion, the primary purpose of the school board has been to implement policy. The research study
known as the Lighthouse Inquiry, conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB;
12
Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000) indicates that the school board acts as a connection between
the school system and those who reside within the school district’s boundaries. The school board is
responsible for implementing policy that aligns with the local community’s vision and values and is
the key to success. Today’s school boards are faced with a much greater task compared to those of
the past. Presently school boards are responsible for the financial well-being of the district, student
achievement, and mandates from the state and federal levels. In order for school boards to operate
in the complex environment of school governance, they must possess the necessary knowledge,
effective management, and leadership skills that are developed through professional learning
(Delagardelle, 2008).
Role of School Board Members
School boards’ effectiveness is truly understood only when the roles and responsibilities
for governance are clearly defined. The CSBA (2018c) has categorized five major roles and
responsibilities of school boards: setting the direction of the school district, establishing an effec-
tive and efficient structure for the school district, providing support for the superintendent and
personnel, ensuring accountability to the public, and providing community leadership. Further
explanation of these roles is described in the following subsections.
Setting the Vision of the School District
An essential role of the school board is to develop, maintain, and communicate the vision
of the school district (CSBA, 2007; Land, 2002; Senge, 1990; Supovitz, 2006; Thurlow Brenner
et al., 2002). According to Land (2002), the vision statement clearly defines what the governance
team sees as necessary for students to reach their highest potential as well as the direction that the
school district will take for students to be successful. The vision and goals of the school district are
aligned with both the governing board of the school district and the values of the local community
13
(Land, 2002; G. Weiss et al., 2014). Establishing a clear vision focused on student achievement
provides a clear understanding of the school district’s improvement efforts (CSBA, 2007).
Korelich and Maxwell’s (2015), study found that governance teams in highly effective school
districts had clearly defined goals and that decisions were based on these goals and the best interest
of students.
Establishing an Effective and Efficient Structure
Policymaking
School board members are authorized by the state to govern the local school district as a
collective unit, not as individuals (Carol et al., 1986; Danzberger, 1992). School board members
must work with one another as well as with the superintendent if they are to enact their vision for
the school district (Land, 2002). State laws and local policies clearly state that board members
should focus on leadership and governance for high student achievement (Thurlow Brenner et al.,
2002).
Policymaking is a significant responsibility of the school board. Policymaking provides
structure and helps to develop boundaries for what is acceptable in the process of achieving the
goals set forth by the board (CSBA, 2007; Campbell & Greene, 1994; Danzberger et al.,1987;
Ehrensal & First, 2008; Grissom, 2009; Hill et al, 2002; Hopkins et al, 2007; P. A. Johnson, 2011;
Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999). The school board is also responsible for ensuring that state policies
are implemented at the local level. Having an awareness of the substantial list of education codes
and board policies helps board members to govern effectively (Ehrensal & First, 2008).
14
Systems Coherence
The board research report conducted by CSBA in 2017 found that in order for systemwide
school district improvement to take place, each department must interact together, guided by the
district’s vision and goals for student achievement. This interaction is referred to as systems
coherence. School boards play a pivotal role in developing coherence through their actions and
policy (CSBA, 2017; P. A. Johnson, 2011). Improvement of the school system requires a balance
of district authority and site-based implementation. Coherence is supported by the guidance of the
school board policy for achieving student success (CSBA, 2017; Rice et al., 2000). Rice et al.
(2000) found that the use of data helps school sites in the identification of students’ needs while
remaining focused on the district’s vision and goals. Collaboration and intentional focus on the
district as a system of interrelated and interdependent parts among all stakeholders is essential to
coherence (CSBA, 2017).
Culture of Support
The culture of a school district is key to the success of improvement initiatives (CSBA,
2017). The norms, values, and attitudes drive the behavior of the school district (CSBA, 2017;
Campbell & Greene, 1994). The culture of the school district is established by the school board
and superintendent. Together, they set the tone by modeling positive and professional relationships
(CSBA, 2017). The culture of the district cannot be dictated; however, it can be influenced
through trust, promoting positive attitudes and beliefs, and community engagement (CSBA, 2017;
Campbell & Greene, 1994; Land, 2002; G. Weiss et al., 2014). The partnership of the school
board and district office working together with the shared vision that all students can learn is
another way to promote a culture of support (CSBA, 2017; Devarics & O’Brien, 2019).
15
Using Data to Inform and Support Continuous Improvement
Continuous improvement begins with the school board. The board establishes a vision and
aligns resources to support that vision (CSBA, 2017). The use of data as it relates to student
achievement can inform the school board on the effectiveness of current district programs and
policy. Waters et al. (2003) found that student achievement is correlated with district leaders’
support of monitoring progress toward goals and strategically aligning resources to those goals.
Board members can ensure that the district office provides support for the school staff to effec-
tively use data by investing in PD and funding data support staff (CSBA, 2017).
Providing Support for the Superintendent and Personnel
The school board is tasked with hiring the superintendent and holding the superintendent
responsible for the implementation of the school board’s vision, policies, and state laws (Carol et
al., 1986; Goodman et al., 1997; Land, 2002; Mountford, 2004; Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002).
The school board hires the superintendent to act as the CEO of the school district. The superinten-
dent is charged with the task of turning the district’s vision into reality (CSBA, 2007; Campbell &
Greene, 1994; Ehrensal & First, 2008; Elmore, 2000; Grissom, 2009; Hill et al., 2002; Hopkins et
al., 2007; Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999). According to G. Weiss et al. (2014), in effective school
districts the school board and superintendent work together with the best interest of all stake-
holders. In order for school boards and superintendents to do this, they must build a culture of
trust with a constant focus on the common vision and goals of the school district (Wirt & Kirst,
2005).
District leadership turnover and the transition to new leadership is another one of the
school board’s responsibilities. The school board must clearly communicate the vision and goals of
the district. This task is especially true in the hiring of a new superintendent. Board members
16
should clearly state their expectations and vision for the school district if they are to continue
making progress toward their stated vision and goals (CSBA, 2017).
Ensuring Accountability to the Public
School board members are elected officials and thus are accountable to their constituents.
According to Thurlow Brenner et al. (2002), the school board should regularly monitor student
achievement. Thurlow Brenner et al. suggested that school board members should visit school
sites to monitor the progress of the district’s goals for student achievement. The public school
board meeting should also be structured in a way that informs the public on the progress of the
district in meeting its goals for student achievement.
Community Leaders
School board members are elected from the local school district boundaries and are repre-
sentative of the community. School board members are responsible to the interests of the general
public and assist community members in the understanding of the educational system (Land,
2002). According to Resnick (1999), good governance requires board members to be actively
involved in the community. Active involvement helps to build a connection between the school
district and the community.
History of the Superintendency
The superintendent of the public school system is considered to be the most critical posi-
tion in any school system due to the influence that he or she has over the vision and direction of the
school district as a whole. The superintendent is responsible for working closely with the school
board as well as working with teachers and administrators to provide the highest level of education
for the students of the school district. The superintendent is hired by the school board that, in turn,
hires all other employees of the district. The position of superintendent is one that is under the
17
constant scrutiny of the public and the employees of the district. According to Calahan (1966), the
weakness of the position of superintendent is the lack of job stability. Callahan pointed out that the
fact that the position is so unstable is one of the strongest arguments for the creation of the
position. Early superintendents worked to prepare future school leaders who could provide civic
leadership and scientific management, and establish business practices for the schools. Superinten-
dents had to be current in their knowledge and skills in curriculum and instruction, teacher prepa-
ration, staff training, and attending to the business of the school (Björk et al., 2014; Glass et al.,
2000).
The role of the superintendent has changed more than any other profession in education
since the development of the position. In the late 19th century, the position of superintendent
developed as the population began to boom and local municipalities were committed to providing
free public education. The number of public school students increased from 7 million in 1870 to
more than 15 million in 1898 (Callahan, 1966). By the end of the 19th century, more than 27 states
and territories had enacted some form of compulsory attendance laws (Björk et al., 2014; Calla-
han, 1966). The rapid growth of the public school system in the late 1800s was heavily concen-
trated in cities across the United States. By 1900, most city school districts had appointed a district
administrator due to the consolidation of rural school districts into larger ones (Björk et al., 2014).
School systems in cities often had longer school years than those in rural areas resulting in the
development of the position of superintendent (Callahan, 1966).
Superintendent as a Teacher-Scholar
The position of the superintendent has existed since the mid-1800s when school districts
appointed the superintendent to run the day-to-day operations of schools ( Glass et al., 2000). The
role of the superintendent, as mentioned, has gone through many changes. Early superintendents
18
were charged with the task of spreading the word of free public education and the common school
movement (Glass et al., 2000). That role transitioned to that of schoolmaster and head teacher and
then evolved into a master teacher and educator (Glass et al., 2000). By the late 19th century, the
primary focus of the superintendent was the implementation of state curriculum and supervising
teachers (Kowalski, 2005a). In the early 1990s, superintendents were considered the most influen-
tial members of the National Education Association (Kowalski, 2005a). Superintendents of the
time considered themselves a part of the teaching profession and left much of the managerial duties
to the local school board (Kowalski, 2005a). The role of the superintendent as a teacher-scholar
has ebbed and flowed over the years. However, a study by Glass et al. (2000) found that over 40%
of all superintendents surveyed indicated that the school board’s primary expectation was for them
to serve as the educational leader of the school district.
Superintendent as Manager
During the time of the industrial revolution, school districts looked to implement many of
the same concepts of scientific management and efficiency (Björk et al., 2014). Thus began the era
of the superintendent as the district manager. School boards of the day were populated by busi-
nessmen who assigned the superintendent several management responsibilities, including that of
the school budget, personnel management, and the management of facilities (Björk et al., 2014).
The shift from teacher- scholar to that of the manager resulted in a changing perception of the
position. Superintendents were now planners and thinkers who helped to develop the urban school
system (Thomas & Moran, 1992).
Democratic Leader
The Great Depression of the 1930s forced the job of district superintendent to become
more political in nature. Superintendents’ concerns shifted to lobbying for financial resources and
19
community engagement (Björk et al., 2014; Björk & Lindle, 2000). The political nature of the new
superintendency necessitated the need and skills for community relations, collaborative decision
making, and politics (Kowalski & Björk, 2005). Superintendents and school boards of the time
began to work in unison in an effort to motivate policymakers and the community to support the
school district’s initiatives
Applied Social Scientist
The civil rights movement of the 1950s again shifted the perceived role of the district
superintendent. Superintendents advocated for school administration to be viewed as an estab-
lished academic discipline, focusing on social science research and theory (Glass et al., 2000).
Superintendents of the time were expected to apply scientific inquiry to identify and solve the
problems of practice; and schools were socially just, democratic, and productive (Björk et al.,
2014).
Effective Communicator
Two conditions shaped the role of superintendent as a communicator: the need to restruc-
ture schools and the use of information to help identify and solve problems of practice (Björk et
al., 2014). The information and technology boom of the 1970s created entirely new expectations
for the district superintendent (Glass et al., 2000). Superintendents were now expected to master
the art of communication and support technology in learning, teaching, and administration (Glass
et al., 2000). Since the early 1980s, superintendents have had new expectations when serving as
effective communicators (Kowalski, 2005b). According to Kowalski (2005a), examples include
engaging others in open political dialogue, facilitating the creation of shared visions,
building a positive school district image, gaining community support for change, providing
20
an essential framework for information management, providing marketing programs, and
keeping the public informed about education. (p. 13)
Role of the Superintendent
The role and expectations of the district superintendent have evolved over the past 150
years, becoming increasingly more complex and demanding (Kowalski, 2005a). The position of
school superintendent first appeared in the late 1830s, and by 1850 there were 13 large cities
utilizing the administrative duties of a superintendent (Kowalski, 2005a). By 1900, most school
districts across the nation had established the position of school superintendent. The need for the
position of superintendent came from the development of new, larger city school districts; the
consolidation of rural school districts; and the development and expansion of state curricula
(Kowalski, 2005a). The superintendent serves as the CEO of the school district and manages the
day-to-day affairs of the school district. Superintendents are hired on multiyear contracts and
typically serve in two to three districts over an average career lasting 16 years (Björk et al., 2014).
Superintendents typically have a staff of district-level administrators varying in number according
to the size of the school district served. The size of the school district has a direct influence on the
superintendent’s day-to-day activities with individual schools in the district or with work with the
central office staff (Björk et al., 2014).
The superintendent of schools is responsible for the compliance of legislative mandates,
policy and regulation implementation, providing information to the school board, as well as acting
as the instructional leader of the school district (Björk et al., 2014). A study done by Edwards
(2007) found while the role of the superintendent is quite broad, there are some commonalities in
typical job descriptions. While states have unique requirements for superintendents in both the
explicit and implied role of the superintendent commonalities do exist:
21
1. Serving as chief executive officer of the school board and thus assuming responsibility
for all aspects of the work;
2. Providing leadership planning and evaluating all phases of the instructional program;
3. Selecting and recommending all personnel to the school board for the appointment and
guiding the growth of said personnel;
4. Preparing the budget for submission to the board and administering it after its adoption;
5. Determining building needs and administering building programs, construction, opera-
tions, and maintenance;
6. Serving as the leader of the school board, the staff, and the community in improving the
education system. (pp. 10–11)
Edwards also found that while the duties of superintendents were fairly consistent across the
country, local school boards could expand the role of the superintendent.
The CSBA’s Superintendent’s Advisory Council as well as the Superintendents Committee
of the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) have established a set of profes-
sional governance standards for the position of superintendent. Standards set forth by the joint
commission recommended that these standards be included as a part of the adoption of Profes-
sional Governance Standards adoption (CSBA, 2018c). The standards include promoting the
success of all students and supporting the efforts of the school board; serving as a model of
lifelong learning; working with school board members and assuring collective responsibility for
building unity; respecting the role of the school board as a representative of the community;
communicating openly with trust and integrity with all board members; and accepting leadership
responsibility and accountability for implementing the vision, goals, and policies of the school
district (CSBA, 2018c).
22
Waters and Marzano (2006) found that district leadership correlates with student achieve-
ment when superintendents follow five leadership responsibilities:
Collaborative Goal Setting
Waters and Marzano (2006) found that effective superintendents included all relevant
stakeholders in establishing goals for their school districts. The researchers found that effective
superintendents ensured that school administrators throughout the district were involved in the
establishment of goals as they are the ones who will be implementing the goals.
Non-negotiable Goals for Achievement and Instruction
Effective superintendents establish non-negotiable goals in the area of student achievement
and classroom instruction. Goals are established with specific targets for the district as a whole, for
individual schools, and for subpopulations of students (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Board Alignment and Support of District Goals
Superintendents must ensure that the primary focus of the district’s goals and efforts are
aligned with the school board. The school ensures that these goals are supported and made a
priority for student achievement (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Monitoring Achievement and Instruction Goals
Effective superintendents continually monitor goals for student achievement and instruc-
tion to ensure that these goals remain the primary drive behind the school district’s efforts. Ac-
cording to Waters and Marzano (2006), if these goals are not monitored, the goals of the super-
intendent and school become nothing more than educational fodder. Effective superintendents
ensure that schools are constantly looking at achievement targets.
23
Use of Resources to Support Goals
Effective superintendents ensure that resources are allocated and aligned with the district’s
goals. Superintendents must look at all available resources and determine their effectiveness in
meeting the goals of the district. This task may require the superintendent to make cuts and to
drop initiatives that are not aligned with the district goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006)
The review of literature has shown that the role of the 21st-century superintendent has
many different perspectives. The superintendent must be an expert in a multitude of areas including
finance, community relations, personnel management, curriculum, and board relationships. An
effective superintendent must be able to adapt to an ever-changing climate. The role of the super-
intendent has evolved over time from that of the teacher-scholar to manager, democratic leader,
and applied social scientist. Current superintendents are required to have all of the aforementioned
skills along with being effective communicators (Björk, 2009; Cuban, 1985; S. M. Johnson, 1996;
Kowalski, 2005a).
MIG Training
The effective governance of school boards requires the skills and knowledge that can be
developed only through formalized training, networking and professional learning (Dillon, 2010).
School board training programs, however, are not standardized, nor are they universal. Across the
United States, only 24 states mandate school board training (Alsbury, 2008b). With an increased
focus on accountability, school boards are now faced with increasingly complex challenges. School
districts are now required to create the school district’s vision, to set policy, to provide financial
oversight, and to increase student achievement.
The position of the school board member in the state of California requires a minimal level
of education and no formal training (CSBA, 2007). The lack of requirements for the position of
24
school board member produces individuals who have little to no knowledge of the educational
setting, yet are responsible for the vision and policy of the school district and the community they
serve. According to Bianchi (2003), it takes up to a year for newly elected board members to settle
into the position and to understand their role in school governance. This situation is due to the fact
that K-12 education is layered with intricacies of governance that include commitments, practices,
actions, accountability, and interactions with the surrounding community (Maricle, 2014). Accord-
ing to Roberts and Sampson (2011), taking part in governance training can greatly reduce the
amount of time to acclimate to the position. A lack of training can also have an effect on those
who run for school board seats. Many people run for school board with personal or hidden agen-
das (Mountford, 2004), thereby possibly affecting a board member’s ability to make decisions
based on the needs of all students.
School board training may be different across the nation; however, the goal is the same—
to provide board members with the necessary skills to fulfill the role of a school board member.
Some states require school board members to attend annual training, while other states require
only newly elected members to attend training. The state of California, as previously mentioned,
does not require that school board members attend any type of formalized training, but that is not
to say that training opportunities do not exist in California. The CSBA offers training to school
board members and the superintendent. CSBA’s (2018b) MIG program has trained over 2,000
school board members and superintendents, with 90% of participants recommending the training
to fellow colleagues. The MIG training provides board members with a governance framework
that clearly defines roles and responsibilities, with a focus on student achievement (Richter, 2013).
MIG training is comprised of five courses that cover an array of topics. The MIG training
is a total of 60 hours and must be completed in a 2-year time frame. The five courses are designed
25
to allow those who attend the opportunity to examine all issues through the lens of student
achievement (CSBA, 2018c):
1. Foundations of Effective Governance. This course develops insight into the roles and
responsibilities of the governance team and focuses on the core concepts of the MIG
program: trusteeship and governance.
2. Policy and Judicial Review. This course addresses policy and judicial review as well as
student learning and achievement.
3. School Finance. This course focuses on how to achieve a balance between district
budget goals and student achievement by setting budget priorities.
4. Human Resources. This course covers human resources and explores the board–super-
intendent relationship. The course also covers the board’s role in the collective bargaining
process.
5. Community Relations and Advocacy. This course consists of community relations and
advocacy and addresses community leadership, crisis management and media involvement,
and building community support. The course also integrates the concepts of trusteeship
and the governance team with the jobs of the board (CSBA, 2018c).
School board members and superintendents who attend the MIG training create a solidified
partnership that clearly understands the roles and responsibilities of both positions (Canal, 2013;
Gomez, 2013). Through this process of learning, student achievement is outlined as the founda-
tional basis for the work and where district goals are aligned to a collective vision using
data-informed decision making (Canal, 2013). The collaborative relationship also allows for the
acceptance of majority voting, even when there is opposition (Canal, 2013). The collaborative
relationship also helps to maintain professional relations in the face of complex issues.
26
School districts whose school board members are eager to learn new information and
participate in PD similar to the MIG training tended to have higher levels of student achievement
(Maricle, 2014). Professional standards, such as those developed in the MIG training, help to
create the focus, behavior, and practices needed to facilitate change (Canal, 2013). Positive rela-
tionships between the school board and the superintendent can have a substantial influence on the
success of a school district (Center for Public Education, 2011). A positive relationship between
the superintendent and school board members can best be described as shared leadership in service
to a diverse set of stakeholders (Waters & Marzano, 2006; G. Weiss et al., 2014).
School Board Accountability
Accountability is education is not a new concept. As discussed earlier, superintendents and
school boards have been accountable for student achievement in the district they serve for decades.
In 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education published a study that foreshadowed
the downfall of the American educational system if the United States did not make focused
changes. The result was a shift in accountability measures and a focus on student performance
(Timar, 2003).
School Board Accountability to Government Mandates
School boards have become more accountable to government mandates, both federal and
state. The original purpose of the school board was the management of the school district, includ-
ing the day-to-day operations, finances, and policymaking. Today, however, the school board is
accountable to the mandates passed down through legislation. The passage of the ESEA of 1965
(Alsbury, 2008a; Hess, 2002; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005), NCLB (2002), and the ESSA
(U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) are all forms of accountability with a focus from the federal
level on student achievement. The school district leadership team, comprised of the school board
27
and the superintendent, is responsible for overseeing these accountability measures and focusing
on student achievement. The California Dashboard (CDE, 2020a) is another form of accountabil-
ity. The Dashboard allows the public to see how school districts are performing on standardized
tests, school climate, graduation rates, and college and career readiness. School districts must also
develop a LCAP (CDE, 2020b), which sets goals, plans actions, and allocates resources to im-
prove student outcomes. In order for school districts to apply for federal funding tied to ESSA,
they must complete the LCAP.
School boards must understand their role in the accountability system. Hentschke and
Wohlstetter (2004) described accountability as a hierarchical relationship between two parties.
School boards are small political systems reflecting the pressures in a democracy related to the
school and community values of equity, efficiency, and quality of education (Kirst & Wirt, 2009).
The school board is elected locally and charged with the task of governing the district’s schools,
hiring a superintendent, and ensuring that state and federal mandates are implemented (Kirst &
Wirt, 2009).
School Board Accountability to the Community
School boards were created to represent the local community in all areas of the local
school system (Kirst, 1994). Early school boards were more representative of the local community
but also represented smaller communities. According to Kirst (1994), this situation made it easier
for school boards to meet the needs of the local community. In 1910 the ratio of constituents to
school board members was 500:1, compared to 2016 when the ratio widened to 22,000:1 (NCES,
2017). The ratio of constituents to board members in California is 38,000:1 (NCES, 2017).
The issue of community representation in school board membership is at its most complex
in California (Grissom, 2007). More than 77% of California school board members are Caucasian,
28
while the state population is only 61% Caucasian. The average household income in the state of
California is $53,269, while the average board member earns $112,500. There are educational dis-
parities represented as well. California school board members have reported that 100% had
received a high school diploma and nearly 70% held a bachelor’s degree. In comparison, only 80%
of California’s residents aged 25 or older had received a high school diploma and 29.5% held a
bachelor’s degree (Grissom, 2007). The disparity in education and income can create a disconnect
between school board members and the communities they represent.
School Board Voting Methods
The accountability of school board members to meet the needs of local communities and
the vast stakeholders’ interests has resulted in school districts trying to diversify local school
boards. School board elections typically follow one of three methods:
1. At large: Board members can live anywhere in the district and are elected by all the
voters in the district (CSBA, 2017).
2. Trustee area: Board members have specific geographic trustee areas in which they must
live and are elected only by residents of that area (CSBA, 2007).
3. Trustee area at large: Board members must live in particular geographic areas but are
elected “at large” by all voters in the district (CSBA, 2007).
According to Kirst and Wirt (2009), half of all board members in the United States were
elected in at-large elections. The use of trustee area voting has provided the most change to school
board demographics. In 2001, the California Voting Rights Act further supported the change in
board-member demographic equity. The act prohibits localities from running at-large elections that
hinder minorities from electing candidates of their choice (Fleming, 2013). The increased use of
29
trustee area voting and the passage of the Voting Rights Act have increased the number of His-
panic and African American school board members (Fraga et al., 2010).
School Board Accountability to Superintendent and Teachers
School boards and superintendents must work together and hold each other accountable if
they are to meet the needs of the community and increase student achievement (Goodman &
Zimmerman, 2000). The use of effective communication between the superintendent and school
board is the key to quality decision making (Blumberg & Blumberg, 1985). The superintendent is
an employee of the school board and must be allowed to operate the day-to-day operations of the
school district without the interference of the school board. According to Farkas et al. (2001),
65% of superintendents reported that school boards look for superintendents that the school board
can control. According to Richard and Kruse (2008), inexperienced board members often mistake
governance for close supervision. Role confusion between the school board and superintendent
create dysfunction and prohibit the governance team from moving the school district forward (G.
Weiss et al., 2014).
School boards of today are at the forefront of educational reform. They are tasked with the
hiring of superintendents, developing policy, and meeting the needs of the local community with a
strong focus on student achievement and success.
Theoretical Frameworks
For the purpose of this study, three theoretical frameworks were identified to analyze the
literature and outline of the study. The frameworks were selected to provide foundational
information regarding the governance of school districts. The Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al.,
2000), CSBA’s (2018c) effective governance system, and Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Reframing
30
Organizations provide insight into the roles and responsibilities, the setting, governance authority,
and leadership capacity of school board governance teams.
The Lighthouse Inquiry
The focus of this study was to examine the relationship between school board governance
and student achievement. The study suggests that there is a relationship between the effective
governance of school boards and student achievement. The study aimed to identify the qualities of
organizational behavior and practices that contribute to student achievement and to see if those
traits are transferable. The study was conducted from 1998 through 2000 and included both low
achieving and high achieving school districts (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000). Three re-
search questions guided the study:
1. Do some school boards generate higher achievement than others do?
2. And if so, do they do so through patterns of organizational behavior that can be
described and learned by others? (Rice et al., 2000, p. 16)
The study revealed significant consistency across the districts; overall, the majority of
participants in the study expressed common beliefs. The researchers (Rice et al., 2000) found
seven conditions for school renewal. They borrowed the terms moving and stuck from Rosenholtz
(1989) to describe the districts. “Moving” was identified as having student achievement that was
far above the norm; “stuck” related to student achievement that was relatively stable and below the
norm.
Emphasis on Building a Human Organizational System
Districts that were identified as moving expressed an internal desire to improve. Board
members expressed that they believed that all children could learn. The moving district board
members viewed external factors such as poverty and lack of parent involvement as challenges to
31
be overcome and not viewed as excuses. They also expected to see improvement in student
achievement quickly as a result of initiatives. Districts identified as stuck shared common beliefs
that external pressures were the reasons for working to improve and expected that student
achievement would take years to improve (Delagardelle, 2008).
Ability to Create and Sustain Initiatives
The researchers (Rice et al., 2000) in the Lighthouse Inquiry found that school boards
worked collaboratively with the superintendent to set goals and problem solve. Board members
could describe the structures that supported the communication within the district and mentioned
evidence of regularly learning together as a board. The study also found that school board mem-
bers regularly studied issues together before making decisions. The districts identified as stuck did
not have any clear process for linking school board actions to goals and often identified the
superintendent as the owner of the information and the sole problem solver (Delagardelle, 2008).
Supportive Workplace for Staff
Moving districts expressed a high level of confidence in the existing staff of the school
district. The study found that the school board could identify staff members who were improving
and how staff members were working to help to increase student achievement. Board members of
stuck districts often had negative comments about the staff and the need to change the principals
and teachers (Delagardelle, 2008).
Staff Development
Those districts identified as moving could describe the link between PD and the district’s
goals for student achievement. The board believed in the importance of staff development. Stuck
school boards were unable to identify a plan for staff development and frequently described PD as
a waste of time and ineffective (Delagardelle, 2008).
32
Support for School Sites through Data and Information
Board members on moving districts stated that they received information from a variety of
sources, including the superintendent, principals, teachers, and other outside sources. They
frequently made decisions based upon data. Board members in districts identified as stuck noted
that the superintendent was the primary source of information and felt as though not all informa-
tion was shared equally. Data were rarely used in the decision-making process, and board members
relied on the superintendent to interpret the data (Delagardelle, 2008).
Community Involvement
Board members in moving districts expressed that they sought out ways to connect with
the community and to involve parents. Those districts identified as stuck described parents as
having a lack of interest in education and constituting barrier to student achievement (Delagar-
delle, 2008).
Integrated Leadership
Board members in moving school districts could identify the learning conditions in schools
and express alternatives for improving education. They also expressed high expectations for all
students, with a focus on finding ways to reach all children. School board members in those
districts identified as being stuck could seldom identify goals and had limited expectations for
some students (Delagardelle, 2008).
CSBA
The CSBA is a professional organization that seeks to support school board members.
CSBA (2019) has defined eight characteristics as essential to effective school board governance
and provides training through its MIG training:
• Keep the district focused on learning and achievement for all students.
33
• Communicate a common vision.
• Operate openly, with trust and integrity.
• Govern in a dignified and professional manner, treating everyone with civility and
respect.
• Govern within board-adopted policies and procedures.
• Take collective responsibility for the board’s performance.
• Periodically evaluate its own effectiveness.
• Ensure opportunities for the diverse range of views in the community to inform board
deliberations. (p. 2)
As mentioned, school boards are under constant scrutiny from stakeholders, including state
and federal agencies and local constituents to increase student achievement (Timar, 2003). Ac-
cording to the CSBA (2007), the school boards whose focus remains on student achievement
strengthen their priorities and make the decision-making process easier. The establishment of a
common vision is essential to effective governance (CSBA, 2007; Korelich & Maxwell, 2015). A
clearly defined vision allows those in the organization to make decisions. If school boards have a
clearly defined vision, they will be able to communicate that vision to community stakeholders.
School boards must make difficult decisions in regard to personnel, finances, and issues involving
students. School boards must operate with open communication and trust. If school board mem-
bers operate in isolation or in factions, there can be issues of mistrust, thereby creating an ineffec-
tive working relationship among members of the board and the community at large (CSBA, 2007).
Successful school board–superintendent relationships must involve a clear definition of
duties and responsibilities. Successful school board collaboration requires frequent communica-
tion. School boards must work with the community to support reform in order to build strong
34
community relations. Functional school boards have policies in place to help to alleviate the strain
of board member turnover and to seek out training opportunities for school board members.
Politics at the board and superintendent level causes a strain in all school districts. When school
boards fail to have a unified voice and vision and to work to appease special interests rather than
the public student achievement suffers (Hanover Research, 2014).
Bolman and Deal: Four Frames
According to Bolman and Deal (2017), organizations can be analyzed and categorized into
four distinct frameworks: the structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and
the symbolic frame. These frameworks provide structure for organizations looking at leadership
models and how to diagnose problems and offer solutions to improve leadership within an organi-
zation. The frameworks provide an opportunity to look at school boards and the problems that
they encounter.
The Structural Frame
The structural frame is often compared to the skeleton of the organization. For an organi-
zation to function, there must be structure. Structure includes how resources are allocated, the
coordination of responsibility and a sense of direction. Bolman and Deal (2017) contended that
vertical coordination is needed so that people can work to achieve a common goal. There must be
flexibility in place. If the structure is too tight, people in the organization will spend too much time
trying to work around the structure. On the other hand, if the structure is too loose, people within
the organization will get lost. School districts are structural by design. School board policies and
board regulations as well as state and federal regulations provide the structure within which the
school district must operate. According to Bolman and Deal (2017), school districts with tighter
35
structures result in a higher staff morale. School board members can help to develop and maintain
the structure of the school district. The authors listed six assumptions of the structural frame:
1. Organizations exist to achieve established goals and objectives.
2. Organizations increase efficiency and enhance performance through specialization and
clear division of labor.
3. Appropriate forms of coordination and control ensure that diverse efforts of individuals
and units mesh.
4. Organizations work best when rationality prevails over personal preferences and extra-
neous pressures.
5. Structures must be designed to fit in organizations’ circumstances (including its goals,
technology, workforce, and environment).
6. Problems and performance gaps arise from structural deficiencies and can be remedied
through analysis and restructuring. (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 47)
The Human Resource Frame
The human resource frame deals with the people in the organization as well as the organi-
zation itself. This frame focuses on the relationship between the organization and the people within
the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The human resource frame looks at the hiring of the
right people, keeping quality employees, and empowering employees. Effective school districts are
those that look to hire and support the best teachers and administrators (Darling- Hammond,
1994). School board members must create an environment where employees feel supported and
attract the best possible employees.
The Political Frame
36
The political frame sees the organization as a political space, where the people of the
organization are political agents (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The role of the school board member is
political in nature. Members are elected and held accountable by constituents. The political frame
suggests that organizations are devised by people and interests with limited resources. School
boards must set goals and create a structure by establishing policy. Policy setting is political in
nature, and there will be winners and losers due to the fact that not all members of the organization
get what they want at all times. Political leaders often work within the organization to build
coalitions. There is no guarantee that those in power will use it justly (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The
authors listed five propositions of the political frame:
1. Organizations are coalitions of various individuals and interest groups.
2. There are enduring differences among coalition members in values, beliefs, information,
interests, and perceptions of reality.
3. Most important decisions involve the allocation of scarce resources and what gets done.
4. Scarce resources and enduring differences give conflict a central role in organizational
dynamics and typically make power the most important resource.
5. Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for position
among different stakeholders. (Bolman & Deal, 2008, pp. 194–195)
The Symbolic Frame
The symbolic frame places meaning on the tribal aspect of contemporary organizations
(Bolman & Deal, 2017). The culture, meaning, and ritual ceremony are key concepts of the sym-
bolic frame. Culture anchors the organization and provides a sense of identity. Myths, values, and
vision bring clarity to the organization. These symbols of the organization can help hold the
organization together in times of conflict. As the school board performs legislative, executive, and
37
judicial actions, symbolic meaning is formed by the organization. School boards set the vision and
goals of the organization and thus develop the symbols for what the organization believes, values,
and prioritizes. The symbolic frame draws from diverse sources into five suppositions:
1. What is most important is not what happens but what it means.
2. Activity and meaning are loosely coupled; events have multiple meanings because
people interpret experience differently.
3. In the face of widespread uncertainty and ambiguity, people create symbols to resolve
confusion, increase predictability, find direction, and anchor hope and faith.
4. Many events and processes are more important for what is expressed than what is
produced. They form a cultural tapestry of secular myths, heroes and heroines, rituals,
ceremonies, and stories that help people find purpose and passion in their personal and
work lives.
5. Culture is the glue that holds an organization together and unites people around shared
values and beliefs. (Bolman & Deal, 2008 p. 253)
Chapter Summary
The literature review portion began with a historical look at the school board and the
development of the modern-day school board. The roles and responsibilities of school board
members were discussed to provide a better understanding of how school boards operate in the
school district setting. The literature review also provided a historical look at the development of
the superintendent of schools. The position was born out of necessity as school boards of the time
needed someone to run the day-to-day operations of the school district. The role of the superinten-
dent has changed over time from that of a teacher-scholar to that of the modern-day superinten-
dent—whose role best described as that of an effective communicator (Kowalski, 2005a).
38
Three frameworks were examined in detail in regard to effective school board governance.
The Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000) examines the relationship between
school board governance and student achievement. The CSBA (n.d.) has defined the success
criteria for successful school boards. Bolman and Deal (2017) have provided the structure for the
successful reframing of organizations.
39
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
The following research questions were developed by the research team to help identify
whether there was a relationship between school board training and successful school districts:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG
training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
This chapter provides a detailed description of the study: (a) the research team, (b) the
design of the study, (c) instrumentation development and design, (d) data collection, and (e) data
analysis. The research team conducted a comprehensive analysis of the responses provided by
school board members and superintendents in regard to their perceptions of the effectiveness of
the CSBA’s MIG school board training and its effects on school board governance.
Three theoretical frameworks were used to guide the analysis of the data collected:
40
1. Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four-frame model of effective leadership was used to identify
the leadership qualities demonstrated by school board members;
2. The IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008) was used to identify the organiza-
tional conditions used by school boards to govern effectively; and
3. The CSBA’s (n.d.) Professional Governance Standards were used to identify the
effective governance behaviors and practices utilized by school boards when providing district
leadership.
These frameworks helped the research team to develop the research questions, the interview
protocols, and to define the purpose of this study.
Research Team
The research team for this study was comprised of 20 doctoral students from the Univer-
sity of Southern California’s (USC) Rossier School of Education. The team developed and de-
signed this study under the guidance and direction of Dr. Michael Escalante, Dissertation Chair.
The research team examined several conceptual frameworks to help guide the study. The frame-
works of the CSBA (n.d.), Bolman and Deal (2017), and Delagardelle (2008) were used to
provide the structure and focus for the research team. The research team worked collaboratively to
develop the research questions, surveys, and interview questions. Because of the collaborative
approach to the study, there are necessarily some sections of the dissertation that are similar in
nature.
Research Design
A qualitative research design was used to gather data directly related to the research
questions developed by the research team. Qualitative research methods allow the researcher to
gain an understanding of how people make sense of their lives and how they construct their
41
worldview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By using a qualitative approach, the research team was able
to immerse themselves in the environment and to gather information as it related to school board
member training and its effects on effective governance. The researchers collected data using two
research instruments: (a) school board and superintendent surveys and (b) interview guides.
The research team developed surveys and interview questions collaboratively to gather
data on the effective behaviors and practices of formally trained school board members and the
impact that training had on the overall effectiveness of school board members’ ability to govern.
Credibility and trustworthiness are fundamental to qualitative research. In an effort to ensure both
credibility and trustworthiness, the research team used multiple methods, as suggested by Merriam
and Tisdell (2016). Triangulation is the method of using multiple sources of data and cross-
checking the data collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To triangulate the data, the team con-
ducted interviews, distributed surveys, took notes, and wrote a literature review based on relevant
historical research.
Surveys were distributed via email to school board members and superintendents of school
districts in 12 California counties (Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura), all of which had
a majority of school board members who had attended the CSBA MIG training. Survey data were
analyzed using Qualtrics
™
software to help to further identify possible interview participants.
Due to COVID-19 pandemic, virtual Zoom
™
interviews took place with school board
members and superintendents of districts who met the aforementioned criteria. Interviews were
conducted at a mutually agreed-upon time for the researcher and the interviewee; the hope was to
obtain in-depth and honest responses. An interview protocol was designed to help answer the
research questions. The protocol was designed in a semistructured format to allow for the use of
42
probing questions or to ask questions that might arise during the interview process. The purpose
of the semistructured protocol, according to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), is to allow the researcher
the opportunity to ask participants for further detail and to clarify responses. According to Patton
(2002), probes are used to deepen the response to a question, to increase the richness and depth of
responses, and to give cues to the interviewee about the level of response that is desired. The use
of the interview protocol helped the research team to ask questions that were relevant to the
research questions and to guide the interview. According to R. S. Weiss (1995), the interviewer
should ask only questions relevant to the topic, but the interviewer may inquire about items that
the respondent would not necessarily share in casual conversations.
Sample Population and Participants
A critical consideration when sampling is the success of the study and the ability to
collect rich data aligned to the research questions (Maxwell, 2013). For this study, a purposeful
sample selection was utilized. According to Patton (2002), purposeful sampling allows for in-
depth inquiry of a phenomenon and focuses on information-rich cases for the study rather than
empirical generalization. The phenomenon studied by this research study was the effect of the
CSBA’s MIG training on school board members and their ability to enact best practices of effec-
tive governance.
For the purpose of this study, districts were required to meet the criteria developed by the
research team. The sample for this study focused on elementary, secondary, and unified school
districts in the state of California. The districts identified must have met the criterion that a mini-
mum of three school board members must have gone through at least one of the five modules of
the MIG training. Participants who met the aforementioned criteria were recruited using a pur-
43
poseful participant sample, thus limiting the sample to those who were solicited for participation.
Participants were solicited using the recruitment and information letters in Appendix A.
Instrumentation
The research team used surveys and interviews to gather data for this study. The team met
in the fall of 2019 to collaboratively develop the superintendent and board member surveys and
interview questions. The research team conducted an in-depth review of the literature and con-
ceptual frameworks outlined in Chapter Two to develop the survey and interview questions. The
surveys were designed to mirror each another in an effort to obtain responses that could be
compared in the data analysis portion of this study. The team developed a 19-question survey for
both board members and superintendents. The survey was distributed electronically using the
Qualtrics platform. Interview questions were developed to provide the research team with more
depth and detail.
Data Collection
Data collection methods were developed and aligned with the research questions and
frameworks outlined in Chapter Two. The study utilized both surveys and interviews as a means of
data collection. After approval from the USC Institutional Review Board. the dissertation group
began collecting data in the spring of 2020. The research team established a list of potential school
districts in California to begin the recruitment process. School districts selected for participation
had to meet the following criteria for selection: elementary, secondary, and unified school districts;
a majority of the school board members having received formalized training by attending at least
one of the five CSBA MIG training modules. The survey were distributed to district superinten-
dents and school board members meeting the criteria. Each school board member and superinten-
44
dent received via email a recruitment and information letter (Appendix A) and a digital survey
(Appendices B and C, respectively).
Once survey data have been collected, the dissertation group members selected school
districts for the interview process. Each member of the dissertation group interviewed one superin-
tendent and at least two school board members from three separate school districts, for a minimum
of 9 interviews. Interviews allowed the research team an opportunity to gain greater insight and
understanding of the influence of the CSBA’s MIG school board training. Interviews began in the
summer of 2020 and were scheduled at the convenience of the school board members and superin-
tendents. Interviews were conducted utilizing the virtual conferencing software Zoom
™
, due to the
restrictions imposed by the Coronavirus outbreak of 2020. The interviews included (a) an intro-
duction and overview of the purpose of the study that provided participants with an overview and
focus of the study; (b) questions and probes (Appendices D and E); and (c) closing, keeping the
door open for follow up if needed). Informed consent (Appendix F) was reviewed with each
participant.
Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed using Rev.com recording software.
Interviews took place only after written and verbal consent had been obtained (Appendix F). The
research team made every effort to maintain participants’ privacy and anonymity. Information
gathered from the both surveys and interviews will be kept for 3 years, and all audio recordings
were deleted immediately following transcription.
The dissertation group used both surveys and interviews in an effort to triangulate the data.
The literature review and conceptual frameworks helped to develop the research questions for this
study and to design the survey and interview questions in alignment with the research questions
(see Question Alignment Matrix in Appendix G).
45
Data Analysis
Data were collected and coded by the individual researcher. The interview and survey
responses were then compared to the three theoretical frameworks in the literature, thus allowing
for triangulation of the data. Triangulation allows for increased validity (Patton, 2002). Survey and
interview responses were coded using a set of a priori codes. The researcher then developed a
number of subcategories, and the data were classified and conceptualized. Interview responses
were coded in order of completion; this process allowed the researcher to develop follow-up
questions as themes began to emerge.
Ethical Considerations
The research team under lead researcher Dr. Michael Escalante participated in the IRB
process to ensure that all ethical considerations were considered. Each member of the team
completed the Collaborative IRB Training Initiative (CITI). The purpose of the CITI training is to
ensure (a) that researchers consider all the ethical implications prior to conducting a research study
and (b) that the participants will receive no harm (physical or emotional) from having participated
in the study.
Chapter Summary
This chapter outlined the research methods used by the research team to answer the
research questions. A discussion of the research, including the methodology, design, sampling and
study participants, instrumentation, data collection, analysis methods, and ethical considerations. A
grounded-theory methodology was used to develop findings on whether school board training
(i.e., MIG) improved the relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the
impact on performance indicators for school districts.
46
Chapter Four: Results
School boards are responsible for setting the direction of the school district, providing a
clear vision and leadership for the school district, and supporting the superintendent (CSBA,
2017). School boards were developed to provide the local community with a voice in the direction
of the school district. Traditionally, school boards make decisions on the district’s finances,
establish the vision, and hire one employee—the superintendent. Today, school board members
have even greater responsibility and a need to understand the school district’s intricacies; however,
many school board members have little to no formal training.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school board members and superintendents and affected the impact on
performance indicators for school districts—more specifically, how school board members and
superintendents perceived the CSBA’s MIG training and its impact on school governance and
student achievement.
Chapter Four presents an in-depth analysis of the qualitative data collected individually and
collectively from the 20 members of the research team. Each research team member identified
three school districts that met the qualifying criteria: (a) that selected school districts were elemen-
tary, secondary, or unified school districts in the state of California; and (b) that a majority of
school board members had received formalized training by attending at least one of the five the
CSBA’s MIG training modules. Each research team member then interviewed the superintendent
and three board members from each school district. Surveys were sent to board members and
superintendents. Data were collected from multiple sources in an effort to provide a robust,
well-rounded data sample. In total, 177 board members and 62 superintendents were interviewed
and asked to complete the survey. A review of the literature was completed by each research team
47
member. Surveys were collected and analyzed. Personal interviews were conducted, transcribed,
and coded to identify themes. Chapter Four concludes with a summary of significant findings in
relation to the following three research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG
training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Participants
For this study’s purpose, districts were required to meet the criteria developed by the
research team. The sample for this study focused on elementary, secondary, and unified school
districts from 12 California counties: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura. While it was
originally planned to study counties in southern California, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
focus on southern California school districts was expanded to include school districts from the
entire state.
Districts identified must also met the criterion that a minimum of three school board
members must have finished at least one of the five modules of the MIG training. Participants who
met the aforementioned criteria were recruited using a purposeful participant sample, thus limiting
the sample to those who were solicited for participation. Of those solicited to participate in the
research study,180 board members and 62 superintendents participated in the survey phase of the
research. The research team conducted interviews with 62 superintendents and 177 board
48
members to provide a data-rich sample, thus adding to the validity of the study. Table 1 summa-
rizes the invited participants and those who participated.
To keep participants anonymous, pseudonyms were used. The superintendent and board
members for District A are hereafter be referred to as Superintendent A and Board Members
A1-A3. A similar naming convention was used for Districts B and C (see Table 2).
District A
District A was located in southern California. According to its website, the district served
approximately 21,000 students in pre-kindergarten through adult education. At the time of this
study, the district operated 23 campuses and included 12 elementary schools, two K-8 schools,
four middle schools, three high schools and two alternative education schools. The district’s
enrollment by ethnicity was as follows: Hispanics/Latinos, 59.7%; Whites, 27.3%; and African
Americans, 3.7%. The remaining 10% included Asians, Filipinos, and multiracials, and those who
chose not to report. The district’s socioeconomically disadvantaged students comprised 67.7%;
the English Learner population was approximately 10%. The governance team was comprised of
five school board members and the superintendent.
District B
District B was located in southern California. According to the website, the district served
approximately 2,400 students in pre-kindergarten through eighth grade. At the time of this study,
the district operated five campuses: four elementary schools and one middle school serving
students in Grades 7 and 8. The district’s enrollment by ethnicity was as follows: Asians, 53.6%;
Hispanics/Latinos, 37.8%; and Whites, 1.7%. The remaining 7% included African Americans,
Filipinos, multiracials, and those who chose not to report. The district’s socioeconomically disad-
vantaged students comprised 81.8%; the district’s English learner population was
49
Table 1
Summary of Participants
Districts (N = 62)
Participants n %
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses 62 100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses 180 97
Interviewees 177 95
50
Table 2
Summary of Pseudonyms Used in Study
District Participants’
pseudonyms pseudonyms
District A Superintendent A
Board Member A1
Board Member A2
Board Member A3
District B Superintendent B
Board Member B1
Board Member B2
Board Member B3
District C Superintendent C
Board Member C1
Board Member C2
Board Member C3
approximately 42%. The district’s governance team is composed of five school board members
and the superintendent.
District C
District C was located in southern California. According to the website, the district served
approximately 5,600 students in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. The district operated eight
campuses comprised of four elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and two
alternative education sites. The district’s enrollment by ethnicity was as follows: Asians, 64.6%;
Hispanics/Latinos, 21.9%; and Whites, 7.2%. The remaining 6% were African Americans, Fili-
pinos, and multiracials, and those who chose not to report. The district’s socioeconomically
disadvantaged population was 40.4%; the district’s English Learner population, approximately
51
19.4%. The governance team was comprised of five school board members and the superinten-
dent.
Results for Research Question 1
What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG
training program? In the state of California, the requirements to run for the position of a school
board member are minimal. Candidates must be at least 18 years of age, a resident of the state, and
a resident of the school district in which they are running. No formal school board training is
required of school board members. A school board is responsible for implementing policy that
aligns with the local community’s vision and values (Delagardelle, 2008). School boards are
responsible for the finances of the district, student achievement, and mandates from the state and
federal levels. In order for school boards to effectively govern the school district, they must have
basic knowledge, effective management skills, and leadership skills that are developed through
professional learning. The K-12 education system is complex and layered with intricacies of
governance that include accountability to teachers, parents, and the local community (Maricle,
2014). According to Bianchi (2003), newly elected board members can expect a minimum of 1
year to settle into the position and to understand their role in school governance. School board
members can greatly reduce the time needed to acclimate to their role by taking part in governance
training (Roberts & Sampson 2011). Delagardelle’s (2008) Lighthouse Inquiry found that those
districts identified as high achieving could describe the link between professional development and
the district’s goals for student achievement. The study also found that school boards that valued
the importance of staff development developed a culture of improvement and that exhibited a
willingness to seek knowledge demonstrated higher levels of student achievement.
52
Analysis of Research Question 1 revealed three themes related to factors of school board
member’s willingness to participate in the CSBA MIG training program. First, school board
members exhibited an internal motivation to receive training. Second, school board members were
influenced by other school board members or the superintendent. Third was school board mem-
bers’ desire to increase the level of effective school governance of the school district.
Self-Motivation and Learning
The data analysis revealed that school board members identified self-motivation as a key
factor in their decision to attend the MIG training program. This individual researcher’s data found
that 33% (n = 3) indicated self-motivation as a primary factor in attending the MIG training
program. Survey data collected from the larger data sample found that 74% (n = 133) of school
board member respondents indicated self-motivation. When superintendents from this individual
researcher’s participants were asked a similar question about the primary factor that influenced
school board members to participate in MIG training, 100% (n = 3) indicated self-motivation. In
the survey results from all participants, 74%(n = 37) of superintendents indicated that the primary
factor influencing their board members to attend MIG training was self-motivation. Table 3
summarizes participants’ responses.
Board Member C1 offered insight into the self-motivation and the need for board members
to receive training:
This was on my own. Nobody said, “Hey, . . . you’ve got to get some training.” I figured
this is something that when I was campaigning, I wanted to do this. Even before I decided
to run for our school board, I wanted to do this.
53
Table 3
Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the Masters in Gov-
ernance Training
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Participants f f
School board expectation 33 84
Self-motivation 37 133
Encouraged by board members 35 71
Increasing student achievement 9 53
Increasing effective governance 31 128
Unable to determine 0 0
Other 3 10
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
If school board members are to be effective, they must receive training. Board Member B2
highlighted the importance and need for training in their response to the interview question about
what factors influenced the decision to complete a school board training program:
I remember when I became a board member, I came home one day, and there’s this big,
giant box full of paperwork and envelopes and binders and laws and all this stuff I had to
read. I’m going, “Oh my God, what’d I get myself into?” So I had to figure this all out on
my own.
Board members must be open to professional development and personal growth. Board
Member A3 emphasized the need for school board member training and self-improvement:
54
I think with anything else that I do, any training that’s offered that will make me better at
my role or job, I’m going to take it. And that’s the main reason that I took it. It’s going to
help me more than it’s going to hurt me.
Trained school board members need guidance and training to perform a leadership role.
Superintendent C illustrated the need for school board members to obtain training:
Many times, some of the board members have never been in a supervisory role before, so
they do give that guidance to be very specific in what you need, how you need things, how
you collaborate with things, what is your preferred style.
The Lighthouse Inquiry found that school districts that placed a high value on professional
development and were able to identify a common goal and vision for their school district saw
increased student achievement (Delagardelle, 2008).
District Culture and Influence
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) symbolic frame places meaning on contemporary organizations.
The culture, meaning, and ritual ceremony are key concepts of the symbolic frame. Culture
anchors the organization and provides a sense of identity. School boards set the vision and goals of
the organization and thus develop the symbols for what the organization believes, values, and
prioritizes.
School board members and school superintendents agreed in regard to the culture of the
organization encouraging participation in the MIG training program. Quantitative data from all
participants supported this theme, with 107 out of 180 school board members responding strongly
agree or agree. One hundred percent of school superintendents answered strongly agree or agree.
Data from the individual researchers found that 100% of school board members and superinten-
dents strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that their school board culture encouraged
55
participation in MIG. Table 4 shows that superintendents and board members agreed that the
culture of the school board encouraged participation in MIG.
School board culture revealed an atmosphere of support and placed a value on training. A
majority of participants from the individual researcher’s school districts agreed that a culture of
participation was present. Board Member B2 illustrated how board culture valued trained school
board members: “It was recommended by the board and the superintendent to go to learn how to
become a board member, because there’s no real instructions on how to become a board member.”
When asked what influenced the decision to participate in the MIG training, Board Mem-
ber A2 responded:
And two of the people that I had known in the community for most of my time here,
long-time community members, just really encouraged it and said, “You’ve got to get the
Masters in Governance. It’s really helpful.” So that’s where it came from. It came from
those two board members.
School boards can provide policies that support the need for trained school members.
When asked whether MIG training should be encouraged for school governance teams by the local
district policy, the superintendent and all school board members from Districts A, B, and C
strongly agreed or agreed. Data from the whole cohort’s sample supported this theme. Table 5
summarizes the responses.
School boards can ensure that members receive professional development by developing
local board policy that requires school board members to attend the MIG training. The whole
group’s data supported the claim that school boards should encourage governance teams to attend
MIG through local district policy, with 64% (n = 116) responding strongly agree and 29% (n =
56
Table 4
Participants’ Responses to Whether Their School Board Culture Encouraged Participation in
Masters in Governance Training
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly agree 44 55 107 59
Agree 28 45 60 33
Disagree 0 0 12 7
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1
53) responding agree. The individual researcher’s data also indicated that school board members
agreed with local policy development to encourage MIG training, with 100% of respondents
answering strongly agree or agree. Table 5 shows superintendent and school members’ responses.
Increased Governance Capacity
Effective school board governance can truly be obtained when school governance teams
clearly understand their roles and responsibilities. The CSBA MIG training program offers school
boards direction in clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of school board members and the
superintendent. The CSBA (2007) has defined the roles of school board members as follows:
1. Setting the direction of the school district
2. Establishing an effective and efficient structure for the school district
3. Providing support for the superintendent and personnel
4. Ensuring accountability to the public and providing community leadership (pp. 6–7)
57
Table 5
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Should Be Encour-
aged for School Governance Teams by Local District Policy
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 46 74.0 116 64.5
Agree 16 26.0 53 29.5
Disagree 0 0.0 11 6.0
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0
According to Kruse and Richards (2008), inexperienced board members often mistake
governance for close supervision. The lack of clearly defined roles and responsibilities creates
confusion between the school board and superintendent and prohibits the governance team from
moving the school district forward (Weiss et al., 2014).
According to Bolman and Deal (2008), the structural frame is considered to be the skele-
ton of an organization. Structures outline how resources are allocated and the coordination of
responsibilities. If the structure is too loose, people will get lost. School districts are structural by
design. School board policies and board regulations, state and federal regulations provide the
structure that the school district must operate. The MIG training positively impacts the school
governance team’s ability to govern effectively. When school board members were asked to
respond to the survey statement MIG training had impacted their ability to govern effectively, 85%
(n = 154) strongly agreed or agreed. Superintendents responded in a similar manner, with 90% (n
58
= 56) responding strongly agree or agree. Table 6 shows the participants’ responses in relation to
effective governance.
According to Maricle (2014), school districts whose school board members were eager to
learn new information and obtain professional development had higher levels of student achieve-
ment. School Board Member A1 illustrates the need for training:
It gives you a good baseline background of all the ins and outs of being a board member
and effective governance. I think it’s telling in that, at least in my classes, you had people
that were taking it for the third or fourth time even. They’d come back—they’ve been a
board member for 15 years, but they’re coming back to class again and again, just to
refresh the cells on the details.
School Board Member B3 described the complex nature of being a board member and the need for
training to govern effectively:
Well, I think that it’s very vital, considering that when you’re a newly elected official, you
really need to have a comprehensive overview of what your responsibilities are. And I
think that’s really vital because you need to be guided and really know—become familiar
with the educational codes, bylaws. What they mean. What they represent. What your role
is as an elected official. What’s to be expected. Conduct of an elected official. Your rela-
tionship with the superintendent and your fellow board members, and with the constituents
and with all stakeholders.
As mentioned, the role of the school board member has evolved over the past several
decades. The position has come to be complex in nature, and school board members often have
little to no training. If school board members are to govern effectively, they must differentiate
among policy, leadership, and management. When school board members from the entire data
59
Table 6
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Had Impacted
Their Ability to Govern Effectively
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly agree 20 32 72 40
Agree 36 58 82 46
Disagree 6 10 20 11
Strongly disagree 0 0 6 3
sample were asked whether the MIG training helped them to differentiate among policy, leader-
ship, and management 55% (n = 100) strongly agreed and 42% (n = 75) agreed. Superintendents
responded in a similar manner, with 42% (n = 26) who strongly agreed and 56% (n = 35) who
agreed. Table 7 summarizes responses from board members and superintendents.
School board members from this researcher’s districts responded in a similar manner with
63% (n = 5) strongly agreeing and 38% (n = 3) agreeing. Superintendents from Districts A, B, and
C responded agree. Table 7 summarizes the responses from superintendents and board members.
School boards must work together in order to be productive. School Board Member C3
illustrated how MIG provides clarity: “It gave us a common ground that we all could focus
on—this is how we want to do things—we want to govern properly and not in a way that we’re
overstepping our bounds or that are counterproductive.” School Board Member C2 also empha-
sized the need for school board members to understand the differences among policy, leadership,
60
Table 7
Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Helped School Board
Members to Differentiate Among Policy, Leadership, and Management
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 26 42 100 55
Agree 35 56 75 42
Disagree 1 2 5 3
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0
and management: “It’s really understanding our role, where we fit in and where we don’t fit in.
And so that we don’t micromanage or start directing people to do things that we have no authority
to direct them to do.”
Summary for Research Question 1
The complexities of the school board governance and the limited requirement for
prospective board members create a need for school board training. School board members and
superintendents identified the motivating factors that led to the MIG training program as self-
motivation, a district culture of professional development, and a desire for increased governance
capacity.
Results for Research Question 2
How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance? Research Question 2 was designed to
inquire about the extent to which the MIG training program provided the necessary skills and
61
knowledge needed to govern the school district effectively. An in-depth analysis of the research
revealed three themes related to Research Question 2:
1. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of school board members and the superinten-
dent,
2. Relationship building between school board members and the superintendent, and
3. Support for mandated training
Clearly Defined Roles and Responsibilities
The school board’s role is to develop, maintain, and communicate the vision of the school
district (CSBA, 2007; Land, 2002; Senge, 1990; Supovitz, 2006; Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002).
The CSBA (2007) has established five major roles of school board members: setting direction,
establishing structure for the district, providing support for the superintendent, ensuring
accountability to the public, and providing community leadership. However, the role of board
members is often an area that may create confusion and therefore may impede the school board
and superintendent from implementing a shared vision for the school district. According to Canal
(2013), school board members who attend the CSBA’s MIG training program have a clear under-
standing of the roles and responsibilities of board members and the superintendent.
If school board members are to govern their districts effectively, they must clearly under-
stand the role and responsibilities that are required. A majority of superintendents (n = 60) strongly
agreed or agreed with the survey statement school board members who were MIG trained exhib-
ited a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities. When asked a similar question, board
members responded in a similar fashion. The researcher’s district superintendents responded
similarly, with 100% (n = 3) agreeing that MIG-trained school board members understood their
62
roles and responsibilities. School board members from Districts A, B and C were in 100% (n = 8)
agreement. Tables 8 and 9 summarize responses from the superintendents and board members.
Superintendent B explained the need for clearly defined roles and responsibilities for both
the superintendent and school board members:
When you clearly define the purpose of the board and the purpose of the board–superin-
tendent relationship, and then the purpose of the district, then you really can have a power-
ful, powerful dynamic going on in terms of governance structures for the organization.
The MIG clearly defined the roles of school board members and superintendents, as noted
by School Board Member 3C:
Also, staying in our lane, from what all often bring up. Okay, that’s the what and the how
is up to the superintendent, not us. And so I think if we hadn’t gone to the training, no one
would ever bring that up and help us focus on what we need to do and what we need to
allow the superintendent to do.
Superintendent A also illustrated the need for clearly defined roles and responsibilities and
how the MIG fosters that understanding: “[MIG] allows for a clear definition of the role of a board
member, and it really set the stage for how a district board and superintendent and even a cabinet
should interact and should do business.” Superintendent B explained how the MIG training clearly
defined the roles and responsibilities of the superintendent and school board:
They do a really good job of really deep going into specific roles and responsibilities of
governance team as a whole. Then individually as a board trustee—these are your roles
and responsibilities. As a board clerk, these are your roles and responsibilities. As a board
president, these are your roles and responsibilities. And then as a superintendent, these are
63
Table 8
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Clarified the
Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent (N = 180)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 117 65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly disagree 1 1
Table 9
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Were Masters in Gover-
nance Trained Exhibited a Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and
Responsibilities and Those of Their Superintendent (N = 62)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly disagree 1 2
his or her roles and responsibilities. And you got to be careful that you’re not—although
there’s collaboration—that you also have to respect that each of them have those pieces.
And so I thought that really was helpful again, to have that piece.
64
Relationship Building
According to Canal (2013), school boards and superintendents who attend the MIG create
a relationship that allows school boards to operate with professionalism when faced with complex
issues and opposition. When school board members were asked whether, as a result of the MIG
training, their ability improved to accept majority decisions constructively, even if they held the
minority view, 43% (n = 78) strongly agreed and 42% (n = 75) agreed. When superintendents
were asked a similar question, 27% (n = 17) strongly agreed and 68% (n = 42) agreed. School
board participants from this researcher’s districts responded similarly, with 87.5% (n = 7) agreeing
that MIG training supported board members in accepting majority decisions. Superintendent A
emphasized how the MIG training informed board members to accept majority decisions: “Most
board members, without the MIG training, don’t have . . . I wouldn’t say they don’t have the
philosophy that I am only 20% of a decision.” Tables 10 and 11 summarize the overall responses
from school board members and superintendents.
Board Member 2C noted the need for a strong relationship between board members and
the superintendent and the impact that MIG had in this regard: “I think they really did a good job
in focusing on the importance of that relationship and how a turbulent board can really affect the
morale and the direction of the district.” Board Member 2C further illustrated the importance of
working with fellow board members once elected:
But they have to understand, too, that you as a board member—you’re only one vote, and
collectively there has to be consensus of the board. And if you just think that you can go
rogue or that what you say is going to happen, then you’re going to be very frustrated.
Board Member A2 expressed a similar sentiment:
65
Table 10
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training Had
Improved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even
When They Held the Minority View (N = 180)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 78 43
Agree 75 42
Disagree 26 14
Strongly disagree 1 1
Table 11
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training Had Improved
Individual School Board Members' Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even When They
Held the Minority View (N = 62)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 17 27
Agree 42 68
Disagree 3 5
Strongly disagree 0 0
So I would think that the idea about how you govern together. You can disagree. We
don’t always vote alike, but we respect everybody’s opinion. So I think that that cohesion
66
is probably one of the best things, which I think CSBA also tries to do with the conferences
and things like that.
Blumberg and Blumberg (1985) found that effective communication in regard to decision
making is key between school board members and superintendents. When surveyed, 29% of board
members from the entire sample strongly agreed and 38% agreed with the survey statement that it
was important for board members to attend MIG training with their superintendent. When superin-
tendents were asked a similar question, differed from school board members with 92% strongly
agreed or agreed. School board members and superintendents from the researcher’s participants
responded in a similar manner. Fifty percent of school board members agreed that it was important
to attend the MIG training with their superintendent, 67% of superintendents agreed that it was
important to participate in the MIG training with their school board members. Tables 12 and 13
summarize responses from both school board members and superintendents.
Communication is a key component of collective governance and board unity. According
to Goodman and Zimmerman (2000), school board members and the superintendent must work
together if they are to meet the needs of the school district. School Board Member A2 explained
the need for school board members and superintendents to attend the MIG together as a way to
increase communication: “I think everybody was trying to do it together, which I would really
encourage. I think doing it as much as you can together is a . . . good bonding experience, and
discuss things and going more in depth.” School Board Member 2C further noted the need for
communication and cohesiveness:
We’re there to work together cohesively and we’re there to do good, not harm. And I
think once you take those principles into account, then that really allows you to go to a
67
Table 12
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether It Was Important for Board Members to Attend
Masters in Governance Training With Their Superintendent (N = 180)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 53 29.5
Agree 67 37.0
Disagree 53 29.5
Strongly disagree 7 4.0
Table 13
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether It Was Important for Board Members to Attend Masters
in Governance Training With Their Superintendent (N = 62)
Response category f %
Strongly 38 61
Agree 19 31
Disagree 5 8
Strongly disagree 0 0
direction and establish your leadership style as a board member, to really keep those
principles always in the forefront.
Superintendent C explained how the MIG training could foster a positive relationship between the
superintendent and school board members:
They really have to understand their role as a board member and their function as a board
member, and the function in tandem, in conjunction with the superintendent and how the
68
superintendent and the board, they’re extensions of each other. Yes, the board is techni-
cally the boss of the superintendent; however that role, that dynamic doesn’t end up in
successful board–superintendent relations.
Support for Mandated Training
As mentioned, the state of California does not require school board members to receive
any form of training and has a minimal set of requirements to be eligible to run for a school board
position. When surveyed, 76.6% (n = 138) of school board members from the whole cohort’s data
strongly agreed or agreed with the survey statement that MIG training should be mandated in
California; superintendents responded similarly to the same survey question. School board mem-
bers from Districts A, B, and C responded with a majority (n = 5) choosing strongly agree or
agree. One hundred percent of superintendents from this researcher’s districts responded strongly
agree or agree. Table 14 summarizes participants’ responses.
Table 14
Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Should Be Mandated in California
S u p e r i n t e ndents B o a r d m embers’
( N = 62) ( N = 180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly agree 40 65 73 41
Agree 17 27 65 36
Disagree 5 8 37 21
Strongly disagree 0 0 5 3
69
Board Member C3 agreed with school board training being mandated in the state of
California:
I think that’d be great. I don’t see a problem with it. I imagine there’s always [those] that
are resistant to things. But we’re in education; we should be wanting to learn new things
and wanting to be better and studying, being a good role model for the students. So I don’t
see a problem with it at all.
Superintendent C expressed the need for mandated training of school board members in
the state of California: “I would agree. And I think in practice, that is what is happening here in . . .
, that it has the mandate. So I would agree. I do think that it should be something that is man-
dated.” Superintendent C also expressed a need for mandated school board training in California:
However, to be very honest, I would probably be in favor of it. Just because in my experi-
ence with CSBA, it is a very top quality program. It is worth every single penny that you
pay for it. It does strengthen the interrelationships of board members. It creates under-
standing for board members in a very short time frame from when they come on the board,
and it does give them that basic training so that they can actually do the job that they were
elected to do. I think if you become an elected official in this capacity, you’re normally
willing to take on the role of the board member and then you would probably be willing to
take a mandated training class should one be provided.
Superintendent A also agreed with mandated training for school board members:
I think I would agree with that. I think it works better when people can see the value and
join in because it is valuable to the district; but for the office, especially in school board
elections, there isn’t much of a qualification to be a school board member. And so other
70
than residency is really the only requirement. You don’t even have to have kids in school.
So I think that would be a good requirement that I would support.
Summary for Research Question 2
How do school board members exhibit the qualities of effective governance? Participants
expressed a need for members of the governance team to understand the intricacies of school
board governance. Participants expressed the need for positive relationships between board
members and the superintendent, as were developed through the MIG training program. Finally,
participants placed a high value on the MIG training program, including support for mandated
training in the state of California.
Results for Research Question 3
Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth? School boards
along with the superintendent establish the vision and direction of the school district. School
boards are also tasked with addressing the concerns of the local community. Student achievement
is often an area of concern for local constituents. If school districts are to improve the outcomes of
students, they must possess the proper training and use data to make informed decisions while
maintaining the vision and direction of the school district (Rice et al., 2000). The school board
must align resources to support the vision of the district. Waters et al. (2003) found that student
achievement could be attributed to district leaders through support and aligning resources. Board
members can ensure that the district office provides support for the school staff and invests in staff
to support student achievement (CSBA, 2017).
School boards have a responsibility to the public they represent and the success of students
in their districts. If school board members are to truly understand the complex nature of student
71
achievement, they must possess the necessary knowledge and place an emphasis on student
achievement in order to make informed decisions.
The data for Research Question 3 revealed three themes:
1. MIG training increases board members’ focus on student achievement,
2. There must be alignment of decision making to support the district’s vision and
goals, and
3. MIG training has had a positive impact on student achievement.
Focus on Student Achievement
The data analysis revealed that school board members who participated in the MIG
training had an increased focus on student achievement. The whole group’s data indicated that
27% (n = 49) of school board members strongly agreed and 50.5% (n = 91) agreed that as a result
of the MIG training, their focus was on achievement. One hundred percent of board members from
Districts A, B and C responded strongly agree or agree. When superintendents from the larger
data sample were asked a similar question, school board members who had earned MIG certifica-
tion demonstrate an increased focus on student achievement, 94% agreed. Tables 15 and 16
summarize participants’ responses.
School board members must have proper training to increase their understanding and place
their focus on student achievement. Board Member C3 explained the importance of placing the
board’s focus on student achievement: “I always try to focus on it. Let’s make sure we have a lot
of student achievement focus on our agenda.” In order for board members to focus on student
achievement, they must know what questions to ask. Board Member A3 credited MIG for placing
a focus on student success: “I think that overall, it helps student success because now we know
72
Table 15
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Had Earned Masters in
Governance Certification Demonstrated an Increased Focus on Student Achievement (N = 62)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 14 23
Agree 44 71
Disagree 4 6
Strongly disagree 0 0
Table 16
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,
Their Focus Was on Student Achievement (N = 180)
Response category f %
Strongly agree 49 27.0
Agree 91 50.5
Disagree 39 21.5
Strongly disagree 1 1.0
what questions to ask and what we should be asking and what we should expect from each and
every one of them.”
Superintendent 3 stressed the importance of addressing student achievement:
73
The basic premise underneath the course is if you’re—and I’ll say flat out—if you’re not
talking in every single board meeting about student achievement, you are not doing your
job as a board of education. Period. End of story.
Board Member 3C also found the MIG training increased focus on student achievement:
I think we’re more focused on student achievement, and that’s something that they really
stress is that, “What is it like?” Seventy-five percent of your board meetings should be
spent on student achievement. And so we’ve really tried to do that. Tried to have items on
the agenda that focus on student achievement.
School Board Member C1 states that the focus of the MIG training was on student
achievement:
I would say the underlying theme of all five modules is about student achievement. Not a
single module doesn’t relate to student achievement. Even HR [human resources]—it’s all
about student achievement. When you negotiate, you’re talking about student achieve-
ment. School finances, by all means, is about student . . . the bottom line is student
achievement. It’s not about corporate profit. It’s not about something else, religious
expansion. It’s about student achievement. About equity in student achievement. That
question is just . . . I would say it’s 100% aligned to student achievement.
Superintendent B stressed the importance of the MIG training’s influence on student
achievement:
If you’re not showcasing student achievement, if you’re not talking about student achieve-
ment, if you’re not moving forward student achievements, if you’re not talking about data,
if you’re not talking about where you are and where you want to be as a district, then
74
you’re not doing your job. I think when board members get on the board, very few board
members run on the platform of student achievement.
Board Member C3 provided insight as to how the MIG training placed a strong emphasis
on student achievement:
I think it makes board members focused on student achievement. And by doing that, we’re
able to accomplish more in terms of student achievement. That’s something I never
thought of before I got on the board is how we should be focusing on student achievement
and not all these other little side things. And really, I got on the board because I wanted the
opportunity to help our students have more opportunities and be able to do better and not
all these other little ancillary things. So it definitely helps you focus on what’s most impor-
tant and that student achievement—without student achievement, we don’t need to be
here.
Alignment of Decision Making to Support Student Achievement
School boards are held accountable to district stakeholders, including state and federal
agencies and the local community to increase student achievement (Timar, 2003). According to
the CSBA (2017), those school boards that focus on student achievement find the decision-
making process easier. Board members in moving districts indicated that they received information
from a variety of sources, including the superintendent, principals, teachers, and other outside
sources. They frequently made decisions based on data. Board members in successful school
districts used data in the decision-making process and relied on the superintendent to interpret the
data (Delagardelle, 2008). By aligning the decisions made by the school board with the district’s
goals and objectives and having high expectations for all students, school districts can improve
student achievement outcomes.
75
Superintendent A explained the need for school board members to use data to foster
student achievement: “Well, it gives the insight to the board members to know how student
achievement is calculated—the numbers, the data—that it’s all involved in student achievement.”
Survey data from school board members in the larger data sample supported the claim that MIG
training increased board members’ ability to use data to make informed decisions, with 87% (n =
157) responding strongly agree or agree. Superintendents from the larger sample responded in a
similar manner, with 95% (n = 59) responding strongly agree or agree. One hundred percent of
school board members and superintendents from districts in this individual researcher’s data
sample responded strongly agree or agree. Table 17 summarizes the responses from school board
members and superintendents.
School Board Member B3 illustrated the need for data to make decisions to support
student achievement:
So again, it really gives you the opportunity to really start looking at the data, interpreting
the data, and really coming to a common ground of, “Okay, what interventions need to be
put in place? How do we monitor these children so they don’t fall through the cracks?” So
again, it brings a level of awareness, to really be cognizant of “This is what I need to be
looking for, when I see that the achievement gap is not decreasing.”
School Board Member C1 expressed the need for data to make informed decisions:
I thought I need a better understanding on how enrollment ADA [average daily atten-
dance] is tied to finances programs—LCAP, LCFF [Local Control Funding Formula]—
and how policies that are properly funded, what affects student achievement.
Superintendent A emphasized the need for school board members to have the proper data
to support student achievement:
76
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 Board members
(N = 62) (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
I think that by entrusting the recommendations of the superintendent in regards to the
LCAP documents and the data that’s provided and creating protocols so that student
achievement data is provided within the recommendations that the board is expected to
approve.
MIG Supports Student Achievement
State laws and local school board policies should focus on leadership and governance in
order to obtain higher levels of student achievement. Thurlow Brenner et al. (2002) suggested that
school board members should monitor the progress of the district’s goals for student achievement
and that public school board meetings should inform the public on the progress of the district in
meeting its goals for student achievement. As a result of the MIG training program, school board
members felt that there had been a positive impact on student achievement. Survey data from the
larger database revealed that 71% (n = 71) of school members agreed that MIG training had a
77
positive impact on student achievement. A majority of superintendents (54) from the larger data
sample (N = 62) responded strongly agree or agree. Survey results from the individual
researcher’s school districts yielded similar responses, with 88% (n = 7) of school board members
agreeing that MIG had positively impacted student achievement. Table 18 summarizes the re-
sponses from school board members and superintendents from the larger data sample.
The MIG training program provided school governance teams with the necessary training
to support student achievement. School board members must work with their superintendent to
make the necessary changes in school district policy and support decisions financially. Superinten-
dent A provided insight as to how the school board facilitated the implementation of a new aca-
demic support system:
I think that we made a recommendation 5 years ago to incorporate a PLC system, .profes-
sional learning community, within our elementary schools. That recommendation came
with the hiring of four physical education teachers and four aides that would do 50 minutes
of PE [physical education] once a week, rotating through our elementary schools, allowing
our grade-level teachers to get together. We took our grade-level data as a baseline from
the year prior to that; and as part of that recommendation, every 4 months, when we have
district assessments, we provide that to the board, indicating what role PLCs had in that
next assessment, either reteaching, reevaluating, rehearsing, going back and forth, or direct
instruction—whatever it may be, so that they constantly see the benefits of PLCs on
student achievement through that ongoing communication process.
School Board Member C3 indicated how the school board fostered student achievement:
We also try to, like I said, make sure that the agenda has appropriate items on it and not
things that really aren’t under our purview or shouldn’t be. It’s not telling the staff how to
78
Table 18
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in Governance Training Had
Positively Impacted Student Achievement in Their District
Superintendents Board members
(N = 62) (N = 180)
Response category f % f %
Strongly agree 8 13 39 22
Agree 46 74 89 49
Disagree 8 13 50 28
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 1
do things but analyzing and reviewing items on the agenda that have to do with student achieve-
ment. So, trying to focus on that and not other things that we really shouldn’t be spending a lot of
time on.
Board Member A3 described how the MIG training provides instruction on how to work
with the superintendent to implement change:
But the biggest thing that’s come out of it [MIG] was working more, or working better,
with the superintendent and assistant sups. And I think that’s been the biggest thing for us
is that we’re able to ask the right questions and get the right—I guess the best—answers
and then being able to make changes and implement stuff.
School Board Member B3 also illustrates how the MIG training provided school board members
with the necessary skill base to ask the appropriate questions in regard to student achievement:
“Okay, are these interventions working? Are we measuring these interventions? Are these inter-
ventions even appropriate for this group? Are we setting these kids up to fail?”
79
Summary for Research Question 3
School board members are tasked with establishing the vision and direction of the school
district. Many times those visions have a goal for increased student achievement. Participants
expressed agreement that participation in the CSBA’s MIG training program supported student
achievement. Participants also indicated that the MIG training program increased their focus on
student achievement. Participants felt that the MIG training provided insight into the alignment of
the decision-making progress with respect to student achievement.
Chapter Summary
Using the literature review, theoretical frameworks, and research data to triangulate the
results, a total of nine themes were identified. For Research Question 1, there were three themes.
First, school board members exhibited an internal motivation to receive training. Second, the
culture of the school district encouraged school board members to obtain MIG training. Third,
school board members expressed a desire to perform the duties of school board members and
increase the level of effective school governance for the school district.
Research Question 2 led to three findings. The first finding was that participants were able
to differentiate the roles and responsibilities of school board members and the superintendent. The
second finding was that school board members were able to develop positive relationships between
themselves and other board members and with the superintendent. The third finding was that MIG-
trained school board members indicated that mandating MIG training could provide a positive
impact on school governance teams.
In response to Research Question 3, there were three findings. The first theme was that
MIG training increased board members’ focus on student achievement. The second theme was that
MIG training provided the training needed to align the decision making of the school board to
80
support the district’s vision and goals. The third finding was that MIG training has had a positive
impact on student achievement.
81
Chapter Five: Discussion
The role of the school board as a governing body is to ensure that the school district is
adhering to federal, state, and local policy. However, in recent years, expectations have expanded
with the need to increase student achievement. The NCLB (2002) Act and the ESSA placed new
levels of accountability on school districts with a focus on student achievement. The school board,
along with the superintendent is responsible for these accountability measures and focusing on
student achievement. The California dashboard allows the public to see how school districts are
performing on standardized tests, school climate, graduation rates, and college and career readi-
ness. In order for school districts to apply for federal funding tied to ESSA (U.S. Department of
Education, n.d.), they must complete the LCAP, which sets goals, plans actions, and allocates
resources to improve student outcomes.
Chapters One to Three presented an in-depth look at the literature related to this study and
the conceptual frameworks. Chapter Four presented the findings from the research team. This
chapter summarizes the study; reviews the purpose of the study and findings; and presents the
implications, limitations, and areas for future research.
Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of 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.
82
The 20 members of the research team work collaboratively to design the study, to create
the research questions, and to develop the qualitative methodology. The frameworks of Bolman
and Deal (2008), the CSBA (2019), and Delagardelle (2008) were used to provide the structure
and focus for the research team. The research team worked collaboratively to develop surveys and
interview questions and then collected data using two research instruments: (a) school board and
superintendent surveys and (b) interview guides. Surveys were distributed via email to school
board members and superintendents of school districts in 12 California counties where a majority
of the school board members had attended the CSBA’s MIG training. Survey data were analyzed
using Qualtrics software, and interviews were coded to identify themes. Survey and interview data
were used to answer the following three research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG
training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1
Delagardelle’s (2008) Lighthouse Inquiry found that school districts identified as high
achieving placed a high value on professional development. The study also found that school
boards that believed in staff development developed a culture of improvement, exhibited a will-
ingness to seek knowledge, and demonstrated higher levels of student achievement.
The data collected suggested that the factors impacting the decisions of school board
members to receive MIG training were consistent. Three themes emerged from the data as the
83
primary influences on school board members’ decisions to attend the MIG training. First, school
board members exhibited an internal motivation to receive training. Second, school board members
were influenced by other school board members or the superintendent. Third, school board
members desired to increase the level of effective school governance of their school district.
The research revealed that school board members desired to perform their duties and
successfully placed value on professional development; 74% of participants indicated self-
motivation as a primary factor in their decision to attend the MIG training program, and 39%
chose encouragement to attend the MIG by other board members. This finding can be valuable for
school board governance teams looking to increase board participation in the MIG training
program.
The Lighthouse Inquiry conducted by the IASB found a relationship between school board
governance and student achievement. The study found that successful school districts could
describe the link between professional development and the district’s goals for student achieve-
ment. Successful school boards placed value on staff development (Delagardelle, 2008).
According to Bolman and Deal (2008), the symbolic frame provides a sense of identity.
The school governance teams presented in this study had a strong sense of symbolism in that they
encouraged professional development and placed a high value on the MIG training.
Research Question 2
The position of a school board member is layered with complexities and duties including
setting the direction of the school district, establishing the structure for the district, providing
support for the superintendent, ensuring accountability to the public, and providing community
leadership. Data analysis identified three themes that emerged indicating that MIG training pro-
84
vided school board members with the necessary knowledge to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance.
Theme 1 revealed that in order for school board members to govern effectively, they must
have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. The lack of clearly defined roles and
responsibilities can create confusion and subsequently lead to ineffective leadership within the
school district. The data for Theme 2 indicated that school board members who attended the MIG
training developed strong professional relationships. Theme 3 revealed that MIG-trained gover-
nance teams supported mandated training requirements in the state of California.
Research Question 3
Historically, school boards along with the superintendent have established the vision and
direction of the school district; however today that vision must provide insight as to how the
school board will support student achievement. With newly developed accountability metrics
readily available, student achievement is often an area of concern for local constituents. If school
districts are to improve the outcomes of students, they must possess the proper training and use
data to make informed decisions while maintaining the vision and direction of the school district
(Rice et al., 2000). Research Question 3 asked the question about whether MIG training has an
impact on student achievement and growth. The data revealed three themes: (a) that MIG training
increased board members’ focus on student achievement, (b) that there was an alignment of
decision making to support the district’s vision and goals, and (c) that MIG training has had a
positive impact on student achievement.
School board members indicated that they could support student achievement through
increasing the amount of focus placed on student achievement by developing school board agendas
that highlighted student achievement. School board members indicated that the MIG training
85
provided insight into how to develop a school board meeting agenda that placed an emphasis on
student achievement.
School board members also indicated that the MIG training provided them with the
necessary knowledge to ask the appropriate questions related to student achievement and to align
the decisions that the school board makes to support student achievement. According to Delagar-
delle (2008), school boards that study together have a clear process for linking school board
actions to an agreed-upon vision and goals for the school district.
Limitations
There were several limitations to this study. The research team solely focused on the
CSBA’s MIG training program. The research team also focused on school districts that had a
majority of school board members trained in at least one of the five training modules. The research
team limited its research to participants in 12 California counties. Limiting the research process to
12 counties did not provide the perspectives of superintendents and school board members from
other California counties. Excluding non-MIG-trained school board members resulted in a gap in
available data.
Implications
The research set forth in this study set out to find a connection between the CSBA’s MIG
training and school board members’ ability to effectively govern. Another goal of this study was to
determine whether there was a link between MIG-trained governance teams and student
achievement.
Although a direct link between MIG training and effective governance could not be con-
firmed, participants in the study did feel that the MIG training offered them the necessary skills and
knowledge to govern their respective school districts. These findings suggested that MIG training
86
did contribute to the effective governance of school board members. School governance teams can
use these results to encourage local district policy to ensure school board training. The research
also suggested that superintendents should attend training with their school board members. The
research further suggested that MIG training plays an important role in student achievement; both
school board members and superintendents indicated that MIG training placed an emphasis on
student achievement.
Recommendations for Future Research
The collaborative research conducted in this study was extensive, covering 12 counties
throughout the state of California. However, this study does not represent the opinions of all
school board members and superintendents in the state, nor does it represent those who have not
been MIG trained. The limitations presented in this study offer insight into future research in the
area of school board training, as follows:
1. Expand the scope of research to include school board members who are not MIG
trained. The inclusion of non-MIG-trained school board members and their ability to
govern effectively could be compared to those who have completed the MIG training
program.
2. This study was limited to the state of California and the MIG training program. Future
research could look at other training programs offered in the state of California to compare
and contrast the impact of school board training programs throughout the state.
3. This study was limited to qualitative research including survey and interview data and
thus the opinions of the participants. Future research could include observations of board
meetings to determine the extent to which school board members exhibit the characteristics
of effective school board governance.
87
4. This study was limited to a simple majority of school board members who had com-
pleted at least one MIG course. Future research could focus on school boards that have
100% of their board members having completed all five modules of the MIG training.
Conclusion
The complex nature of the modern school system has created a new level of accountability
for school boards. School board members must now make decisions regarding the financial
well-being of the school district, provide the policy required to increase student achievement, and
work with the community. The school board’s primary function is to develop, maintain, and
communicate the vision of the school district (CSBA, 2007; Land, 2002; Senge, 1990; Supovitz,
2006; Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002). According to Delagardelle (2008), successful school boards
place a value on staff development.
Professional development can provide school board members with the necessary skills and
knowledge to effectively govern. Mandating professional development for school board members
would yield positive outcomes for school district governance teams. The research conducted in
this study identified that school governance teams can, through professional development, govern
school districts successfully.
88
References
Alsbury, T. L. (Ed.). (2008a). The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation.
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Alsbury, T. L. (2008b). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 7(2), 202–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701748428
Bianchi, A. B. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast, 1(3), 1–4.
https://www.nyssba.org/news/2003/10/01/forecast/school-board-training-mandatory-vs.-volu
ntary/
Björk, L. (2009, October 26). The superintendent as an instructional leader. Paper presented at
the West Virginia Superintendents’ Institute, Charleston, WV.
Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). The school district superintendent in
the United States of America. Educational Leadership Faculty Publications (Paper 13).
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/eda_fac_pub/13?utm_source=ecommons.udayton.edu%2Feda
_fac_pub%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages the school district
superintendent
Bjork, L., & Lindle, J. (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.
Bock, M. (2019, May 7). A conversation with Betsy DeVos: Live from EWA [Video and tran-
script]. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2019/05/conversation_with_
betsy_devos.html
89
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations artistry, choice and leadership (4th ed.).
Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (6th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
California Department of Education. (2020a). California School Dashboard and system of
support. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/
California Department of Education. (2020b). Local Control Accountability Plan. https://www
.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards. https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrd
LeadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2017). The school board role in creating the conditions
for student achievement: A review of the research. https://csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicy
Resources/~/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/Reports/201705BoardResearchRepor
t.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2018a). About CSBA. http://www.csba.org/en/About
CSBA.aspx
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Effective governance: Resources, training and
support. https://www.csba.org/en/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance
California School Boards Association. (2018c). Masters in Governance. https://www.csba.org/
TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance.aspx
90
California School Boards Association. (2019). Professional Governance Standards. https://www
.csba.org/-/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/ProfessionalGovernanceStandards/CSB
A_PGS_Brochure.ashx?la=en&rev=5fc78a303c5b45c4a6d89d519f991e56
Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools—a historical analysis (ED010410). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED010410.pdf
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 391–395.
Canal, S. A. (2013). California school boards: Professional development and the Master’s in
Governance training (Publication No. 3563807) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South-
ern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan,
M. D. (1986). School boards: Strengthening grass roots leadership. Institute for Educational
Leadership.
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.ht
ml
Cuban, L. (1985). Conflict and leadership in the superintendency. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(1), 28–
30.
Danzberger, J. P. (1992). School boards: A troubled American institution. In J. P. Danzberger
(Ed.), Facing the challenge: The report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on School
Governance (pp. 19–24). Danforth Foundation.
91
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring the local
school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 67–73.
Danzberger, J. P., Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan,
M. D. (1987). School boards: The forgotten players on the education team. Phi Delta
Kappan, 69(1), 53–59.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Performance-based assessment and educational equity. Harvard
Business Review, 64(1), 5–30.
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership in
the improvement of student achievement. In T.L. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school board
governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 191–224). Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Dervarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2019). Eight characteristics of effective school boards. Center for
Public Education. https://www.nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/cpe-eight-characteristics-
of-effective-school-boards-report-december-2019.pdf?la=en&hash=1E19C481DAAEE25406
008581AE75EB2ABA785930
Dillon, N. (2010). The importance of school board training. American School Board Journal,
197(7), 1–7.
Edwards, M. (2007). The modern school superintendent: An overview of the role and responsi-
bilities in the 21st century. iUniverse, Inc.
Ehrensal, P. A., & First, P. F. (2008). Understanding school board politics: Balancing public voice
and professional power. In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds.), Handbook of
education politics and policy (pp. 87–102). Routledge. https://doi.org/10
.4324/9780203887875
92
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership (ED546618). Albert
Shanker Institute. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED546618.pdf
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., & Foleno, T. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the game:
Superintendents and principals talk about school leadership. Public Agenda.
Fleming, N. (2013, February 25). Districts abandoning at-large school board elections. Education
Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/02/27/22schoolboards_ep.h32.html
Fraga, L., Krimm, D., Neiman, M., & Reyes, B. (2010). Examining Latino representation on
California’s school boards: Their impact on perceptions about district problems, priorities
and policies. Public Policy Institute of California. https://cci.sfsu.edu/sites/default/files/
Examining%20Latino%20Representation%20on%20CA%20School%20Boards.pdf
Gemberling, K., Smith, C., & Villiani, J. (2000). The key work of school boards: A guidebook.
National School Boards Association.
Glass, T. E., Björk, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school superinten-
dency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium. American
Association of School Administrators.
Gomez, M. (2013). Impact of the Masters in Governance training program on effective school
board leadership and governance [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern
California.
Goodman, R. H., Fulbright, L., & Zimmerman, W. G., Jr. (1997). Getting there from here: School
board–superintendent collaboration: Creating a school governance team capable of raising
student achievement. School Development Council and Educational Research Service.
93
Goodman, R. H., & Zimmerman, W. G., Jr. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for
21st century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for high
student achievement. Education Research Service and New England School Development
Council.
Grissom, J. A. (2007). Who sits on school boards in California? Institute for Research on Educa-
tion Policy and Practice, Stanford University. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1532673X124
48212
Grissom, J. A. (2009). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations:
The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
20, 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup043
Hanover Research. (2014). Effective board and superintendent collaboration. https://www
.hanoverresearch.com/media/Effective-Board-and-Superintendent-Collaboration-Featured
.pdf
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, n.v., 17–19.
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of
district governance. National School Boards Association.
Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., & Campbell, C. (2002). Big city school boards: Problems and
options. Center on Reinventing Public Education. https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/
pub_crpe_bigcity_dec02_0.pdf
Hopkins, M., O’Neil, D., & Williams, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence and board governance:
Leadership lessons from the public sector. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(7), 683–
700. 10.1108/02683940710820109
94
Johnson, P. A. (2011). School board governance: The times they are a-changin’. Journal of Cases
in Educational Leadership, 20(10), 1–20.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F15554589114 13887
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency. Jossey-
Bass.
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: Retrospect and prospect. In T. L.
Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp.
37–59). Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Kirst, M. W., & Wirt, F. M. (2009). The political dynamics of American education (4th ed.).
McCutchan Publishing.
Klein, A. (2016, March 31). The Every Student Succeeds Act: An ESSA overview. Education
Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/every-student-succeeds-act/index.html
Klein, A. (2018, October 3). Betsy DeVos: The K-12 system has ‘stolen decision-making power
from families. Education Week. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2018/
10/betsy_devos_choice_rethink_schools_alabama.html
Korelich, K., & Maxwell, G. (2015). The Board of Trustees’ professional development and effects
on student achievement (EJ1056179). Research in Higher Education Journal. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1056179.pdf
Kowalski, T. J. (2005a). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L. G. Björk &
T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and devel-
opment (pp. 1–18). Corwin Press.
95
Kowalski, T. J. (2005b). Evolution of the school superintendent as communicator. Communica-
tion Education, 54(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520500213322
Kowalski, T., & Björk, L. (2005). Role expectations of the district superintendent: Implications
for deregulating preparation and licensing. Journal of Thought, 40(2), 73–96. https://
ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=eda_fac_pub
Kruse S. D., & Richard, J. V. (2008). Understanding school board members’ perceptions of
superintendents’ leader behaviors. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 21( 4 ), 9–15.
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
Maricle, C. (2014). Governing to achieve: A synthesis of research on school governance to
support student achievement. California School Boards Association. http://www.mikemc
mahon.info/CSBAGoverningAchieve2014.pdf
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Merriam, S.B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementa-
tion (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
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
96
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2017). Table 214.10. Number of public school districts
and public and private elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1869–70 through
2015–16. Digest of Educational Statistics. https://nces.ed.govprograms/digest/d17/
tables/dt17_214.10.asp
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: Findings and recom-
mendations. U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk .html
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and tomorrow’s
promise. Education Commission of the States.
Rice, R., 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). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453172.pdf
Richard, J. V., & Kruse, S. D (2008). Understanding school board members’ perceptions of
superintendents’ leader behaviors. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 21(4), 9–15.
Richter, L. (2013). The impact of the Masters in Governance training program on California
school board governance (Publication No. 3563990) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(7),
701–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
97
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment:
Implications for teacher induction programs. Elementary School Journal, 89, 421–439.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461584
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Doubleday/Currency.
Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining
school improvement. Harvard Education Press.
Thomas, W., & Moran, K. (1992). Reconsidering the power of the superintendent in the progres-
sive period. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 22–50.
Thurlow Brenner, C., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. IPED Technical Reports
(Paper 15). http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/iped_techrep/15
Timar, T. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Peabody Journal
of Education, 78(4), 177-200. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7804_09
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). https://www.ed.gov/
ESSA
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of super-
intendent leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for Education and
Learning. http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/ASC/4005RR_superintendent_
Leadership.pdf
Waters, J., & Marzano, R. (2007). The primacy of superintendent leadership. School Administra-
tor, 64(3), 10–16.
98
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Weiss, G., Templeton, N., Thompson, R., & Tremont, J. W. (2014). Superintendent and school
board relations: Impacting achievement through collaborative understanding of roles and
responsibilities. School Leadership Review, 9(2), Article 4. https://scholarworks.sfasu
Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview. Free
Press.
Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
99
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails
School Board Recruitment and Information Email
Date___________________
Dear School Board Member ______________________,
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program has on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. This study may serve as a source of the benefits of MIG training for school governance
teams. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school governance
teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board has completed the
MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done to complete the EdD program.
Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to
complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training on effective
governance. You will also be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom
™
interview at a time
convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded with your permission and include
questions about effective governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time. Infor-
mation obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher
and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no
individual and/or district can be identified.
Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the School Board Member Survey via the
following link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact myself or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at
the University of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx- xxxx. Thank you in advance for
your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
100
Superintendent Recruitment and Information Email
Date___________________
Dear Superintendent ______________________,
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this
email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction
and guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may
shed light on the impact that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in
Governance (MIG) training program has on school board members’ relationships with superinten-
dents and the perceived success of school districts. The results of this study should indicate the
many benefits of MIG training for school governance teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board has com-
pleted the MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done to com-
plete the EdD program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate
in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to
rate the impact of MIG training on effective governance. You will also be asked to participate in a
30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom
™
interview at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The
interview will be audio recorded with your permission and include questions about effective
governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your par-
ticipation, although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at
any time. Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anon-
ymous by the researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a
manner that will ensure that no individual and/or district can be identified.
Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the Superintendent Survey via the
following link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any
questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact myself or Dr.
Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-
xxxx.. Thank you in advance for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
101
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation in Masters in
Governance (MIG) training.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school governance teams
by the local district policy.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states. The MIG training
should be mandated in California.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program would increase your
chances of participation (check all that apply)?
Q Online
Q Hybrid (online and in-person)
Q Locally hosted
Q Other _________________
5
The primary factor that influenced my participation in the MIG
training was . . . (check all that apply):
Q School board expectation
Q Self-motivation
Q Encouraged by board members
Q Increasing student achievement
Q Increasing effective governance
Q Unable to determine
Q Other _________________
6
The current cost of the MIG training program impedes school
board members from participating.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
7
As a result of the MIG training, my focus is on achievement. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
8
As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek community input
through a variety of methods (email, town hall meetings, surveys,
etc.)
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
9
As a result of the MIG training, I understand the importance of
aligning the decision-making process with the district’s vision and
goals.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
10
The MIG training clarified the differences between my roles and
responsibilities as a school board member and those of the super-
intendent.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
102
11
The MIG training encourages school governance teams to contrib-
ute to the effectiveness of our school board meetings.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school governance teams. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to differentiate
among policy, leadership, and management.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your superintendent. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern effectively. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in order of impor-
tance 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 consistently use data to make informed decisions re-
garding student achievement.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
18
As a result of the MIG training, my ability to constructively accept
the majority decision, even if I hold the minority view, has
improved.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members could benefit
from MIG training.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
20
Attending MIG training has positively impacted student achieve-
ment.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
103
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation in Masters in
Governance (MIG) training.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school governance teams
by the local district policy.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states. The MIG training
should be mandated in California.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program would increase your
school board members’ chances of participation (check all that
apply)?
Q Online
Q Hybrid (online and in-person)
Q Locally hosted
Q Other _________________
5
The primary factor that influenced school board members to
participate in MIG training was . . . (check all that apply):
Q School board expectation
Q Self-motivation
Q Encouraged by board members
Q Increasing student achievement
Q Increasing effective governance
Q Other _________________
Q Unable to determine
6
The current cost of the MIG training program impedes school
board members from participating.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
7
School board members who have earned MIG certification demon-
strate an increased focus on student achievement.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
8
School board members who are MIG certified actively engage the
community and utilize a variety of communication methods
(email, town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
9
School board members who are MIG trained understand the
importance of aligning the decision-making process with the dis-
trict’s vision and goals.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
10
School board members who are MIG trained exhibit a clearer
understanding of the difference between their roles and
responsibilities and those of the superintendent.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
104
11
The MIG training encourages school governance teams to contrib-
ute to the effectiveness of our school board meetings.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school governance teams. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to differentiate
among policy, leadership, and management.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your school board
members.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern effectively. Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in order of impor-
tance 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 consistently use data to make informed decisions re-
garding student achievement.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
18
The MIG training has improved school board members’ ability to
accept the majority decision, even when they hold the minority
view.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members could benefit
from MIG training.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
20
MIG training has positively impacted student achievement in my
district.
Q Strongly Agree
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
105
Appendix D: Interview Guide: School Board Members
1 What factors impacted your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective gover-
nance, if at all?
3
Some individuals believe that school board training should be mandated in California. How do you
respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration
6 How could MIG be improved, if at all?
7
How has the MIG training affected how you govern your school district, if at all? If so, please
explain.
8
What role did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork) in your
district, if at all?
9 What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members/superintendents?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12 How do you use what you learned in MIG training in your role as a board member, if at all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your experience with
MIG training?
106
Appendix E: Interview Guide: Superintendents
1 What factors impacted your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective gover-
nance, if at all?
3
Some individuals believe that school board training should be mandated in California. How do you
respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to your board members and why?
Which of the following modules was least important to your board members and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance/Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources/Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy/Governance Integration
6 How could MIG be improved, if at all?
7
How has the MIG training affected how your school board members govern your school district, if
at all? If so, please explain.
8
What role did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork) in your
district, if any?
9 What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members/superintendents?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12 How do you use what you learned in MIG training in your role as a superintendent, if at all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your experience with
MIG training?
107
Appendix F: Informed Consent
Date: _______________
Dear _______________,
My name is _______________ and I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of Education. I am
conducting a research study under the guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F. Escalante. The purpose of
this study is to examine the perceptions of school board members and superintendents regarding the Masters
in Governance (MIG) training and the impact on school governance and student achievement. I will
interview and survey superintendents and school board members.
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the impact that the
California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) MIG training program has on school board 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:
108
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument
RQ #1
What factors impact the
decision of school
board members to par-
ticipate in the MIG
training program?
RQ #2
How does the MIG
training program
encourage and equip
school board members
to exhibit the behaviors
of effective school
governance?
RQ #3
Does MIG training
have an impact on stu-
dent achievement and
growth?
School Board Member
Survey
1–6 7–16
18–19
5, 7, 9, 17, 20
Superintendent Survey 1–6 7–14 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
School Board Member
Interview Guide
1, 3, 10 2
4–9
12
11, 13
Superintendent Inter-
view Guide
1, 3, 10 2
4–9
12
11, 13

Abstract (if available)

Abstract School boards are responsible for setting the direction of the school district, establishing structure, and developing policy to ensure the success of the school district. This qualitative study examined the impact of the California School Board Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training had on California school board members. This study used 3 frameworks to guide the research. Lee Bolman and Terence Deal’s 4 leadership frames were used to define leadership. The Lighthouse Inquiry, conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards, looked at best practices of effective school boards. The CSBA’s professional standards for school board members were used to provide insight into the expectations of school governance teams. Perspectives from 62 public school districts were examined to answer this study’s 3 research questions: (a) factors that impacted the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG training program, (b) how the MIG training program equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance, and (c) whether MIG training had an impact on student achievement and growth. The common themes were also supported by survey data. The goal of the three research questions was to examine the benefit of the MIG training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school governance and student achievement. The research conducted in this study revealed that school board 1 members who attended the MIG training program felt more equipped to carry out the necessary functions of school board members. The study also found that school board members were in favor of mandated training being required. School board members and superintendents in this study believed that participation in the MIG training allowed school governance teams the opportunity to build stronger working relationships. Study participants also found a correlation between the professional development of school governance teams and student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

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

PDF

Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance

PDF

School board training and governance in California

PDF

School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy

PDF

School board governance training and student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

School board training: impact on governance and achievement

PDF

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

PDF

School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams

PDF

The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts

PDF

Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice

PDF

K−12 school board training in California

PDF

Effective governance: the impact of the Masters in governance training on school boards in California

Asset Metadata

Creator Parry, Ryan Patrick (author)

Core Title The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/16/2021

Defense Date 01/29/2021

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

Tag Masters in governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,School boards,Training

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Escalante, Michael (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee member), Doll, Michele (committee member)

Creator Email rparry1972@gmail.com,ryanparr@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-428021

Unique identifier UC11667843

Identifier etd-ParryRyanP-9321.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-428021 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ParryRyanP-9321.pdf

Dmrecord 428021

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Parry, Ryan Patrick

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