Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards
(USC Thesis Other)
Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Influence of Masters in Governance Training on California K-12 School Boards
by
William W. Gideon, Jr.
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 William W. Gideon, Jr. 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for William W. Gideon, Jr. certifies the approval of this Dissertation
David Cash
Charles Hinman
Katherine Thorossian
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
The role of improving education is distributed across many levels, but ultimate accountability
rests on the shoulders of local school boards to ensure that students receive the best and most
equitable education possible. School board members are faced with a constantly evolving
landscape, challenges of global competition, increased school accountability, declining education
funding, and (especially in southern California) declining enrollment. The educational success
of students begins with an effective governance team at the school board level. The purpose of
this study was to determine whether school board training improves the relationship between
school boards and superintendents and affects performance indicators for school districts. The
study examined the benefit of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training and its implications for
school board members’ ability to exhibit characteristics of effective governance. The study was
framed by three models of leadership and governance: Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s four
frames, the Lighthouse Inquiry study conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards, and
the California School Boards Association’s Professional Governance Standards. Data were
collected via surveys and interviews with school board members and superintendents who had
participated in MIG training. Survey and interview questions were developed based on three
research focuses: (a) factors that influenced the decision by school board members to participate
in the MIG training program, (b) the ability of the MIG training program ability to encourage
and equip school board members to exhibit behaviors of effective school governance, and (c)
ways in which MIG training had an impact on student achievement and growth. Results
suggested that MIG training supports effective governance practices by building knowledge of
roles and responsibilities for individual board members, as well as collective school boards.
Results also indicated a direct correlation between effective board governance and student
achievement.
vi
Dedication
To those who have inspired me by their examples, words of support, and prayers during this
journey: My parents have provided support all my life and always wanted me to achieve
whatever goals I set my mind to accomplish. My mother, Shirley R. Gideon’s, years of
experience and wisdom have been an immense help on this road of education. My father,
William W. Gideon Sr.’s, determination and work ethic inspired me to persevere through good
times and bad times. Without them, I would not be able to complete this chapter in my life, so I
dedicate this work to them.
To my family for support, understanding, and encouragement: A husband’s/father’s role is to
provide love and support to his wife and children. I thank them for their love and support. I pray
that they will learn from my path and create their own stories to inspire the next generation to
strive for even more.
To my brother, aunts, uncles, and cousins: I cannot regain the time we have been apart, but I look
forward to times that we will have together.
To my educational family and friends, who have provided support and encouragement: They
made this work possible by providing interviews, advice, proofreading, professional referrals,
and so much more. I owe them more than mere thanks and hope that they will accept this
acknowledgement as an expression of my appreciation and gratitude. As the family griot, it has
been my quest to make all those who have gone before me proud. Their personal celebrations,
perseverance, suffering, and sacrifice have made a positive difference in my life. I thank them for
lives well lived and examples on which to draw. I dedicate this journey to each of them and give
thanks for all that they have done.
vii
Acknowledgements
As Langston Hughes said, “Life for me ain’t been no crystal stair.” Many people have
been a part of my walk on the doctoral staircase, starting with family, biological or not.
My brothers in Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. gave mentorship and encouragement. Their
stories of manhood, scholarship, perseverance, and uplift have been a great support. Many USC
Trojan alumni helped me along the way: Dr. Letitia Bradley, Dr. Paul Gothold, Dr. Dionne
Garner, Dr. Heather Harris, and Dr. Patricia Brent-Sanco. Years with my education mentors and
friends provided a wealth of knowledge and inspiration: Dr. Robin Avelar-LaSalle, Dr. Ruth
Johnson, and Mrs. Sara Shankin. I thank the professors of the USC Rossier School of Education
for sharing their time, knowledge, and experience. Their passion for education, equity, and
excellence have made a great impact on my educational career. I thank my dissertation
committee for their time, experience, and feedback: Dr. Castriuta, Dr. Thorossian, and Dr.
Hinman. I am privileged to have been part of Dr. Michael Escalante’s cohort. He shared
his vast education experience as a recipe for completing the doctoral program.
I am fortunate to work in the Los Nietos School District, where I can help to shape the
educational program. I thank Jonathan Vasquez for the opportunity to serve as Assistant
Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction. I appreciate all those who work with me:
principal, teachers on special assignment, technicians, database specialists, consultants, and so
many others.
The support, time, and skills of my editor, Mrs. Phyllis Parmet, are appreciated.
My dissertation group, the “Fabulous Five,” did not have the traditional doctoral program
experience, but the support that we gave each other will continue throughout our careers. We
will continue to “Fight On” for educational equity.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ................................................................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study........................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ............................................................................................. 2
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 5
Importance of the Study .................................................................................................. 5
Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................. 6
Delimitations................................................................................................................... 6
Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 6
Definition of Terms ......................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation .................................................................................... 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ..................................................................................... 11
History of School Boards .............................................................................................. 11
History of Superintendents ............................................................................................ 14
Leadership Models ........................................................................................................ 18
CSBA .......................................................................................................................... 24
Role of School Board Members..................................................................................... 25
ix
Masters in Governance Training .................................................................................... 32
Chapter Three: Research Methods ............................................................................................ 37
Research Team .............................................................................................................. 38
Research Design............................................................................................................ 38
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 39
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 43
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 43
Ethical Considerations................................................................................................... 44
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................... 44
Chapter Four: Findings ............................................................................................................. 45
Participants and School Districts ................................................................................... 46
Surveys and Interviews ................................................................................................. 46
Results for Research Question 1 .................................................................................... 50
Results for Research Question 2 .................................................................................... 58
Results for Research Question 3 .................................................................................... 68
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................... 75
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations ................................................ 77
Purpose of the Study Restated ....................................................................................... 77
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................... 78
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 82
Implications for Practice ............................................................................................... 83
Recommendations for Future Study .............................................................................. 84
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 86
x
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails.................................................................... 97
School Board Recruitment and Information Email ........................................................ 97
Superintendent Recruitment and Information Email ...................................................... 98
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey ............................................................................. 99
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey ....................................................................................... 102
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ......................................................... 105
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol..................................................................... 106
Appendix F: Informed Consent ............................................................................................... 107
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix ............................................................................... 108
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Conceptual Framework for the Study 42
Table 2: Summary of Participation From 62 Districts 47
Table 3: Demographics of the Researcher’s Study Counties 49
Table 4: Responses to the Survey Item, “Our School Board Culture Encourages
Participation in the Masters in Governance Training”
52
Table 5: Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate
in the Masters in Governance Training
53
Table 6: Survey Responses to the Item, “Masters in Governance Training Should
Be Encouraged for School Governance Teams by the Local District
Policy”
55
Table 7: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “School Board Members
Who Are Masters in Governance Trained Exhibit a Clearer
Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and
Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent”
60
Table 8: Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “The Masters in
Governance Training Clarified the Differences Between My Roles and
Responsibilities as a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent”
61
Table 9: Responses to the Survey Item, “The Masters in Governance Training
Encourages School Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness
of Our School Board Meetings”
63
Table 10: Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “It Is Important to
Attend Masters in Governance Training With Your Superintendent”
64
xii
Table 11: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “It Is Important to
Attend Masters in Governance Training With Your School Board
Members”
65
Table 12: Responses to the Survey Item, “As a Result of the Masters in
Governance Training, I Encourage Governance Team Members to
Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions Regarding Student
Achievement”
70
Table 13: Responses to the Survey Item, “Attending Masters in Governance
Training Has Positively Impacted Student Achievement in My District”
71
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Four-Frame Model of Organizations 20
Figure 2: Five Major Roles and Seven Key Areas of School Board Performance 23
Figure 3: The California School Boards Association’s Masters in Governance Modules 24
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
There are many facets to running public schools today. School leaders are charged with
ensuring that students are competitive locally, within the state, and across the country, as well as
globally. With the increase in technology, U.S. students today also find themselves competing
not only with U.S. students for college and careers opportunities but also with students from
around the globe. This paradigm is reflected in the increased pressure placed on school leaders
from federal, state, and local leaders, as well as parents. Unfortunately, there has been a global
slide in the U.S. education system. According to results from the 2017 Program for International
Student Assessment, the average U.S. 15-year-old scores lower than students in more than 20
other industrialized nations in reading, mathematics, and science (Pew Research Center, 2013).
The role of improving education is distributed across many levels, but ultimate
accountability rests on the shoulders of local school boards to ensure that students are receiving
the best and most equitable education possible. The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
reserves to the states all rights not explicitly granted to the federal government. Thus, states and
local school boards are responsible to ensure that students receive the proper education on a day-
to-day basis. Nearly 90% of all children in the United States attend public schools (Taylor,
1999), which are governed by a local body known as a school board. School boards are locally
elected officials who are entrusted to make decisions regarding the welfare of children (Land,
2002).
School boards members are faced with a constantly evolving landscape, challenges of
global competition, increased school accountability, declining education funding, and (in
California) declining enrollment. California schools currently serve more than six million
students enrolled in more than 1,000 districts governed by more than 5,000 school board
2
members (California School Boards Association [CSBA], 2018). While these numbers are large,
it is imperative to note that there is not a mandate in place to require training of local school
board officials. Twenty-three states require some form of training (National School Boards
Association [NSBA], 2000). In California, CSBA continues to provide training for school board
officials, known as Masters in Governance (MIG). The MIG training consists of five modules:
Foundation of Effective Governance, Policy & Judicial Review/Student Achievement, School
Finance, Human Resources, and Community Relations and Advocacy (CSBA, 2018).
This chapter outlines issues that affect school boards and their ability to govern
effectively. The effectiveness of school board governance and student achievement are the
primary issues of this qualitative case study as it related to the 12 California counties. In this
section, an overview of the literature is presented to outline the status of the issue.
Background of the Problem
School boards have been an integral part of the school governance since the creation of
public education in the United States. In one form or another, this system of governance has
existed for more than 200 years (Gemberling et al., 2000; Land, 2002). The creation of school
boards was a way for local citizens to have control of their schools and to decrease the influence
of state politicians who might be out of touch with local issues (Land, 2002). Thus, school
boards were formed to manage district administrative and financial responsibilities.
The requirements of public education have changed over the past 200 years in order to
meet the social, economic, and political needs of the country. As expectations of the nation’s
teachers and administrators increased, so too did those of school board members. This has
directly expanded the responsibilities of school board members to include areas such as school
3
security, social-emotional wellness, curriculum, special education, attendance, school
modernization, bonds/parcel taxes, and much more.
As newly elected citizens become part of the school board, they typically have very little
experience in education or school governance. The lack of experience and or training creates a
need for training of school board members. School board members are elected officials and
therefore may not have any prerequisite knowledge or experience with the day-to-day operations
of a school district. Thurlow Brenner Thurlow, Sullivan, and Dalton (2002) stated that it is
difficult for board members to monitor what they do not understand. The need for board
members to learn how to manage and create goals regarding the various areas of education is
more important now than ever before. School board members tend to lack basic skills and
knowledge about the job; these tools can be imparted through school board training (Brenner
Thurlow et al., 2002; Hess, 2002; McAdams, 2003).
School board members may gain training from a variety of sources, such as informal peer
training and formal training in topic workshops. The formal training sessions are usually
connected with either state associations or the NSBA (Bianchi, 2003). Based on information
obtained from CSBA (2010), more than 2,000 school board members have participated in the
MIG program. The purpose of the five-module program is to train and equip school board
members with tools to be successful in their role of school governance. In recent years, school
board training has received more attention (Dillon, 2010; Hess & Meeks, 2010; Morehouse,
2001). School board members’ roles and responsibilities have traditionally been the topic of
choice (Allen & Mintrom, 2010; Anderson, 2003; Campbell & Greene, 1994; Danzberger,
1994). The literature has identified the influence of the MIG training in developing a successful
governance system that ensures academic success of students.
4
The role of school boards in public education has been an integral part of how districts
support students. Hess and Meeks (2010) found that the link between the actions of school board
members and increased achievement was not critically researched until the end of the 20th
century. This study is designed to expand on previous studies in order to understand how school
board members receive formal training to complete their roles and fulfill their responsibilities.
The concept of school board effectiveness, in general, has been overlooked in much of the
educational literature (French et al., 2008).
Statement of the Problem
The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of
informed decision making that influence the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training 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
5
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
This study was guided by 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?
Importance of the Study
The work of educating students is imperative not only on local and state levels but also
on a national level. In order to develop a high-functioning educational system, it is essential that
governance teams be competent and operating effectively. This study examined the influences
the MIG training on California K–12 school boards. The study provides school boards valuable
insight on how MIG training has influenced student achievement. Links between training and
student academic progress may motivate more southern California school board members to seek
training and encourage more local boards to make it part of their standard of operation.
This study extends research from the literature that examined how school board
governance affects student achievement. It is often difficult for school boards to identify tangible
impacts of school governance on student achievement. Due to the nature of interventions, a lack
of internal student achievement data, and other issues, it is often difficult to draw connections
between policies and student achievement. The study examined those overlooked elements to
produce themes and identified the influence of governance decisions on student achievement.
6
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of the study are related to design of the study and funding, as well as the
amount of time. The study was limited to the school board members and superintendents who
had completed MIG training and participated voluntarily. The limited number of school board
members who completed MIG training directly affected the number of participants surveyed and
interviewed. Participants were able to respond subjectively and reflected personal viewpoints.
Participants’ responses were not representative of all school board members and superintendents.
The validity of the study was limited to research instrumentation reliability. Finally, the study
was limited to the districts in California due to geographical constraints.
Delimitations
Several factors created by the research team had an impact on the ability of this study to
be generalized to other populations. This study was restricted to districts in California where the
majority of the school board members had completed MIG training offered by the CSBA. The
MIG training is offered only in California; therefore, the study’s findings cannot be generalized
throughout the country.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in this study. The research team assumed that the
instruments used would be reliable and valid. It was assumed that participating school board
members would be honest and objective in their responses to the surveys and interviews. It was
assumed that participants would be able to recall and identify various elements and skills
obtained from the MIG training program related to their role in school governance. It was
assumed that the MIG training would increase effective school governance and in turn improve
student achievement.
7
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms were defined.
Accountability: The concept that schools and school districts will be held responsible for
performance or producing documents and records, creating and following plans, and reporting
student performance on assessments.
Assessment: The annual summative evaluation of student learning through state-
sanctioned multiple-choice tests.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): An assessment
that includes the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments; the California Alternate
Assessments (CAAs), including the CAA for Science; the California Science Test (CAST); and
the California Spanish Assessment (CSA; CAASPP, 2020).
California School Boards Association (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
educational agencies statewide, CSBA brings together school governing boards and
administrators from districts and county offices of education to advocate for effective
policies that advance the education and well-being of the state’s more than 6 million
school-age children. A membership-driven association, the CSBA provides policy
resources and training to members and represents the statewide interests of public
education through legal, political, legislative, community, and media advocacy. (CSBA,
2018, para. 1)
DataQuest: The California Department of Education’s (CDE)
8
web-based data reporting system for publicly reporting information about California
students, teachers, and schools. DataQuest provides access to a wide variety of reports,
including school performance, test results, student enrollment, English learner,
graduation and dropout, school staffing, course enrollment, and student misconduct data.
(CDE, 2020a, para. 1)
Effectiveness: The ability of board members to execute their responsibility in alignment
with the five characteristics delineated by the CSBA (2018).
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through the
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000).
Institutional Review Board (IRB): An administrative body established to protect the
rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in research activities
conducted under the auspices of the institution with which it is affiliated.
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP):
A 3-year plan that describes the goals, actions, services, and expenditures to support
positive student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The LCAP provides an
opportunity for LEAs to share their stories of how, what, and why programs and services
are selected to meet their local needs. (CDE, 2020b, LCAP Overview section, para. 1)
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): The law enacted in 2013–2014 to simplify how
funding is provided to LEAs. Previously, funding included over 50 categorical funding lines
designed to give targeted services based on student demographics (CDE, 2020c).
Local Education Agency (LEA):
9
A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for
either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public
elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or
other political subdivision of a State, or for a combination of school districts or counties
as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools
or secondary schools. (Legal Information Institute, Electronic Code of Federal
Regulations, n.d., para. 1)
Mandate: An official order or commission to do something.
Masters in Governance (MIG): A training program sponsored by the CSBA consisting of
five modules designed to define roles and responsibilities, improve governance and leadership
through increased knowledge and skills to support an effective governance structure, and
maintaining a focus on student learning.
National School Boards Association (NSBA): A federation of 49 state associations and
the U.S. territory of the Virgin Islands, representing their more than 90,000 school board
officials.
Public school: A free tax-supported school controlled by a local governmental authority.
School board: A group of nonpartisan citizens, either elected or appointed within a school
district to act as a single unit regarding various aspects of governance (CSBA, 2007).
School board member: Locally elected public official entrusted with governing a
community’s public schools (CSBA, 2018).
School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding at public
meetings of school boards.
10
School district: Synonym for LEA; a public organization tasked with operating public
schools and serving students within a designated geographic area.
School governance: The dynamic collaboration between school leaders and school boards
to establish and engage in processes and practices to operate schools.
Student achievement: The performance by students on the annual summative assessment
given by the state of California.
Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district with
oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into three chapters. Chapter One, the introduction to the
study, is an overview of the entire process: the background of the problem, the statement of the
problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions, the importance of the study, the
limitations and delimitations of the study, the assumptions, and the key definitions of terms used
throughout the paper. Chapter Two provides a literature review dealing with the history of school
boards and the superintendency; it also includes a discussion of leadership models considered for
the study. Chapter Three outlines the methodology used to develop and implement the research
design, including participant sampling, instrumentation, data collection and analysis procedures,
and ethical considerations. Chapter Four presents the study’s findings based on the analysis of
data. Chapter Five presents a summary of the overall study, including conclusions,
considerations, implications, and recommendations for further research.
11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
In the field of public education, school boards are charged with providing the
fundamental framework for governing education (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Kirst, 1994; Land,
2002; McCloud & McKenzie, 1994; Usdan, 1994). School boards have been and still are part of
the democratic fabric, where local citizens represent and serve as agents on behalf of those who
elected them. School boards are the governing body for school districts; thus, they are the policy
makers who shape and influence a district’s success. School board members are expected to be
knowledgeable about multiple levels of school district responsibilities and operations.
In the past few decades, there has been an increasing level of accountability for K–12
school districts. School boards are responsible to ensure that external accountability measures
prescribed by federal and state mandates are met within the local school district. This has created
a greater need for effective and efficient school governance. The role and responsibility of school
board members continues to evolve with the increasing demands for more accountability. In
today’s increasingly complex climate, both individual and interpersonal leadership skills are
necessary to increase the likelihood that the indicators of effective governance will be present
(Hopkins et al., 2007).
This chapter is organized into seven sections to examine various elements of school
board governance and the research related to the impact of school board training.
History of School Boards
In order to understand the current operations of school boards, it is critical to review the
history of school boards as it provides context for present and future analysis of their
effectiveness. This section provides an overview of the history and the original purpose of school
12
boards. In the literature review, the role of school board member has been redefined over the
years to include student achievement, which was not in the original charter responsibilities.
In the northernmost section of New England, public schools emerged during the 17th
century. In Massachusetts Bay, compulsory education was initiated in 1647, requiring towns to
establish and maintain schools. Similar statutes were soon adopted in other New England
colonies (Hess, 2002; Land, 2002). Local governments were expected to control, administer, and
sustain schools, as well as other town-governing functions. Eventually, as greater responsibilities
and complexities of local governing increased, the need arose to separate education from town
governance (Wirt & Kirst, 2008; Land, 2002). By 1826, towns in Massachusetts formed
committees composed of laymen who were responsible for overseeing public schools, forming
the origins of the American school board (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). At this time there were no
requirements for understanding how public schools could or should operate. The Massachusetts
model spread throughout the colonies as school districts were formed and funded by local taxes,
each possessing its own authority for the provisioning and maintenance of schools (Land, 2002).
The original design of the school board was to be nonpartisan and nonsectarian. This is
still the governance model used by school boards and public schools today (Danzberger, 1994;
Land, 2002). In the early 20th century, there were significant changes to the school board
structure and roles. Reformers claimed that educational failures in urban areas could be attributed
to partisan politics and decentralization. These reformers argued that the decentralized, ward-
based committee system for administering public schools created opportunities for political
influence (Alsbury, 2008; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). During this
period, school boards were large, often consisting of 20 or more members. These boards were
13
composed of numerous subcommittees, which reformers felt were fragmenting executive
authority (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
These governance structures were revised into smaller school boards whose members
were elected at large, with no affiliations to political parties or government officials. Reformers
maintained that better management, accountability, and large-scale improvements could be
achieved through 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, 2008). Governance of the school board was reshaped in the image of corporate
boards, which focused on policy making rather than day-to-day operations. The position of
superintendent was created with the expectation of being in charge of daily school
administration. The reforms of the early 20th century established the profile for the basic
structure and administrative policymaking processes that boards use today.
Around the mid-20th century, several significant national and state educational policy
changes affected school boards. An example of national educational policy change was the 1954
Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which required equal educational
opportunities for all students. This decision mandated desegregation of all public schools. The
decision eventually led to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. ESEA,
considered by many a civil rights to be milestone, distributed federal funding to districts with
historically underserved students, defined as those from low-income families (Alsbury, 2008;
Hess, 2002; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). ESEA has been reauthorized several times with
different names, such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. These reauthorizations have
been accompanied by federal and state legislation relating to issues such as migrant and special
14
education. These reauthorizations typically have financial implications at federal and state levels,
thereby increasing the impact on local school boards.
During President Obama’s administration, ESEA was reauthorized in 2015 in a law
entitled the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This legislation reduced the federal influence in
schools, returning some authority to state and local governments (Klein, 2016). In April 2017,
there was an executive order to investigate government involvement in public education at the
national level, with the intent to reduce federal education spending. The Department of
Education Director, Betsy Devos, expressed her opinion that federal funding may harm
education. She considered the centralized approach of the federal government, including
distribution of funds, as a disruption to the ability of local governments and private schools to
meet their unique needs (Klein, 2016). These federal-level decisions have significant influence
on how local school boards govern.
While there have been structural changes, very little has changed regarding the purpose
of the school board. According to the Lighthouse Inquiry study, school board members serve as
agents of the community. School board members represent the vision and direction of the
community. Early school boards were responsible for implementing school policies that aligned
with their respective communities’ values; the same holds true today (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Today, school boards are responsible for the areas of finance, student achievement, facilities,
public safety, and compliance with mandates from state and national levels. These areas of
knowledge are vital for effective school boards; thus, professional learning is essential.
History of Superintendents
To appreciate fully the complexity of the superintendent position and its evolution over
more than 100 years, one must understand how roles and responsibilities have changed over
15
time. Since the inception of the superintendent role, there has been an evolution in expectations,
constraints, and a heightened level of responsibility in a climate of accountability placed on the
position. The original charter for superintendents was to prepare future school leaders who would
be able to provide civic leadership, scientific management, and established business practices for
the schools. Superintendents needed to be current in their knowledge and skills in curriculum and
instruction, teacher preparation, staff training, the business of the school (Björk et al., 2014;
Glass et al., 2000). Establishing professional superintendents did not separate operational
authority from the board of education quickly (Glass et al., 2000). During the late 1830s, the
position of superintendent was created; by 1850, 13 large city school systems had employed a
superintendent. The first district superintendents were appointed in Buffalo, New York, and
Louisville, Kentucky (Kowalski & Brunner, 2011). By 1900, most city school districts had
appointed a district administrator due to the consolidation of rural school districts into larger
ones, the creation of state-mandated curriculum, compulsory education laws, demands for
financial accountability, and demands for efficiency (Björk et al., 2014).
Due to social tension in the 1960s and 1970s, there were significant changes made in
American public schools. There was a renewed focus by policy makers on the training and
selection of superintendents as community groups changed their expectations of the role of the
superintendent. Superintendents came under fire, and many parents and board members
challenged the traditional role of “expert” because schools were not meeting community
expectations (Glass et al., 2000). This led to the superintendent becoming the most visible school
figure and the target of criticism.
Policy-making duties of the district moved back and forth between the superintendent and
school board during the reform era of the 1980s and 1990s. As the standards movement began,
16
the role of the superintendent moved even farther away from the district manager. Bureaucracy,
mandates, state and federal initiatives, and legislation created a different role for superintendents
(Glass et al., 2000). The “choice” movements across the United States, as well as advocacy for
more control at the local level, brought additional challenges to a superintendent’s authority and
policy making (Glass et al., 2000).
Today’s superintendency role is an outgrowth of the various eras of education. Each era
has brought additional expectations and responsibilities to the role of superintendent, which has
made it more demanding and complex. Thus, today’s superintendents are expected to be experts
in the areas of leadership, pedagogy, policy making, school reform, federal and state
accountability measures, finances, and politics. Superintendents are also expected to develop
partnerships that can contribute financially and politically to development of an educational
system that supports student achievement (Glass, 2010).
Teacher-Scholar
The original role of superintendent was that of a schoolmaster, head teacher, and clerk,
which evolved into master teacher and educator (Glass et al., 2000). The superintendent’s
recognized duties were to train teachers and inspire them with high ideals (Cuban, 1976). During
the earliest development of the school system, teacher-scholars provided visionary leadership
and planning necessary to produce academic gains at the school district level (Björk et al., 2014).
Superintendents were, therefore, master teachers responsible for many educational duties.
Manager
During the latter part of the 19th century, the role of the superintendent was characterized
by an infusion of industrial concepts of scientific management and efficiency into public
education (Björk et al., 2014). The operations of schools were now being compared to successful
17
businesses in how they operated. Thus, scientific management began to be adopted in public
schools during the 1890s and so did the role of superintendents as district business managers.
School boards assigned superintendents several management responsibilities (e.g., budget
development and administration, standardization of operation, personnel management, facility
management), reconfiguring the role of superintendents as district business managers (Björk et
al., 2014). Finally, after several years, educators and policymakers compromised on the role of
superintendent, agreeing that they need to be both effective managers and instructional leaders.
Many superintendents were now planners and thinkers who designed programs for burgeoning
urban school systems and then evaluated the outcomes as a guide for their subsequent decision
making (Thomas & Moran, 1992).
Democratic Leader
During the depression of the 1930s, limited fiscal resources forced district
superintendents to become politically active, especially concerning lobbying state legislatures to
secure financial support and engage communities and parents (Björk & Lindle, 2001; Björk et
al., 2014). Through lobbying for federal and state officials for more resources for their local
schools, superintendents began to be seen as spokespersons for local schools. Superintendents in
this era needed knowledge and skills of community relations, collaborative decision making, and
politics (Kowalski & Björk, 2005). Superintendents were urged to work with the board to
motivate policy makers, employees, and the community to support their districts’ initiatives.
Applied Social Scientist
During the 1950s, social activism in the country was extremely high; thus,
superintendents were viewed as applied social scientists and leaders in the field. They pushed to
establish academic discipline and courses shifted away from practical aspects of school
18
administration to those that reflected social science research and theory. As school districts grew,
school districts centralized control of all management with hierarchical bureaucracy and
scientific management (Glass et al., 2000). During this era, school superintendents were expected
to be aware of contextual issues and to apply scientific inquiry to identify and solve problems of
practice to ensure that schools were socially just, democratic, and productive (Björk et al., 2014).
Superintendents were expected to have the expertise necessary to deal with social and
institutional ills (Glass et al., 2000).
Effective Communicator
Superintendents’ communicator role was shaped by two conditions: the need to
restructure school cultures and the need to access and use information promptly to identify and
solve problems of practice (Björk et al., 2014). The technology revolution of the 1970s created
an information-based society in which superintendents were expected to master the art of
communication and support the use of technology in learning, teaching, and administration
(Glass et al., 2000). This is still seen today in the increasing focus on integrating technology into
every facet of school. In the case of district superintendents, the role of the effective
communicator is framed by relatively new expectations that have become apparent since the
early 1980s (Kowalski, 2005). Superintendents are expected to engage others in open political
dialogue, facilitate the creation of shared visions, build a positive school district image, gain
community support for change, provide an essential framework for information management,
provide marketing programs and keep the public informed about education (Kowalski, 2004).
Leadership Models
For the purpose of this study, three frameworks are used to analyze the literature and
outline a way to study the literature and research questions. These sources were selected to
19
provide foundational information regarding school boards and superintendent relationships.
Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal (2017), The Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al.,
2000), and the CSBA Effective Governance System (CSBA, 2007) examine the roles and
responsibilities, setting, governance authority, and leadership capacity of school boards and
superintendents. Each theory provides an outline for successful relationships and outcomes.
Four Frames: Reframing Organizations
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four leadership frames (political, human resources, structural,
and symbolic) provide a framework for school district leadership. The frameworks create an
organized method to review leadership models, identify problems, and suggest organizational
solutions. This framework places equal importance on leadership and management skills. These
frames can be applied to organizations of any size. Figure 1 illustrates the four frames.
Figure 1
Four-Frame Model of Organizations
Note. Adapted from Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (4th ed.), by
L. G. Bolman and T E. Deal, 2008, Jossey-Bass.
20
The structural frame is akin to the human spine; as the spine provides a backbone for the
human body, this frame provides a well-thought-out set of roles and relationships and produces a
structure for an organization. When developed properly, organizations are able to support
collective and individual goals. Therefore, the school board’s essential function, according to the
structural frame, is to provide direction and vision and develop strategic goals that allow staff
members to strive toward creating individual goals that support the collective goal. It is
imperative that school board members be provided enough information to form a “big picture” of
the school district’s needs, resources, and potential solutions.
The human resource frame focuses on the people who work inside the organization. This
frame outlines principles for relationships between people and the organization. These
relationships range from attracting, hiring, developing, ensuring diversity, and in some cases
removal of people. While school boards are ultimately responsible for only one person, the
superintendent, they are still integral in developing the organization’s overall human resource
environment.
According to Bolman and Deal (2017), the political frame is a complex web of individual
and group interests. There are many natural diverse interests in a school district from the
students, parents, classrooms, site administrators, unions, district office, school boards, county
office of education, state department of education, and the federal department of education that
must be constantly addressed. While school board members are elected and thus expected to be
servant leaders who tend to the needs of their constituents, other variables often take precedence
in their decision making. While unions often endorse candidates for school board, once the
school board members are elected, they are not always able to reciprocate support (e.g., union
requests for salary raises) because of state fiscal solvency requirements or insufficient general
21
funds. The political frame suggests that the exercise of power is a natural part of the
organizational environment and those who get and use the power best will be the winners
(Bolman & Deal, 2017).
The symbolic frame focuses on the organization’s culture and core assumptions. It
involves listening and blending diverse perspectives, visions, values, and rituals into an
overarching umbrella. As legislative, executive, and judicial expectations are performed by the
school board, those actions develop a symbolic frame for the organization. School boards are
responsible for developing a mission, vision, and goals document for the organization. This
document serves as a symbol of what the organization and its members believe, value, and
prioritize.
The Lighthouse Inquiry
The focus of this study was to establish whether school board leadership affects student
achievement and whether there are quantifiable behaviors that should be measured. The
Lighthouse Inquiry research suggests that school boards have an impact on student achievement.
One of the goals of that study was to identify patterns of organizational behavior and practices
that contribute to high student achievement and whether those behaviors are transferable. School
board-superintendent teams from high- and low-achieving districts were selected to study
governance practices with student results. The inquiry was conducted over the course of a few
years, 1998 to 2000, and three research questions guided the study (Delagardelle, 2008): (a) Are
school boards different in high- and low-achieving districts? (b) How do school boards influence
the conditions needed for success? and (c) What do board members and superintendents
currently believe about the role of the board in improving student learning?
22
The Lighthouse Inquiry conclusions were based on the data gathered in three phases.
Phase I data were collected to identify demographic, academic, and ethnographic information
regarding various districts. Phase II researchers examined possible influences on student
achievement. Phase III focused on curating best practices for districts that exhibited strong
working relationships between school boards and superintendents and high student achievement.
This resulted in identification of five major roles with seven key conditions (Figure 2).
Delagardelle (2008) identified understandings and beliefs of school boards in high-
achieving districts that differed from those in low-achieving districts. The seven conditions
discovered in high-achieving districts are quantifiable and transferable. The researcher stated that
their school boards’ efforts to ensure the presence of specific conditions within the system
appeared to be part of a district-wide culture focused on improvement in student learning.
23
Figure 2
Five Major Roles and Seven Key Areas of School Board Performance
Note. Modified from “The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of School Board Leadership
in the Improvement of Student Achievement,” by M. L. Delagardelle, 2008, in T. L. Alsbury
(Ed.), The Future of School Board Governance: Relevancy and Revelation (pp. 191–223),
Rowan & Littlefield Education.
24
CSBA
The California School Board Association has established governance standards to support
school board effectiveness and ultimately support high student achievement. The Professional
Governance Standards consist of two major areas: how to operate as a governing body, and
how to operate as an individual. Six factors contribute to school district improvement (Figure 3).
Professional Governance Standards also clearly define the roles and responsibilities of school
board members. CSBA has developed MIG modules based on Delagardelle’s (2008) research
that school boards’ beliefs, decisions, and actions directly impact the conditions within schools
that enable district efforts to improve achievement to either succeed or fail.
Figure 3
The California School Boards Association’s Masters in Governance Modules
25
Role of School Board Members
School boards and local education agencies have modified their expectations and
methods of operation to meet the demands of school accountability. In order to understand the
effectiveness of school board members, their roles and responsibilities, including governance,
must be clearly defined. The CSBA has categorized the five major roles and responsibilities of
school boards as (a) setting the direction of the school district, (b) establishing an effective and
efficient structure for the district, (c) providing support for the superintendent and personnel, (d)
ensuring accountability to the public, and (e) providing community leadership. The scope of their
role is described in the following subsections.
Setting the Direction (Vision and Goals)
One of the essential roles of a school board is to develop and communicate a long-term
vision for a school district (CSBA, 2007; Land, 2002; Senge, 1990; Supovitz, 2006; Thurlow
Brenner et al., 2002). According to Land (2002), the vision statement reflects the consensus of
the governance team regarding what students need to reach their highest potential and the
direction in which the district will proceed for students to be successful. The vision and goals are
reflective of both the governing board and the values of the community with which all decisions
and recommendations are aligned (Land, 2002; Weiss et al., 2014). Establishing a clear vision
that is focused on student achievement sets the stage for success in a school district’s
improvement efforts (CSBA, 2007). This is supported by Korelich and Maxwell’s (2015)
conclusion that governance teams in highly effective districts worked toward the same goals
while preserving the interests of students first in the decision-making process.
26
Establishing Structure
School board members are authorized by the state to govern as a singular body, not as
individuals (Carol et al., 1986; Danzberger, 1992). As a result, the ability of board members to
work together and reach consensus is essential to exercise their authority (Land, 2002). State
laws and local policies make it clear that board members should focus on leadership and
governance for high student achievement and not on administrative concerns (Thurlow Brenner
et al., 2002). Setting policies, adopting budgets, and passing regulations are the regular duties of
school boards.
Policies
The primary role of school boards is to govern local school districts effectively,
according to Campbell and Greene (1994). Policy making is a critical responsibility of the school
board as it provides structure for the district. Policies set boundaries for what is acceptable in the
process of achieving the district’s goals (Campbell & Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007; 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). Another significant role of the school board is to
ensure that state policies are implemented at the local level (Ehrensal & First, 2008). In doing so,
they are mirroring many judicial, executive, and legislative functions of government (Wirt &
Kirst, 2005).
Budgets
One of the most critical documents to ensure a school district’s solvency is the annual
budget. School boards have a significant responsibility for the allocation of resources, primarily
taxpayer dollars, to improve student academic achievement (Phillips & Dorata, 2013). Budgeting
27
includes overseeing services for transportation, food, technology, facilities, capital campaigns,
and bonds (Bianchi, 2003; Hill et al., 2002; Land, 2002).
It is important the school board members provide effective leadership and governance of
schools (Danzberger, 1994) and act as good stewards of the money that they control. Despite the
critical role that school boards play in governing schools across the country, virtually very little
empirical research has examined the governance structure of a school district with respect to the
board’s fiscal responsibility.
Culture of Support
The high-functioning and collaborative culture is essential for student and staff success—
in its most basic terms, how staff and students get things accomplished. Prevailing norms, values,
and attitudes drive behavior in the district (Campbell & Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2017). According
to CSBA’s 2017 report, the school board, including the superintendent, sets the tone for the
school district by modeling positive and professional relationships. Even though no one can
dictate a district’s culture, there are ways to influence it through trust, promoting positive
attitudes and beliefs, and community engagement (Campbell & Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2017;
Land, 2002; Weiss et al., 2014). Another means to cultivate a culture that is collectively
responsible and committed to the belief that all students can learn is through the partnership of
the board members and the district office. Working together, policies regarding collaboration and
professional learning can be developed (CSBA, 2017; Dervarics & O’Brien, 2016).
Providing Support for the Superintendent and Personnel
One of the most important responsibilities of a school board is to hire the superintendent
and hold that person accountable for managing the district’s implementation of the school
board’s policies and state laws (Carol et al., 1986; Goodman et al.; Land, 2002; Mountford,
28
2004; Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002). The superintendent acts as the chief executive officer
(CEO) of the school district and turns the district’s vision into reality (Campbell & Greene, 1994;
CSBA, 2007; Ehrensal & First, 2008; Elmore, 2000; Grissom, 2009; Hill et al., 2002; Hopkins et
al., 2007; Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999). According to Weiss et al. (2014), effective school districts
are those in which school board and superintendent work together cohesively in the best interests
of all stakeholders. For this to happen, the relationship between the superintendent and board
members must be built on trust, with everyone focused on a common vision and goals.
Turnover in district leadership is inevitable. A part of the school board’s responsibility is
to be prepared by developing explicit strategies to ease the transitional stage. If the vision and
goals are clearly communicated throughout the system, those who are newly hired are more
likely to support the improvement initiatives and contribute to the efforts instead of hindering
progress (CSBA, 2017). This is especially true in the success of a newly hired superintendent. At
the onset of the hiring process, board members should clearly communicate their expectations for
the superintendent as they continue toward the district’s vision and goals.
Ensuring Accountability to the Public
As elected officials, school board members are accountable to their constituents.
According to Thurlow Brenner et al. (2002), board members should establish frequent, regular
times to monitor student achievement. Strategies such as visiting school sites provide board
members and district personnel an opportunity to see how the district vision and goals are
progressing, as well as to monitor the success of their policies (Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002).
Holding public hearings and scheduling monthly board information sessions that link the budget
to performance goals are suggested ways in which school boards can structure sessions to focus
on school improvement and inform the public (Thurlow Brenner et al., 2002).
29
Community Leaders
Board members are elected community members who represent their constituents. An
important responsibility is to generate public interest and assist community members in their
understanding of the educational system (Land, 2002). Resnick (1999) stated that good
governance requires board members to be actively involved in the community, as this helps to
build a connection between the school district and the community.
The position of 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 has gone through many changes. Early superintendents were
charged with the task of spreading the word of free public education and the common school
movement (Glass et al., 2000). That role changed to that of the schoolmaster and head teacher
and evolved into master teacher and educator (Glass et al., 2000). By the late 19th century, the
primary focus of the superintendent was implementation of state curriculum and supervision of
teachers (Kowalski, 2005). In the early 1990s, superintendents were considered the most
influential members of the National Education Association (Kowalski, 2005). Superintendents at
that time considered themselves to be a part of the teaching profession, leaving much of the
managerial duties to the local school board (Kowalski, 2005). The role of the superintendent as a
teacher-scholar has ebbed and flowed over the years. However, in a study by Glass et al. (2000),
more than 40% of all superintendents surveyed stated that the school board’s primary
expectation was for them to serve as the educational leader of the school district.
Edwards (2007) found that, while the role of the superintendent was quite broad, there
were some commonalities in typical job descriptions. While states have unique requirements for
superintendents in both the explicit and implied role of the superintendent, commonalities exist:
30
• Serving as chief executive officer of the school board and thus assuming
responsibility for all aspects of the work;
• Providing leadership planning and evaluating all phases of the instructional
program; Selecting and recommending all personnel to the school board for
appointment and guiding the growth of said personnel;
• Preparing the budget for submission to the board and administering it after its
adoption;
• Determining building needs and administering building programs, construction,
operations, and maintenance;
• 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 are fairly consistent across the
country, local school boards can expand the role of the superintendent.
The CSBA Superintendents Advisory Council and the Association of California School
Administrators (ACSA) Superintendents Committee established a set of professional governance
standards for the position of superintendent. Standards set forth by the joint commission
recommend that these standards be included as a part of the Professional Governance Standards
(CSBA, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). The standards include promoting the success of all students and
supporting the efforts of the school board, serving as a model of life-long learning, working with
school board members to assure 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, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c).
31
Collaborative Goal Setting
Waters and Marzano (2006) found that effective superintendents include 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 since they were the ones who would be implementing the goals.
First, 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).
Second, superintendents 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 are a
priority for student achievement (Waters & Marzano, 2006)
Third, effective superintendents continually monitor goals for student achievement and
instructional goals to ensure that these goals remain the primary drive behind the school district’s
efforts. According to Waters and Marzano (2006), if these goals are not monitored, the goals of
the superintendent and school become nothing more than educational fodder. Effective
superintendents ensure that schools are constantly looking at meeting and expanding
achievement targets (Waters & Marzano 2006).
Fourth, 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 may require the superintendent to make
cuts and drop initiatives that are not aligned to the district goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006)
32
In general, the review of literature has shown that the role of the 21st-century
superintendent has many 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 superintendent has evolved over time from teacher-scholar, manager, democratic
leader, and applied social scientist. Current superintendents are required to have all of the
aforementioned skills and be effective communicators (Cuban, 1985; P. A. Johnson, 2011;
Kowalski, 2005).
Masters in Governance Training
School board governance and leading change require skills and knowledge that can be
acquired only through formalized training, networking, and professional learning (Dillon, 2010).
However, school board training is not consistent or required across the United States. According
to Roberts and Sampson (2011), 24 of 50 states do not require any formalized training for school
board members, although state board officials and school board associations agree professional
learning is essential for effective governance. The NSBA (2010) stated that 20 states did not
mandate training, which is almost doubled the number from 10 years earlier. Given that the
majority of school board members are locally elected laypeople with little to no experience in
education, experts agree that formal school board training is a worthwhile endeavor (Bianchi,
2003).
In the third study of the Lighthouse Project, LaMonte and Delagardelle (2009) examined
factors that improved board leadership. Professional development was identified as one key
factor that would improve school board leadership. A study by the Kentucky Office of Education
Accountability confirmed Lamonte and Delagardelle’s finding regarding the impact of school
33
board training on board member effectiveness. The study reported that 75% of the participating
school board members reported that they were better prepared to perform their duties after
attending the mandated training.
However, in California, the elected position of school board member requires only a
minimum level of education and no accompanying formal training (CSBA, 2007). This policy
allows for persons with little to no knowledge of the educational system to wield significant
influence regarding school district business on behalf of those whom they represent. Bianchi
(2003) found that new board members could become overwhelmed because of ever-rising
accountability. It takes on average up to a year for a board member to settle into the position and
to understand how to serve in the role (Bianchi, 2003). This 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). Roberts and
Sampson (2011) suggested that taking part in governance training can reduce the length of time
to acclimate into the position. Another factor to consider that can add to the issues related to a
lack of training is the combination of board member motives for election and the existence of
personal and hidden agendas (Mountford, 2004). This can influence a board member’s ability to
serve the needs of all students adequately.
While states offer various types of training, the goal is essentially the same: to provide
board members with the necessary skills to fulfill the role. Some states require only a few hours
of training, some require it only for newly elected officials, and some require hours-long
workshops of professional learning for both new and veteran school board members (Dillon,
2010). In particular, the CSBA offers the optional MIG training program to both new and veteran
school board members to equip them with best practices for effective governance that include the
34
foundations for governance, policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and
community relations and advocacy (CSBA, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c).
There is strong consensus that school board members should receive formalized training
in the role in order to achieve effective governance (Canal, 2013; Dillon, 2010; Gomez, 2013;
Roberts & Sampson, 2011). The CSBA provides optional MIG professional learning seminars in
California for school board members and superintendents; it is recommended that both take part
in the training simultaneously. To date, more than 2,000 school board members and
superintendents have taken advantage of this opportunity, with 90% of the participants
recommending the training to colleagues (CSBA, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). All but 10% of the
school board members and superintendents who had participated in training agreed that the
training provides essential information for effective governance and recommended the training to
colleagues (CSBA, 2017). MIG training equips board members with a governance framework
from which to operate that delineates roles and responsibilities with a steadfast focus on student
achievement (Richter, 2013).
The MIG training consists of 60 hours in five overarching courses that cover an array of
topics that hold a 2-year completion deadline (CSBA, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). The training is
scheduled at various times in order to support school boards and superintendents with their
calendar responsibilities. The intent of these modules, in addition to defining the roles and
responsibilities of school governance, is to examine all issues through the lens of students
(CSBA, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). Five modules comprise the training:
1. Foundation of Governance. This course covers three areas of focus that include
trusteeship, governance, and vision setting.
35
2. Policy and Judicial Review. This course addresses student learning, use and
development of policy, and judicial appeals.
3. School Finance. This course consists of the balance of achievement and budget,
the process for budget development, and the monitoring and auditing of finances.
4. Human Resources. This course covers collective bargaining, employing a
superintendent and personnel responsibilities, and a culture of accountability.
5. Community Relations and Advocacy. This course consists of community relations
and advocacy, which addresses community leadership, crisis management and
media involvement, and building community support.
These five modules cover a wide range of governance topics and are aligned to Bolman
and Deal’s (2008) leadership frames, CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards, and
The Lighthouse Inquiry’s Key Areas of Board Performance (Delagardelle, 2008).
The commitment and follow-through by superintendents and school board members to
MIG governance training create a solidified partnership that serves to define the roles and
responsibilities of both positions (Canal, 2013; Gomez, 2013). Through this process of learning,
student achievement is outlined as the foundational basis for the work as district goals are
aligned to a collective vision using data-informed decision making (Canal, 2013). The
collaborative relationship also allows for acceptance of majority voting even when there is
opposition (Canal, 2013). This helps to maintain professional relationships even when leaders are
faced with complex issues, keeping students as a priority.
Districts with school board members who pride themselves on learning and who are
eager to acquire new and ongoing information such as the MIG training tend to experience
higher levels of student achievement (Maricle, 2014). Professional standards generated from
36
collaborative training create the focus, behavior, and practices that are needed to facilitate
change (Canal, 2013). This 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; Weiss et al., 2014). Research has indicated that successful school governance
teams learn together, thus making school board training a necessity for effective governance
(Danzberger, 1994; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
This chapter provided an overview of school boards through analyzing literature,
research, and notations related to school board members to understand the needs of an effective
school board.
37
Chapter Three: Research Methods
This chapter presents the research design, research team, participants, instrumentation,
and plan for data collection and data analysis. In this study, the researchers examined the benefits
of the MIG training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the
characteristics of effective governance. The study also examined the perceptions of school board
members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school governance
and student achievement. Literature suggests that school boards, as the governing bodies of
school districts, need training in many specific areas of effective school governance in order to
be effective in their role (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon, 2010; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Due to increased pressure on schools from federal, state, and local governments, it is
imperative that school districts operate with the highest level of accountability and efficiency.
While California school boards members are not required to have an understanding of how
schools operate, many school boards oversee academically successful school districts. In fact,
many board members do not have a thorough understanding of the scope of the commitment that
is required when they are elected and/or the amount of information they should know
(Danzberger et al., 1987). Often, schools that meet and exceed federal, state, and community
scrutiny have effective school boards that exemplify similar behaviors and practices. Several of
those practices are in alignment with the CSBA’s MIG training.
Research Questions
The study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
38
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
The research questions were instrumental in guiding the research design, sample
population, data collection, and analysis process that are discussed in this chapter.
Research Team
The research team consisted of 20 doctoral students operating under the guidance of Dr.
Michael Escalante from the University of Southern California (USC) Rossier School of
Education. Each research team member was a K–12 administrator in the southern California
area, with several years of public-school experience. The team of researchers began meeting in
spring 2020. They met regularly to create qualitative research questions, discuss pertinent
research literature, and plan how to interview and observe school board members, as well as
synthesize several conceptual frameworks. Input based on their personal experiences created
substantive dialogue leading to thorough process. These various processes guided the team to
determine whether there are correlations among effective school boards performance, MIG
training, and student achievement. Each member of the thematic group worked independently to
design the study, develop research questions, and determine the appropriate qualitative
methodology.
Research Design
This study was designed using a qualitative approach to gather and analyze data directly
addressing each research question. A qualitative approach is a scientific method of observation to
gather nonnumerical data. The qualitative approach allows for in-depth and detailed examination
of the phenomenon of a study (Patton, 2002). The goal is to identify effective governance skills
39
present in school board members of successful school districts, while investigating correlations
between MIG training and the skills and behaviors that are indicative of effective governance.
More often than not, a theory emerges during the research in a qualitative study (Creswell,
2003). In order to examine how MIG training impacts effective school governance and student
achievement, the research team administered online qualitative surveys and conducted online
interviews. Each researcher conducted separate interviews with a minimum of two school board
members and the superintendent from three districts. R. B. Johnson and Christensen (2014)
stated that qualitative questions provide qualitative data, which typically obtain participants’
thoughts, beliefs, knowledge, reasoning, motivations, and feelings about a topic.
Qualitative data were collected using two research instruments: (a) school board and
superintendent surveys and (b) interview guides for school board members and superintendents.
The survey questions focused on school leadership practices and governance. Each survey item
and interview question was aligned to one or more of the three research questions, in addition to
the frameworks used to guide this study: (a) Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal
(2008), (b) the Professional Governance Standards of CSBA (2007), and (c) the Lighthouse
Inquiry by Delagardelle and the Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB; Delagardelle, 2008).
Instrumentation
Surveys were sent via email to California superintendents and school board members
who met the study criteria: (a) majority of the school board had completed the MIG training, and
(b) non-charter school districts with an enrollment between 1,000 and 50,00 students. Using the
purposive sampling method, three school districts were selected for the study. The participants
were assumed to have specific expertise or experiences on the research questions because of
serving as school board members and/or superintendent. Under the guidance of Dr. Escalante,
40
the research team developed two fixed-choice surveys that were distributed to qualifying
participants in 12 California counties. Selected districts were divided among the cohort members
and received an information letter (Appendix A) and invitation (Appendices B and C) to
participate in the study. Two separate surveys, one for school board members and one for
superintendents (Appendix D), were aligned to the research questions and the CSBA’s (2007)
framework on effective governance, as collaboratively developed by the research team. Each
survey contained 20 items. The goal of the surveys was to discover what contributions MIG
training provides toward effective school governance.
After surveys were completed and returned, structured interviews were conducted online,
using the interview guide (Appendix E). The interviews were designed to explore a specific set
of topics aligned with the research questions. Interviews were structured to provide several
advantages over qualitative interview methodology. In addition to facilitating the interviewer’s
management of the limited time allotted, this approach aids in the systematic and comprehensive
interviews of several people by delimiting explored issues in advance (Patton, 2002). Using the
interview guide approach described by R. B. Johnson and Christensen (2014), the interviewers
explored specific topics using specific open-ended questions. Open-ended interview questions
were created to identify specific skills and behaviors of the MIG, as well as the impact of MIG
on school governance. Each of the questions was designed to complement the fixed-choice
survey items and intentionally written to draw out data. The interview guide was developed to
“ensure basic lines of inquiry are pursued with each person interviewed” (Patton, 2002, p. 342).
The interview protocols were developed with the expectation that each would take 30 to 45
minutes.
41
Three frameworks provided a foundation for the team to approach the study: (a)
Reframing Organizations (Bolman & Deal, 2008), (b) The Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle,
2008), and (c) the CSBA’s (2018) Professional Governance Standards (Table 1). The
frameworks were used to develop survey and interview protocols. The surveys centered on
leadership practices and governance. Each of the items was designed to provide insight regarding
one or more of the three research questions, as well as the aforementioned frameworks.
42
Table 1
Conceptual Framework for the Study
Bolman and Deal’s Four-
Frame Model for Effective
Leadership (2008)
Lighthouse Inquiry: Key
Areas of Board
Performance (Delagardelle,
2008)
California School Board
Association’s
Professional Governance
Standards (2007)
Structural frame:
Rules, roles, goals, and policies
Hierarchical structures with a
specified division of labor
Creating awareness of the
need to improve, building
commitment to the identified
needs Deliberative policy
development
Govern within board-
adopted policies and
procedures Operate openly
with trust and integrity
Human resource frame:
Understanding of people
Support and guidance
Providing ongoing support
for quality professional
development
Demonstrating commitment -
willingness to learn
Student achievement focus
Reflecting on
effectiveness
Political frame: Negotiation and
diplomacy Distributive
leadership Persuasion and
negotiation
Supporting and connecting
with districtwide leadership
Applying pressure for
accountability
Conducting business in a
dignified manner
Collective ownership for
board performance
Symbolic frame:
Rituals, stories, ceremonies,
traditions
Vision Respect
Connecting with the
community and building the
public will to improve
achievement
Setting direction
Creating equity for all
school community
stakeholders
Note. Sources: (a) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, by L. G. Bolman
& T. E. Deal, 2008, Jossey-Bass; (b) School Board Leadership: The Role and Function of
California’s School Boards, by California School Boards Association, 2007, http://www.CSBA
.org/; and (c) “The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of School Board Leadership in the
Improvement of Student Achievement, by M. Delagardelle, 2008, in T. Alsbury (Ed.), The
Future of School Board Governance: Relevancy and Revelation (pp. 191-224). Rowman &
Littlefield.
43
Data Collection
This section describes the methods used to collect qualitative data for the study. The
research team obtained email information for superintendents and school board presidents in the
target counties. The data collection process followed those outlined by Patton (2002). The
opening letter and consent form was sent to each participant to ensure consent by school board
members and superintendents. Upon consent, participants were sent the appropriate survey using
the survey instrument Qualtrics™. The surveys were sent only to school board members and
superintendents who had completed MIG training.
Follow-up interviews were conducted online with school board members and the
superintendent. The interviews were recorded and transcribed via Rev. The goal of the surveys
and interviews was to triangulate the data and identify patterns based on MIG training.
Data Analysis
This section addresses the procedures that were implemented during the data analysis
phase of the study. The literature review and the data from the surveys and interviews allowed
triangulation of the data. A qualitative design study ensures that the information is gathered,
coded, and synthesized in a way that allows for conclusions based on available data (Patton,
2002). The survey and interview responses were coded and aligned to the research questions and
frameworks. Patterns resulting from triangulation provided important information about the
factors that influence school board members to attend and complete MIG training, as well as the
impact of MIG training on effective school governance.
The data obtained from the surveys and interviews were organized and analyzed in a
methodical order. Creswell and Creswell’s (2018) six-step process of data analysis was
implemented: (a) organize the data by transcribing interviews, typing field notes, and sorting
44
data by type; read through data to determine tone and theme; code data into chunks link by an
image or a term; utilize the coating process to generate a detailed description of the setting for
people; convey findings of the analysis through the usage of narrative passage; and interpret the
data through the lens of the applicable theoretical frameworks.
Ethical Considerations
The research team completed the IRB process to ensure that all ethical issues were
considered prior to beginning the study. Training was conducted through the Collaborative IRB
Training Initiative (CITI), which provided information regarding potential ethical considerations
for the research. As in previous studies, the IRB application was submitted and approved as an
exempt study. To protect the anonymity of participants, pseudonyms are used.
Chapter Summary
This chapter described the qualitative research methods used to address the three research
questions of this study. The methodology described in this chapter provided details on the
process for the research design, sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data
analysis, as well as how ethical considerations were addressed. There was collaboration from
research team members on several aspects of the project but also a great deal of individual work,
as well.
45
Chapter Four: Findings
School board members are faced with ever-increasing district expectations: policies,
district vision, effective development of various programs, management of facilities and
operations, maintaining fiscal solvency, and hiring and evaluation of the superintendent (Bianchi,
2003; McAdams, 2003; Petronis et al., 1996). Given the monumental effects of COVID-19,
budget concerns, and California’s declining enrollment, school board members must operate at
the highest levels of effectiveness. Their leadership is essential to the survival of schools as they
face many demands. Leadership has been defined by Bolman and Deal (2013) as a mutual
influence fusing thought, feeling, and action to produce cooperative effort in the service of
purposes and values demanded by the leader and the led.
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to investigate the impact of MIG training
and its ability to develop effective governance school board members, as well as to examine its
impact on student achievement. This study specifically examined school board members who
had participated in the MIG training program. This chapter presents the findings and analysis of
data from 62 school districts (180 board members and 62 superintendents) collected by the
research team collectively and individually. Each researcher identified at least three school
districts in California in which at least two school board members had participated in MIG. Data
collected via surveys and interviews by the 20-member research team were triangulated to
identify common themes. Using the conceptual frameworks of Bolman and Deal (2008),
Delagardelle (2008), and CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards (CSBA, 2010), the
researchers developed survey items and interview questions for superintendents and school board
members. The research team collaboratively developed three research questions that served as
the foundation of the study.
46
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 and School Districts
Originally, the study was designed to examine southern California school districts where
the majority of the school board members had participated in MIG training. Due to a lack of
responses, perhaps due to the COVID-19 crisis, the study was expanded to include school
districts throughout California. This modification identified 62 school districts from 12
California counties: Los Angeles County, San Diego County, Orange County, San Bernardino
County, Ventura County, Alameda County, Marin County, Monterey County, Nevada County,
Riverside County, Santa Barbara County, and Santa Clara County. This resulted in 180 school
board members and 62 superintendents who qualified for and participate in the study. The
sample included elementary, high school, joint, unified, union, and county school boards.
Purposeful sampling was used to guide the selection of districts and participants (Patton,
2002). In the identified school districts, 186 school board members and 62 superintendents were
invited to participate.
Surveys and Interviews
Data were collected via surveys and interviews of superintendents and school board
members. Superintendents were first approached for district participation permission and
approval. Following this approval, school board members were contacted. Using the Qualtrics
software, superintendents and school board members were sent emails that contained the survey
47
link. Each of the surveys (board member and superintendent) consisted of 20 items that related to
at least one of the three research questions. All 62 superintendents participated by completing the
survey based on their experience with MIG. School board members’ participation rate was high
but not as high as that by superintendents. The participating school board members produced 180
(97%) completed surveys, in which responses to the items were based on their experience with
MIG.
All interviews were conducted remotely via Zoom or Google Meet and information was
transcribed via Rev. All 62 superintendents responded to the interview questions. The length of
the interviews varied from 20 to 46 minutes. For the full research team, 177 school board
members (95%) participated in interviews (Table 2). The length of the interviews for school
board members was consistently longer than those for the superintendents, ranging from 30 to 50
minutes. While school board members did not produce 100% participation on the surveys or
interviews, enough data were collected to identify common themes. An alignment of research
questions to survey and interview questions is provided in Appendix B.
Table 2
Summary of Participation From 62 Districts
Participants
n
%
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses
62
100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses
180
97
Interviews 177 95
48
Three superintendents and 10 school board members were individually selected from Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties for analysis by this researcher. The three
superintendents had been in their positions ranging from 3 to 12 years, and the school board
members had served in their positions for 2 to 11 years. For purposes of anonymity, the school
boards are referred to herein as A, B, C.
School Board A was in Los Angeles County, with a population of 10,039,107 (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2019), placing it 10th in population behind the states of California, Texas,
Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and North Carolina. It is larger (land
area = 4,058 square miles) than the states of Rhode Island and Delaware. A significant portion of
the population is expected to participate in compensatory education; 21% are within the age
range 5 to 18 years (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). The county has a very diverse population: 26%
White non-Hispanic, 48.6% Hispanic, 15.4% Asian, and 9% African American (Table 2). This
demographic distribution can be seen in many school districts throughout the county. The
schools governed by School Board A serve students in the following ethnic distribution: 94%
Hispanic and 4.9% Asian (CDE, DataQuest, 2019).
School Board A has a governance team of five members and a superintendent. Most of
the school board members have participated in and some have completed CSBA’s MIG training.
Four participated in the study (two females and two males); the superintendent was female. The
school board members’ experience on the board ranged from 5 years to 11 years. Superintendent
A has served the district for 12 years and has 15 years’ experience as a superintendent.
Superintendent A has been recognized at the county level as Superintendent of the Year.
School Board B serves a district in San Diego County, which has a population of
3,338,330 and encompasses approximately 4,206 square miles (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). The
49
county boasts a very diverse population: 45% White non-Hispanic, 34% Hispanic, 12% Asian,
and 5.5% African American (Table 3). However, the demographic diversity in the county is not
reflected in many of its school districts. School Board B serves a district with a student
demographic distribution of 33% White non-Hispanic, 40% Hispanic, 11% Asian, and 4.4%
African American.
Table 3
Demographics of the Researcher’s Study Counties
Demographic Los Angeles San
Bernardino
San Diego California
(state)
Population estimate 2019 10,039,107 2,180,085 3,338,330 39,512,223
Land area in square miles 4,057 20,056 4,206 155,799
White (Not Hispanic) 26.1% 27.3% 45.0% 36.5%
Black 9.0% 9.4% 5.5% 6.5%
Asian 15.4% 8.0% 12.6% 15.5%
Hispanic or Latinx 48.6% 54.4% 34.1% 39.4%
50
School Board B has a governance team of five members and the superintendent. Most of
the school board members had participated in some level of MIG training. Three participated in
the study (one female, two males); the superintendent was male. The participating school board
members’ experience ranged from 5 years to 6 years. Superintendent B has served on the board
for 3 years and has 7 years’ experience as a superintendent.
School Board C serves a district located in San Bernardino County, which has a
population of 2,180,085 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). The county covers one of the largest land
masses in the state, at 20,056 square miles. The demographics of the county are very different
from those of the aforementioned counties, with 27% White non-Hispanic, 54% Hispanic, 9%
African American, and 8% Asian (Table 3). School Board C serves a district with student
demographics different from those of the county, with 50% White non-Hispanic, 44% Hispanic,
1% African American, and 1% Asian.
School Board C has a governance team of five members and the superintendent. Most of
the school board members had participated in some level of MIG training. Three of the five
school board members (all females) participated in the study; the superintendent was female. The
participating school board members’ experience ranged from 2 years to 24 years. Superintendent
C has served the district for 7 years and had 13 years’ experience as a superintendent.
Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What factors impact the decision of school board members to
participate in the MIG training program? Unlike 24 other states, California does not have
educational prerequisites for school board members. In many cases, school board members are
elected with little to no related knowledge or training and may lack skills and knowledge that are
necessary to understand and carry out the full scope of their duties (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
51
Since the school board is responsible for policy making, fiscal accountability, program
development, legal compliance, and other demands, the focus of this study was to examine what
motivates school board members to participate in MIG training. Most of the elements can be
identified in Bolman and Deal’s (2008) structural frame. While a variety of factors influenced
school board members’ decision to participate in MIG training, three major themes emerged
from the responses related to this research question: (a) motivation of school board members to
attend MIG training, (b) gaining knowledge about the roles and responsibilities of school board
members, and (c) superintendent’s recommendation.
Motivation
Most school board members and superintendents responded on the survey that they
agreed or strongly agreed that their school board culture encourages participation in MIG
training (Table 4). This agreement came from 92% of the school board members and all of the
superintendents. One of the survey items asked school board members to select the primary
factor that influenced their participation in the MIG training. This item assisted in understanding
the school board culture about MIG training.
52
Table 4
Responses to the Survey Item, “Our School Board Culture Encourages Participation in the
Masters in Governance Training”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 34 55 107 59
Agree 28 45 60 33
Disagree 0 0 12 7
Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 1
School board members identified several reasons for their participation in MIG; some
were driven by self-motivation (28%), others expressed a desire to increase the effective
governance of the school board (27%), and others saw the training as expected of school board
members (18%). The responses from the superintendents were similar: 25% stated that school
board members were self-motivated, 24% stated that board members encouraged participation,
22% stated that members attended the training due to school board expectations. The findings
from the overall sample were mirrored in this researcher’s selected school boards (Table 5):
driven by self-motivation (25%), a desire to increase the board’s effective governance (32%),
and encouragement by another board member (14%). The responses by superintendents in this
researcher’s group also mirrored all superintendents: 30% identified self-motivation, 20%
encouragement by board members, and 20% a school board expectation.
53
Table 5
Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the Masters in
Governance Training
Response
Superintendents (N = 62)
Board members (N = 180)
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.
A District B school board member described his self-motivation:
For me, it was just wanting to be better at my craft. I was a rookie in politics. As far as
being politically savvy, I was very green. I just felt like this is a way to get some of the
training that my colleagues who have been on the board for a term or two, knew more
than I did. This training would kind of level the playing field.
A District A school board member identified his motivation:
I believe the superintendent presented this other opportunity for us, and said, “For those
of you that are available, this could be beneficial. And for me, I was new at the time. I
was craving any kind of training that might make sense of this new, crazy world I was
now a part of.
54
Understanding Roles and Responsibilities
During the interviews, several school board members and superintendents stated that their
participation in MIG had been motivated by a personal desire to understand their role and
responsibility as school board members and to contribute to the governance team. School board
members in this researcher’s districts stated a desire to increase the board’s effective governance
(32%). A District A school board member attributed this to his decision to participate:
So, for me it was particularly just expanding my leadership and my perspective of what a
school board member does. Obviously in the beginning when you come in you know, but
you don’t know enough. And one of the things I wanted to do is make sure that I know
enough to be able to then help my constituents and make sure that, obviously, above all
that our students are the first in terms of our decision making.
As new school board members become familiar with roles and expectations, the process
differs from district to district. Participants were asked whether MIG training should be
encouraged for school governance teams via local district policy. Most but not all school board
members agreed with that local policy: 53 (29.5%) agreed and 115 (64.5%) strongly agreed
(Table 6). The response in districts selected by this researcher was almost identical, as all school
board members and superintendents agreed or strongly agreed that local district policy should
encourage MIG training.
55
Table 6
Survey Responses to the Item, “Masters in Governance Training Should Be Encouraged for
School Governance Teams by the Local District Policy”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 46 74 116 64.5
Agree 16 26 53 29.5
Disagree 0 0 11 6.0
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
Interview results supported the survey data that local district policy should encourage
MIG training. A school board member from District C stated that, even though they had made a
promise while campaigning for their first term, to a sitting school board member to attend MIG
training, their motivation was driven primarily by a desire to know how to perform effectively as
a school board member. The board member explained the reason for participating in MIG:
I think it was to understand what my role would be as a school board member, the
expectations and the parameters in which I could make decisions. It was the expectations
and encouragement from current board members. And I did it in order to best impact our
schools, our children.
Superintendent A explained that MIG has been incorporated into the school board bylaws
and contract, making it mandatory for every member. This has contributed to a culture in which
the board has begun to self-monitor members for behavior that is aligned with CSBA standards
for effective governance teams. A school board member from District B shared an example of a
school board member being sanctioned by the board for behavior that was outside the agreed
56
norms. The sanction took place in accordance with MIG-described roles and responsibilities,
with the rest of the board acting in accordance with the board president.
The superintendents’ responses were slightly less positive related to school board culture
encouraging MIG participation. During the interviews, the superintendents described their role in
creating the culture and how MIG training supported effective school governance.
Superintendent B stated that MIG was helpful when it was attended by the superintendent and
school board members jointly, which allowed the superintendent to provide context for district
actions related to information that was shared at the training. The joint experience of MIG
training creates a culture in which everyone has the same information and opportunities to
develop a unified approach to school governance.
Superintendent’s Recommendation
While many school board members expressed that it was self-initiative and desire to
understand their role as a governance team, another factor influenced their participation in MIG
training: the expectation of the superintendent. As Campbell and Fullan (2019) stated, effective
superintendents build teams (school boards) and participate as learners and forgers of purpose.
As shown in Table 4, all of the superintendents replied that their school board culture encourages
participation in MIG training. Each of the three superintendents who were interviewed by this
researcher expressed the importance of MIG training as a core element of their governance team.
Superintendent A explained the importance MIG training for her and her school board members:
I think that ongoing growth and learning is essential for everyone. This is something I
believe in, which includes the school board. It is always an important factor for the work
that we do together. So, having the school board members participate in the MIG training
57
program, as well as having a facilitator work with our district was something that was
very important to me.
Superintendent B explained why he encourages MIG training for the governance team and
incorporates it into the annual work plan.
I think that there needs to be an ethics mandated training, because what we've seen and
unfortunately what I'm dealing with now are situations where board members got
involved in things they shouldn't have and whether or not fluid training on board
protocols, activities, Masters in Governance was part of it. There needs to be some
explicit direction, I think statewide about what the expectations for board members are.
Whether that's Masters in Governance, ethics, something else, there needs to be
something mandatory in my mind. You have people coming in with very diverse and
political backdrops. Everything from labor to charter to, and everything... All bunch of
different needs and wants at the end of the day, we're all here for kids.
District A school board member shared how the superintendent encouraged MIG training.
I believe the superintendent presented this opportunity to us, and said, For those of you
that are available, this could be beneficial. And for me, I was new at the time. I was
craving any kind of training that might make sense of this new, crazy world I was now a
part of.
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
The purpose of Research Question 1 was to identify factors that influenced the decision
by school board members to participate in the MIG training program. Their motivation for
participation included self-motivation, increasing effective governance, and school board
expectations. Many school board members stated that they had benefited from participation in
58
MIG and would be open to a mandate but expressed reservations that many would object to
being forced to do something. While MIG training has been shown to have many positive
benefits for local school boards, it was noted by some school board members that the training did
not adequately meet their needs. Further inquiry revealed that the roles of county school board
members are very different from those of local school boards and even vary from county to
county based on their definitions. While responses were somewhat universal, the presentation
and instruction about roles should be tailored based on the level of the school board member
(county or local board).
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, How does the MIG training program encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance? The research
team determined that purpose, goals, accessibility, and constraints were essential elements of
MIG that should be examined. The MIG program is designed to provide school board members
with techniques and protocols for effective governance through five modules: Foundations of
Effective Governance, Human Resources, Policy and Judicial Review, School Finance, and
Community Relations. School board members who had participated in one or more of these
modules were asked to reflect on their training and experience in implementing the information
that was gained in the training. In The Lighthouse Inquiry study, effective school districts
exhibited seven particular practices that influenced student achievement emphasis on building a
human organization, ability to create and sustain initiatives, supportive workplace for staff, staff
development, support for school sites through data and information, community involvement,
and integrated leadership (IASB, 2001). Utilizing the CSBA’s Professional Governance
59
Standards and the effective practices of the Lighthouse Study, the researchers examined school
board members’ and superintendents’ responses.
The analysis was derived from surveys of 180 school board members and 62
superintendents and interviews conducted with local school boards from three counties (Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego). In reviewing the data, two themes emerged regarding
school board members’ behaviors as related to Research Question 2: (a) MIG training provided
clear definitions of board member roles and responsibilities, both as individuals and as a
collective governance team; (b) the MIG training encouraged board members to exhibit
characteristics of effective governance by fostering collaboration and collegiality among board
members and with superintendents; and (c) the MIG training encouraged board members to
demonstrate and act with collective efficacy.
In the Lighthouse Study there are several behaviors that reflect collective governance:
focus on students, promotion of shared vision, development of high expectations, shared decision
making, promotion of new ideas, provision of resources for innovation, flexible use of resources,
enlistment of community support, and interagency cooperation (IASB, 2001). School board
members were asked in the survey to describe the influence of MIG encouraging teams to
contribute to the effectiveness of school board meetings. School board members and
superintendents responded very similarly to the survey, indicating that they either agreed or
strongly agreed with MIG’s impact. Seventy-two school board members (40%) responded agree
and 104 (58%) responded strongly agree. Superintendents’ responses were equal in both
categories, 30 (48.5%) agree and 30 (48.5) strongly agree.
60
Clear Delineation of Roles and Responsibilities
As stated in the literature review, school board members are not required to obtain job-
specific training prior to or during their terms; thus, many roles and responsibilities may be
unclear. In Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames of effective leadership, clearly defined roles,
policies, and procedures are highlighted in the structural frame as being pivotal characteristics of
effective leadership. Therefore, the clear delineation of roles and responsibilities is central to the
effectiveness of a governance team (CSBA, 2007; Danzberger, 1994, Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002).
Based on the data collected via surveys and interviews, MIG training is highly likely to
clarify the roles and responsibilities of school board members. Regarding whether MIG provides
school board members a better understanding of their roles and responsibilities, 35
superintendents (56%) agreed and 25 (40%) strongly agreed (Table 7).
Table 7
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “School Board Members Who Are Masters in
Governance Trained Exhibit a Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles
and Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent”
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 1 2
61
School board members’ responses regarding the MIG training clarifying the roles and
responsibilities of board members were very similar to those by the superintendents, as 54 school
board members (30%) agreed and 117 (65%) strongly agreed (Table 8). This researcher’s school
board responses were very similar to those of the overall school boards, with 90% agreeing or
strongly agreeing.
Table 8
Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “The Masters in Governance Training Clarified
the Differences Between My Roles and Responsibilities as a School Board Member and Those of
the Superintendent”
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 117 65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly Disagree 1 1
62
The impact of MIG training on clarifying the roles and responsibilities was noted by
several school board members and superintendents in the interviews. For example, a board
member from District A noted,
I know a lot of board members have trouble knowing that we are not directing the staff at
the schools. We’re not directing the principal, we’re not directing any of those people,
and that our only employee is the superintendent.
Superintendent C mentioned that, in CSBA training, “They tell the war stories and talk about
how dismantling it is for a district to have a board that doesn’t operate in a certain way.”
Superintendent A stated,
[MIG training] sets the norm. I think it sets a standard whether or not you do other kinds
of facilitation. What MIG does, is it normalizes the work. So, this is the standard, this is
the way folks operate. And so that’s really the benefit.
Collective Governance
In The Lighthouse Study, several behaviors reflected collective governance: focus on
students, promotion of shared vision, development of high expectations, shared decision making,
promotion of new ideas, provision of resources for innovation, flexible use of resources,
enlistment of community support, and interagency cooperation (IASB, 2001). School board
members were asked in the current study survey to describe the influence of MIG in encouraging
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of school board meetings. School board members and
superintendents responded similarly, stating they agreed or strongly agreed concerning MIG’s
impact. Seventy-two school board members (40%) agree and 104 (58%) strongly agreed; 30
superintendents (48.5%) agreed and 30 (48.5) strongly agreed (Table 9).
63
Table 9
Responses to the Survey Item, “The Masters in Governance Training Encourages School
Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of Our School Board Meetings”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 30 48.4 104 57.8
Agree 30 48.4 72 40.0
Disagree 2 3.2 4 2.2
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
In the interviews, participants provided several examples of how MIG had contributed to
the effectiveness of school board meetings. Superintendent B stated,
So, what’s more important is to have those workshops with an outside facilitator, and
discuss how we are going to operate together. And what are our agreements or protocols
of how we work as a group? . . . Because as a superintendent, I can always go back to,
“Hey, that’s outside our protocol. We don’t do that.” And it’s something we all agreed
together as a team of six.
A school board member from District B stated,
I think it’s a great tool to have, a resource to have, and it definitely shapes the way. . . .
For us, it reassured me that we were governing appropriately, that we were on the right
path. When I heard the conversations from other participants it was like taking back
things that they wanted to take back to their district and use to redirect where their district
was heading.
64
Participants were surveyed to determine whether attending MIG training with their
superintendent had contributed to collective governance. The majority of school board members
agreed (37.2%) or strongly agreed (29.4%) that it was important to attend MIG training with the
superintendent; however, approximately 33% disagreed or strongly disagreed (Table 10).
Table 10
Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “It Is Important to Attend Masters in
Governance Training With Your Superintendent”
Response category
f (N = 180)
%
Strongly agree
53
29.4
Agree 67 37.2
Disagree 53 29.4
Strongly disagree 7 3.9
65
Table 10 summarizes responses from all school boards surveyed. Those responses were
in stark contrast to responses by school board members selected by this researcher, where 90%
agreed or strongly agreed that it was important to attend MIG with their superintendent. On the
whole, school board member responses were less positive than those of superintendents, as 19
superintendents (31%) agreed and 38 (61%) strongly agreed that it was important to attend MIG
training with their school board members (Table 11).
Table 11
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “It Is Important to Attend Masters in
Governance Training With Your School Board Members”
Response category
f (N=62)
%
Strongly agree
38
61
Agree 19 31
Disagree 5 8
Strongly disagree 0 0
66
Superintendent A stated that MIG training helps to socialize and bring board members
together.
So, Masters in Governance has really helped strengthen that understanding of how, what
is the purpose of their work together? What is the purpose of collaboration? What is the
purpose of how we do our work? So that’s been really helpful.
Superintendent B stressed the importance of attending MIG training with school board members:
If you’re not all doing it together and you have individuals who do this, they come back
with information around governance and the others don’t I think that has to be done as
a group of six, superintendent and board. Because how is one person going to go out
there, go through the training and come back, this is what we need to do. Here’s the new.
. . The other four are going to look and go, “What the hell is wrong with you?” This has
to be done jointly.
A school board member from District B shared that,
one of the board members is going to the media on his own, and that’s one of the
principles that you learn in the Masters in Governance. He hasn’t gone through the
Masters in Governance. So now the board has to try and do something about it, and it
puts everybody in a very uncomfortable position. So, we looked at our board policies and
protocols, and sure enough, there’s a policy there that says that the board president is the
spokesperson, unless the board president defers to the communications officer. … So,
going through this helps you understand some of the differences.
Collective Efficacy
Learning the roles and responsibilities of a school board member is an essential element
of school board governance. Because school boards are composed of many members, it is
67
essential that they know their individual role and responsibilities. They must learn not only how
to govern as a group but also how to operate collectively outside of making policy. Attitudes and
actions of the board members affect the effectiveness of a governance team.
During interviews, it was interesting to note the interviewees’ emphasis on board
members operating collectively and appropriately outside of making policies. School board
members and superintendents shared both positive and negative examples of the collective
efficacy of the school board outside of board meetings.
Superintendent C how shared MIG training encouraged the board to address a non-
policy-making situation:
And so, then it became her mission to make sure that she never did anything on record or
even with me or the school board that would bring some kind of negativity, whether it be
trying to push her own personal agenda and not be a team player. I hate to say it, but the
board members spoke for themselves in this particular situation to reprimand the school
board member, this may not happen everywhere.
A school board member from District A described how a lack of MIG training can have a
negative impact on collective efficacy. “When you have those rogue board members acting like
their sole vision and their thoughts are the only way, and staff need to bend to them, I think that
creates a very toxic culture from the start.” The board member stated that this behavior created a
very contentious environment for the school board and trickled down throughout the
organization.
A school board member from District B shared an example of how MIG training
empowered the board to act collectively with a member who was operating outside the agreed
board norms:
68
One of the board members is going to the media on their own, and that's one of the
principles that you learn not to do in the Masters in Governance. They hadn't gone
through the Masters in Governance. So now the board had to try and do something about
it, and it put everybody in a very uncomfortable position. So, we looked at our board
policies and protocols, and sure enough, there's a policy there that says that the board
president is the spokesperson, unless the board president defers to the communications
officer.
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
The purpose of Research Question 2 was to identify how MIG training encourages and
equips school board members to exhibit behaviors of effective governance. Analysis of the data
revealed that MIG-trained board members were more likely to work in a collaborative and
collegial manner. The MIG training provided clear expectations of roles and responsibilities,
which led to a more collaborative board and better relations with district employees. An
emphasis on building a human organizational system capable of creating and sustaining
initiatives (IASB, 2001) is less likely without a collaborative board united by the common desire
to improve student achievement.
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, Does MIG training have an impact on student
achievement/growth? While the merits of and necessity of school board training are increasingly
noted in research on the topic of school board effectiveness (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon, 2010; French
et al., 2008; Roberts & Sampson, 2011), a consensus as to whether school board training should
be mandated has been less apparent (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). School board training is not a
requirement in California but is mandated in 24 states (NSBA, 2012). CSBA offers this optional
69
MIG training throughout the year in various locations. The purpose of Research Question 3 was
to identify the attitudes and perceptions of trained school board members and the potential
impact of their participation in MIG training on student achievement/growth.
While attitudes toward and perceptions of MIG training were predominantly positive,
many participants had difficulty in quantifying its impact on student achievement. The researcher
made inferences based on themes that emerged from triangulation of the data. As a result, three
themes emerged. First, the majority of surveyed board members and, to a slightly higher degree,
superintendents responded that MIG training helps to create conditions for academic success to
occur. Second, the data suggested that MIG training had an indirect impact on student
achievement. Third, high-functioning boards focus on student achievement, not distractions.
Creates Conditions for Success to Occur
School board members and superintendents stated that MIG training encourages use of
data in making decisions regarding student achievement. Among responses to the survey item,
88 school board members (49%) agreed and 69 (38%) strongly agree, and 28 superintendents
(45%) agreed and 31 (50%) strongly agreed (Table 12). Responses from this researcher’s
selected districts were similar to the overall responses. Seventy percent of the school board
members and all superintendents agreed or strongly agreed.
70
Table 12
Responses to the Survey Item, “As a Result of the Masters in Governance Training, I Encourage
Governance Team Members to Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions Regarding
Student Achievement”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 31 50 69 38
Agree 28 45 88 49
Disagree 3 5 21 12
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1
Interview participants took a significant amount of time to respond to the question of
whether MIG training creates conditions for student success. Most stated that some conditions of
success were created by MIG training, such as roles and responsibilities, decision-making
processes, and other school board norms, which allowed the school board to focus on student
success versus how to work together. A school board member from District B shared, “I think
when the board is focused on doing their job, then those higher-level conversations can be had.
This will allow us to focus on creating an atmosphere where everyone can succeed from the top
down.” The superintendents agreed. Superintendent B provided an example of how they utilized
the MIG training:
When we went through the process of grouping kids heterogeneously and monitoring
student data in the district so that we could get rid of all those little academies that were
just siloed off for some kids and classes were not accessible to others. I had to meet with
the board members individually. This is what we’re doing. This is why. A union’s going
71
to complain about this and here is your response. We then went back to Masters in
Governance and the protocols and made the decision that was best for all students. This is
our strategic plan. This is our anchor. This is what it looks like in practice.
Indirect Influence
While a majority of the survey participants agreed that MIG training had an impact on the
use of data in making student achievement decisions, the impact of MIG training on student
achievement was significantly lower. The role of the school board is to set policies and supervise
the superintendent; many respondents found it difficult to attribute policy to student
achievement. When asked whether MIG training had a positive impact on student achievement in
their district school, 89 board members (49%) agreed and 39 (22%) strongly agreed, and 46
superintendents (74%) agree and 8 (13%) strongly agreed (Table 13). In this researcher’s school
districts, school board members’ responses did not express as much confidence in MIG training
to exert a positive indirect influence student achievement, with 60% agreeing.
Table 13
Responses to the Survey Item, “Attending Masters in Governance Training Has Positively
Impacted Student Achievement in My District”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 8 13 39 22
Agree 46 74 89 49
Disagree 8 13 50 28
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1
72
In the interviews, school board members and superintendents were asked to share their
experience with MIG training related to student achievement. A school board member from
District B substantiated the survey data: “MIG, I would say, helps with the foundation of how to
measure that, or how to look at that in the context, but I don’t think it’s the whole driver of
student achievement itself.” This indirect influence was supported by a school board member
from District C: “I think the MIG as a whole helps provide that system or that support with that
process, and probably helps to provide a process for boards to operate under, so that we then can
dive into student achievement.” A school board member from District B noted that,
the one thing that you should learn is that your role as school board is to ensure a better
student outcome. And part of governance is to sort of inspect what you expect. And if
you did all of those components, correct, and you had an effective community
engagement strategy, that means you’re well informed.
Superintendents also attributed an indirect influence of the training on student
achievement. Superintendent A reflected on their past experience: “MIG, I think, helps us take a
step back, look at the big picture, and forces us to really talk about the big picture, which should
go back to student achievement, right?” Superintendent A continued to explain the indirect
influence by providing the following example of MIG training.
I don’t know if there’s a causal relationship there [MIG training and student
achievement], but certainly I think the more you see collaboration, the more that builds.
One thing we do, for example, is that we have a program that we call Focus on Learning.
Focus on Learning is 2 days of board meetings, essentially that are collaborative
conversations with schools. We invite half the schools, one night, half the schools the
other night, and they sit at tables and the board is also there. It’s one school talking to
73
another school and talking about sharing their school plans, sharing what their challenges
are and what they’re doing and how they’re working toward their goals. That comes right
out of the work in Masters in Governance on student learning.
The MIG training provides examples of positive school board experiences but also
provides negative ones to provide opportunities for superintendents and school board members to
learn from various scenarios. Superintendent C shared an experience of indirect influence on
student achievement.
When morale goes down, I think student achievement suffers because everybody’s
paying attention to the noise and they’re scared. So, they hunker down, nobody
collaborates, board members are going in and out of classrooms doing bad stuff, you
know what I mean? Those things happen, they really do. So, I think it does have an
impact.
High-Functioning Boards Focus on Student Achievement
The increased accountability for student achievement and pressure on educators to ensure
that student achievement goals are met require a clearly focused school board. Their collective
effective governance can lead to clear expectations for students, which in turn leads to continued
and improved student achievement (IASB, 2001). There are many facets to effective governance,
with some actions and practices linked to increased student achievement (IASB, 2001; Waters &
Marzano, 2006) and others are ideals and guidelines taken from this research to train school
board members.
Interviewees shared examples of how the governance team’s focus and actions affect
student achievement. Superintendent B said that MIG training has a vital role in assisting the
board to focus on student achievement. “If you really look at the context of Masters in
74
Governance training and the role of the superintendent, our job is to de- politicize everything.
This is not about this, this or that. We just need to focus on our kids.”
Superintendent A shared:
We have a program that we call Focus on Learning. Focus on Learning is two days of
board meetings, essentially that are collaborative conversations with schools. So, we
invite half the schools, one night, half the schools the other night, and they sit at tables
and the board is also there. It's one school talking to another school and talking about
sharing their school plans, sharing what their challenges are and what they're doing and
how they're working about it. That comes right out of the work in Masters in Governance
on student learning. So, it's really a great way for the board to have an in-depth
understanding of what's going on and be able to ask questions and hear.
A school board member from District B shared a specific example of the board’s actions
to ensure student equity:
We were talking about equity and discussing how it was on mugs and T-shirts. And I'm
like, I really don't see it, besides when we talked about it. But in the classroom, who's
inspecting what’s taking place. So, the question of, "How do we ensure that we're doing
the work of equity every single day in our district?" If we really believe that that is sort of
the gateway to access and justice, that are then the gateways to educational excellence.
So, it came out of a conversation that we looked at, where we had the funding within the
LCAP to create a division for our position. Start off with just considering a position.
Summary of Results for Research Question 3
The goal of Research Question 3 was to determine whether MIG training has an impact
on student achievement/growth. School board members who had participated in MIG training
75
agreed that it creates conditions for success to occur, with student success being the ultimate
outcome. While superintendents stated that policies and effective school board governance have
a direct correlation to student achievement, most school board members were comfortable in
accepting only indirect influence. The responses from 180 surveyed board members and 62
superintendents were triangulated against relevant research on effective governance and the 12
interviews conducted with three board members and their corresponding superintendents. The
resulting analysis revealed how MIG training has an impact on student achievement/growth,
even if it is in many cases indirect.
Chapter Summary
This chapter addressed three research questions regarding the influence of MIG on school
board governance:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. 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/growth?
School board members’ success is contingent on their ability to adapt quickly to the
demands and responsibilities inherent in school board governance (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
A key tool in this endeavor is the decision to pursue formal training. A major finding was that
school board members were encouraged by a combination of self-motivation and district culture
to pursue school board training. In fact, once trained, they served as change agents in their
districts by modeling the characteristics of effective governance for their nontrained colleagues.
As a result, school board members who participated in MIG training were better equipped
76
through clarification of their roles and responsibilities and tended to form a more collaborative
governance team. MIG-trained board members credited the training with equipping them with
the necessary knowledge and skills to focus on the most germane activities that would support
effective governance. During data collection, it was noted that school districts that continue MIG
training with a non-CSBA facilitator throughout the year to assist their governance team found
that process to be highly effective.
While school board members expressed that MIG training was instrumental in their role
and in their development to exhibit effective school board governance, many were comfortable
with accepting only a role of indirect influence on student achievement/growth. School board
members found it difficult to explain how school board policies and effective governance
supported student’s academic scores. While the superintendents were very clear regarding this
the impact, they stated that effectively governing school boards empower district staff to focus
on their main priority, which is student academic/growth. MIG training provides support for
school board members but also provides support for student achievement.
77
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations
The COVID-19 pandemic and dismissal of students from the physical classroom have
brought attention to and pressure on school boards. In California, the 2020 suspension of the
annual state assessments has created uncertainty about assessing school boards and
superintendents to ensure that they are implementing effective governance strategies and
practices. With ever-increasing accountability from the federal and state levels, school boards
have a responsibility to ensure that local education agencies are operating effectively. School
board members have been entrusted as public government officials to ensure that local education
agencies are solvent and provide appropriate education for students. However, school board
members are locally elected officials, with little to no background in education, which can create
a problem for districts (Bianchi, 2003; Danzberger, 1994; Dillon, 2010; Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002;
Wirt & Kirst, 2005). In order to address these challenges effectively, school board members need
the necessary and appropriate knowledge, motivation, and culture. School board members who
are not properly prepared may be ill equipped to address the existing and upcoming challenges of
public education.
Chapters One through Three provide a background regarding the contextual framework,
qualitative methodology, and literature that provided structure to identify the themes presented in
Chapter Four. Chapter Five summarizes the study, reviews the purpose of the study and the
findings, and concludes with implications, limitations, and recommendations for further study.
Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine what motivates school board members to
attend MIG, how MIG training influences effective school board governance, and whether there
is a correlation between MIG training and student achievement/growth. The study was built on
78
three theoretical frameworks: Bolman and Deal (2008), the Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al.,
2000), and CSBA. The research team analyzed school boards’ behaviors and practices using
these three frameworks, along with surveys and interviews to measure the impact of MIG
training. This purpose led to three guiding questions for 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/growth?
Summary of Findings
While data were collected and shared with the entire research team, analysis of the data
was conducted individually. In the process of analyzing the data, this researcher discovered
several themes related to the research questions. In relation to Research Question 1, school board
members were motivated by external and internal factors to participate in MIG training. In
relation to Research Question 2, MIG training provides participating school board members with
a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities and contributes to collective governance of the
local education agency. In relation to Research Question 3, MIG creates conditions for academic
success and has an indirect influence on student academic achievement.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 examined various variables that influence school board members to
participate in the MIG training program. Reviewing the surveys and interviews of school board
members, this researcher identified reasons for participation in MIG training. While many school
79
boards have created a culture in which participation in MIG training is expected, many
participants shared a personal desire for self-improvement by attending.
These themes are supported by the work of Bolman and Deal (2003) as they defined
effective organizations. In effective local education agencies, the structural and symbolic
frameworks are evident, based on the motivations of school board members to attend training.
During interviews, school board members described many elements of Bolman and Deal’s
(2003) structural and human resource frameworks, including communication, identifying formal
patterns and policies, training to develop new skills, and participation and involvement in school
governance. School board members expressed a desire to become more educated about the goals,
roles, relationships, policies, and responsibilities of effective school board members.
Superintendents stated that MIG training was essential to the school board’s ability to develop a
mission and vision for their local education agency. School board members reported that
attending CSBA MIG training at the beginning of their term of office had in some cases become
ritualistic, while others shared that quarterly MIG training is the expectation of school board
members. It was noted that some superintendents had MIG training written into their contract,
which provides leverage for having school board members attend MIG training.
Individual motivation and school board culture drove many school board members to
participate in MIG training. MIG training has been described as a common variable in
developing and building common understanding of the role of school board members. Several
school board members expressed caution about mandating MIG in California, even though 24
others states have mandated it. Most (169, 94%) of school board members and all 62
superintendents agreed or strongly agreed that participation in MIG training should be
encouraged by local district policies.
80
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 examined whether the MIG training program encourages and equips
school board members to exhibit behaviors of effective school governance. Data supported
previous research that MIG training supports school board members to display behaviors of
effective governance. This study noted collective governance and the clarification of roles and
responsibilities as behaviors that were responsible for effective local education agencies.
An analysis of the school board members’ surveys and interviews substantiated the
research by Bolman and Deal (2008) that elements of the structural frame are essential to an
effective governance team. Participants recognized the significance of understanding their roles
and responsibilities as a seminal element of effective school board governance. The MIG module
Foundations of Effective Governance: Setting Direction provided participants information and
tools to perform their roles and responsibilities appropriately. This understanding provided clear
lines of responsibility for the superintendent and school board members, which empowered the
school board to leave operational items in the hands of district personnel.
Schools are faced with the challenge of working collaboratively to educate students and
face myriad accountability and financial issues. Collaboration was present in local education
agencies where school boards had participated in MIG training. Members said that collegiality
and collaboration by school board members increased because of the time spent together in
training, as well as understanding how to work with other school board members.
Both school board members and superintendents were asked a follow-up question
regarding the MIG training program’s impact on their respective abilities to accept the majority
decision regardless of their own position. As described in the Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al.,
2000) with emphasis on the human organizational system, this acceptance is less likely to occur
81
without collaboration. Most of the school board members (85%) in this study attributed their
ability to work collectively with other board members to MIG training. The superintendents’
responses (95%) attributed participation in MIG training to assisting board members in accepting
the decision-making process. In order for a local education agency to work collectively,
collaboration must be modeled from the school board through the rest of the organization.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 examined the impact of MIG training on student achievement and
growth. The CSBA listed two of the five major school board member responsibilities as
establishing an effective efficient structure for the school district and ensuring public
accountability (CSBA, 2007). While these two responsibilities were not explicitly stated as
associated with or leading to student achievement, there was an inference that performing the
aforementioned responsibilities will create an encouraging environment for academic growth.
Previous studies have stated that school board members need adequate training to be effective in
their governing positions (Bianchi, 2003; Danzberger, 1994; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). For
example, a school board member from district B stated, “The one thing that you should learn is
that your role as a school board is to ensure a better student outcome.”
Although participants agreed that MIG training had a significant impact on effectiveness
of school board governance, many expressed reluctance to attribute a direct correlation between
school board policies and student achievement. Eighty-seven percent of superintendents and 71%
of school board members either agreed or strongly agreed that MIG training has a positive
impact on student achievement. While the data alluded to the perception of effective governance
creating an environment for academic achievement, school board members presented limited
anecdotal evidence of how school board policies directly impacted outcomes. Superintendent A
82
specifically provided an example of a district practice, Focus on Learning, that was a direct result
of MIG training. This practice incorporates collaboration by schools to share their thoughts,
practices, and results on academic achievement while school board members are in attendance.
Based on the collected data, it appears that superintendents more readily recognize how MIG
training has impacted school governance and created conditions for student academic
achievement.
Limitations of the Study
This study identified several factors that support the need for and importance of MIG
training for school board members. During the period of COVID-19, increased public
accountability, and potential reduction in school funding, school boards are expected to navigate
these challenges with the best interest of students in their decisions. The MIG training program
offers school board members a governance framework that provides understanding of the
knowledge, skills, behaviors, and practices that are necessary for effective school governance
teams.
The design of this study focused on school board members and superintendents who had
participated in MIG training. The study did not differentiate among the MIG modules that
participants had attended, thus potentially skewing their responses to the impact of MIG training.
School board members who had been on the board for 6 or more years responded based on the
previous CSBA MIG training modules. The sample population originally focused on local
education agencies in southern California. This was modified during data collection to include
districts from other parts of California; this modification had minimal impact on the results. The
impact was limited because all local education agencies in the study had at least three school
board members who had participated in MIG training.
83
The inclusion of a small number of county school boards of education had a small impact
on the overall responses. It was explained during the interviews that county school board
members have very different functions from local school district board members. The primary
responsibilities of the county office of education school board members are to adopt rules and
regulations for the board’s own governance, adopt the annual budget of the county
superintendent before its submission to the county board of supervisors, and approve the salary
of the county superintendent. Since their primary responsibilities do not include providing
directions, accountability, and ensuring effective and efficient structures, their responses to the
study were very different.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study validated the importance of the MIG training program for school
board members, especially during the unprecedented times of COVID-19, teacher shortages,
budget uncertainties, and academic accountability. This study contributes to the existing
scholarly literature that examines the impact of school board training on effective school
governance. The MIG training provides school board members with a variety of tools to assist
them in governing a local education agency effectively. Thus, the themes that were derived from
this study support incorporation of MIG training for school board members and superintendents.
Dahlkemper (2005) stated that professional development and continuous training are
indispensable parts of 21st-century educational reform. Since school boards are only as effective
as each individual member, the superintendent’s responsibility for ensuring that each member of
the educational system is qualified and prepared to fulfill the responsibilities of his or her
position is essential to the overall success of the district and its students. Superintendents should
84
be proactive in encouraging school board members to attend MIG training and participate
themselves.
School board members who had participated in MIG training modules reported positive
impacts of the training on effective school governance. Superintendents also reported positive
impacts of the training on school governance. Therefore, it would be a benefit for them to
encourage all school board members to participate. This can be accomplished by having the
school board make MIG training a part of their bylaws and incorporating into the
superintendent’s contract. The ultimate goal would be to build an effective governance team that
applies the principles and protocols of MIG training.
This research points to a positive indirect impact of MIG on student academic
achievement. School board members and superintendents agreed that, with effective governance
in place, more emphasis can be placed on student achievement. Superintendents noted that this
vital MIG foundation can take place even outside of CSBA-facilitated sessions. MIG training on
a regular basis, quarterly or twice a year, by an outside facilitator can build collective
understanding of characteristics of effective school governance, leading to germane
conversations related to student achievement.
Recommendations for Future Study
This study was conducted in counties throughout California over a 5-month period,
during the inception of COVID-19. The sample consisted 12 counties, 180 school board
members, and 62 superintendents. All participants were required to have participated in at least
one CSBA MIG training module. While some participants had not completed all of the MIG
training modules, the researcher was able to draw conclusions and develop additional questions.
Research could be conducted on the impact of MIG training on the county office of education
85
school boards or the difference in the impact of MIG training on local school boards versus
county office of education school boards.
The first recommendation is to expand CSBA MIG training to provide more support for
county school boards. While county school board members have the same expectation of
oversight of the local educational agency, the roles and responsibilities differ greatly from those
of local school district board members. There are 24 county school boards in California, and the
manner in which people become school board members varies. In some counties they are
appointed, while in others they are elected, which creates even more need for training. Since
county offices of education oversee local school districts, it would be important to examine the
impact of MIG on county school board governance and the ability of county boards to model
effective governance.
The second recommendation is to include in the research school board members who had
not participated in MIG training. This would provide for comparison and contrast of perceptions
of the impact of MIG training on building an effective governance team. Through the course of
this study, it was noted that some school board members reported that their boards were
governing effectively through periodic support from a MIG facilitator throughout the year.
The third recommendation is to conduct research on the specific elements of the training
program that support county office of education school boards. This is essential, as county
offices are charged to provide and oversee an increasing proportion of local school districts’
accountability efforts. Identifying successful elements of the training program could yield
valuable insight that could be utilized to ensure that student achievement is taking place in
school districts.
86
The fourth recommendation is to conduct a study that examines the impact of MIG
training on student achievement/growth. Further research using a universal academic measure
(e.g., annual state assessments such as the California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress) to factor school board participation or completion of MIG training could provide
helpful data. While the results of this study indicated positive impacts on student achievement,
longitudinal academic scores could provide quantitative evidence that MIG does or does not
have a positive impact.
Conclusion
Expectations for increased student achievement are growing as needs of society continue
to change. In an era in which information is transmitted electronically and the state’s student
information system grows, it is critical that school boards foster an atmosphere in which students
and staff can be successful. In California, there is no formal requirement for school board
members to be trained in effective governance protocols in order to focus on the most critical
elements of school board governance. As the study results revealed, knowledge that is obtained
from MIG training offered by the CSBA equips and encourages school board members to exhibit
the characteristics of effective governance through clarification of roles and responsibilities and
by facilitating development of collaborative relationships. It is essential for school board
members to receive formal professional development at the beginning of their service and
throughout their time on the school board.
87
References
Allen, A., & Mintrom, M. (2010). Responsibility and school governance. Educational Policy,
24(3), 439–464.
Alsbury, T. L. (2008). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 7(2), 202-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701748428
Anderson, C. G. (1992). Behaviors of most effective and least effective school board members.
ERS Spectrum, 10(3), 15-18.
Bianchi, B. A. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast, 1(3), 1–4.
http://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/forecast%20pdf/forecast1003.pdf
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%2F
eda_fac_pub%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Björk, L. G., & Lindle, J. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1),
76–91. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904801015001005
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership
(6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
88
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. (2020). CAASPP description:
CalEdFacts. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ai/cefcaaspp.asp
California Department of Education, DataQuest. (2019). 2019-2020 enrollment by ethnicity and
grade. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrEthGrd.aspx?cds=1964816&
agglevel=district&year=2019-20
California Department of Education. (2020a) About DataQuest.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/dataquest.asp
California Department of Education. (2020b). Local Control Accountability Plan.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
California Department of Education. (2020c). Local Control Funding Formula.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards.
https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrdLeadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2010). Education issues brief (2010–11 edition).
http://www.csba.org/~/media/AC5BF2C5672340BB9482C3221C645FC9.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2017). The school board role in creating conditions for
student achievement.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/~/media/CSBA/Files/Governance
Resources/Reports/201705BoardResearchReport.ashx#:~:text=Put%20simply%3A%20T
he%20board%20supports,and%20county%20offices%20of%20education
89
California School Boards Association. (2018). What it takes to lead: The role and function of
California’s school boards. https://www.csba.org//media/CSBA/Files/Governance
Resources/EffectiveGovernance/20180613_WhatItTakesToLead_Final.ashx?
la=en&rev=b99adf0f20bb4e12aebf41edb468c4fb
California School Boards Association. (2019a). About CSBA. https://www.csba.org/About/
AboutCSBA
California School Boards Association. (2019b). Effective governance: Resources, training and
support. https://www.csba.org/en/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance
California School Boards Association. (2019c). Masters in Governance: Governance education
for school board members and superintendents.
https://www.csba.org/TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance
Campbell, D. W., & Fullan, M. (2019). The governance core: School boards, superintendents,
and schools working together. Corwin.
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 391–395.
Canal, S. A. (2013). California school boards: Professional development and the Mastersin
Governance training (Publication No. 3563807) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern 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.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.
90
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Cuban, L. (1976). The urban school superintendent: A century and a half of change. Phi Delta
Kappa Educational Foundation.
Cuban, L. (1985). Conflict and leadership in the superintendency. Phi Delta Kappa
International, 67(1), 28-30.
Dahlkemper, L. (2005). Making the grade: School board members navigate education
challenges. SEDL Letter, 17(2).
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v17n02/school-board.html
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local school
boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 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.
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: Relevance and revelation (pp. 191–223). Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
Dervarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2016). Eight characteristics of effective school boards. Illinois
School Board Journal, 83(4), 10–12. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/=EJ1105469.pdf
Dillon, N. (2010). The importance of school board training. American School Board Journal,
197(7), 1–7.
91
Edwards, M. (2007). The modern school superintendent: An overview of the role and
responsibilities 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
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.
ESEA. (1965). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/eseareauth.pdf
French, E., Peevely, G., & Stanley, R. (2008). Measuring perceived school board effectiveness in
Tennessee: The latest survey results. International Journal of Public Administration,
31(2), 211–243.
Gemberling, K. W., Smith, C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key work of school boards
guidebook. National School Boards Association.
Glass, T. E. (2010). Superintendent of large-city school systems: History of the urban
superintendent, the profession, school boards, characteristics of the large-city
superintendent. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2470/Superintendent-Large-
City-School-Systems.html#ixzz0p6HySmU0
Glass, T. E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.
American Association of School Administrators.
92
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. (1997). Getting there from here—School
board superintendent collaboration: Creating a school governance team capable of
raising student achievement. Educational Research Service.
Grissom, J. A. (2009). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations:
The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 20(3), 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup043
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of
district governance. National School Boards Association.
Hess, F. M., & Meeks, O. (2010). School boards circa 2010: Governance in the accountability
era. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Hopkins, M., O’Neil, D., & Williams, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence and board governance:
Leadership lessons from the public sector. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 683–
700.
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2001, April). The Lighthouse Inquiry:
Board/superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in
student achievement. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association
2001 Annual Meeting, New Orleans, United States.
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%2F155545891
1413887
93
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen L. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (6th ed.). Sage.
Kirst, M. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 378-
381.
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
Korelich, K., & Maxwell, G. (2015). The board of trustees’ professional development and effects
on student achievement. Research in Higher Education Journal, 27(1), 1–15.
Kowalski, T. J. (2004). School public relations: A new agenda. In T. J. Kowalski (Ed.), Public
relations in schools (3rd ed., pp. 3–29). Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L. G. Björk &
T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and
development (pp. 1–18). Corwin.
Kowalski, T. J., & Björk, L. (2005). Role expectations of the district superintendent:
Implications for deregulating preparation and licensing. Journal of Thought, 40(2), 73–
96.
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=eda_fac_pub
Kowalski, T. J., & Brunner, C. C. (2011). The school superintendent: Roles, challenges, and
issues. In F. W. English (Ed.), Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in
theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 142–167). Sage.
LaMonte, H., & Delagardelle, M. (2009). Seeing the light. American School Board Journal, 196
(8), 27–30.
94
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72, 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.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/~/media/CSBA/Files/Governance
Resources/GovernanceBriefs/201408GoverningToAchieve.ashx
McAdams, D. R. (2003). Training your board to lead. School Administrator, 60(10), 7–9.
McCloud, B., & McKenzie, F. D. (1994). School boards and superintendents in urban districts.
Phi Delta Kappan 75, 384-385.
Morehouse, W. (2001). Training for my board colleagues? You bet. School Administrator, 58(2),
68-70.
National School Boards Association. (2000). Resolutions, beliefs and policies, constitution and
bylaws.
National School Boards Association. (2010). About the National School Boards Association.
http://www.nsba.org/About
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Peterson, G. J., & Short, P. M. (2001). School board presidents and district superintendent
relationships: Applying the lens of social influence. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 37(4), 533–570.
Pew Research Center. (2013). Many Americans say U.S. students are outranked in science by
counterparts abroad. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/04/29/many-
americans-say-u-s-students-are-outranked-in-science-by-counterparts-abroad/
95
Phillips, C. R., & Dorata, N. T. (2013). School district boards, adult committees, and budget
oversight. The CPA Journal, 3(3), 19–23.
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and tomorrow’s
promise. Education Commission of the States.
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Bruce, J., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2000, April 10–14). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/
superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student
achievement (ED453172). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453172.pdf
Richter, L. (2013). The impact of the Masters in Governance training program on California
school board governance (Publication No. 3563990) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management,
25(7), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline? The art and practice of the learning organization.
Doubleday/Currency.
Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, andsustaining
school improvement. Harvard Education Press.
Taylor, L. L. (1999). Government’s role in primary and secondary education. Economic Review
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 15–24.
96
Thomas, W., & Moran, K. (1992). Reconsidering the power of the superintendent in the
progressive 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
U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). State and county quick facts.
https://www.census.gov/quickfasts/losangelescountycalifornia
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement (Working Paper).
http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/leadershiporganizationdevelopment/4005RR_Superintendent_l
eadership.pdf
Weiss, G., Templeton, N., Thompson, R., & Tremont, J. W. (2014). Superintendent and school
board relations: Impacting achievement through collaborative understanding of roles and
responsibilities. School Leadership Review, 9(2), Article 4. https://scholarworks.sfasu
.edu/slr/vol9/iss2/4?utm_source=scholarworks.sfasu.edu%2Fslr%2Fvol9%2Fiss2%2F4&
utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan Publishing.
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. (2008). The political dynamics of American education. McCutchan.
97
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. Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept
confidential and anonymous by the researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data
will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no individual and/or district can be identified.
Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the 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
98
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
superintendents and the perceived success of school districts. The results of this study should
indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school governance teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board has
completed the MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done 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. Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and
anonymous by the researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented
in a manner that will ensure that no individual and/or district can be identified.
Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the Superintendent Survey via the
following link: .
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any
questions or concerns regarding your participation 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
99
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your chances of participation?
(check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced my
participation in the MIG training was . . . (check
all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Unable to determine
❏ Other
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
As a result of MIG training, my focus is on
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
8
As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek
community input through a variety of methods
(email, town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
100
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
As a result of the MIG training, I understand the
importance of aligning the decision-making
process with the district’s vision and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
The MIG training clarified the differences
between my roles and responsibilities as a school
board member and those of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
❏ Strongly Agree
101
governance team members to use data
consistently to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
As a result of the MIG training, my ability to
accept the majority decision constructively, even
if I hold the minority view, has improved.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board
members could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
Attending MIG training has positively impacted
student achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
102
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your school board members’
chances of participation? (check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced school board
members to participate in MIG training was . . .
(check all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Other
❏ Unable to determine
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
School board members who have earned MIG
certification demonstrate an increased focus on
student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
8
School board members who are MIG certified
actively engage the community and utilize a
variety of communication methods (email, town
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
103
hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
School board members who are MIG trained
understand the importance of aligning the
decision-making process with the district’s vision
and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
School board members who are MIG trained
exhibit a clearer understanding of the difference
between their roles and responsibilities and those
of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
school board members.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the school governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17 As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
❏ Strongly Agree
104
governance team members to use data consistently
to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement.
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
The MIG training has improved school board
members’ ability to accept the majority decision,
even when they hold the minority view.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members
could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
MIG training has positively impacted student
achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
105
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3
Some people believe that school board training should be mandated in California. How
do you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
● Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
● Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
● Course 3: School Finance
● Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
● Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
● Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
● Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
● Course 3: School Finance
● Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
● Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has the MIG training affected how you govern your school district, if at all?
8
What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if at all?
9 What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a board member, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?
106
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school governance teams to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3 Some people argue that school board training should be mandated in California. How do
you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to your board members and why?
● Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
● Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
● Course 3: School Finance
● Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
● Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
● Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
● Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
● Course 3: School Finance
● Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
● Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has MIG training affected how your school board members govern your school
district, if at all?
8 What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if any?
a What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make MIG training more accessible to all superintendents?
11 How does MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a superintendent, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?
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 the study is to examine school board members’ and superintendents’
perceptions of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training and its impact on school governance
and student achievement. I will interview and survey superintendents and school board
members.
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) MIG training program on school
board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of school districts.
This study may serve as a source of the benefits of MIG training for school governance teams.
Your participation is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw at any time. The information
collected will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher and members of the
dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no individual or
district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
me at _______________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California.
Thank you, in advance, for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
Dr. Michael F. Escalante, Dissertation Chair mescalante@usc.edu (xxx) xxx-xxxx
( ) I have read this form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent to my
participation in the research described above.
Participant’s Signature: _________________________________________________________
Participant’s Printed Name: ______________________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________________________________________
108
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument RQ 1
What factors impact
the decision of school
board members to
participate in the MIG
training program?
RQ 2
How does the MIG
training program
encourage and equip
school board
members to exhibit
the behaviors of
effective school
governance?
RQ 3
Does MIG training
have an impact on
student achievement
and growth?
School Board
Member Survey
1-6 7-16,18-19 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
Superintendent
Survey
1-6 7-14 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
School Board
Member Interview
Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Superintendent
Interview Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The role of improving education is distributed across many levels, but ultimate accountability rests on the shoulders of local school boards to ensure that students receive the best and most equitable education possible. School board members are faced with a constantly evolving landscape, challenges of global competition, increased school accountability, declining education funding, and (especially in southern California) declining enrollment. The educational success of students begins with an effective governance team at the school board level. The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects performance indicators for school districts. The study examined the benefit of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit characteristics of effective governance. The study was framed by three models of leadership and governance: Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s four frames, the Lighthouse Inquiry study conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards, and the California School Boards Association’s Professional Governance Standards. Data were collected via surveys and interviews with school board members and superintendents who had participated in MIG training. Survey and interview questions were developed based on three research focuses: (a) factors that influenced the decision by school board members to participate in the MIG training program, (b) the ability of the MIG training program ability to encourage and equip school board members to exhibit behaviors of effective school governance, and (c) ways in which MIG training had an impact on student achievement and growth. Results suggested that MIG training supports effective governance practices by building knowledge of roles and responsibilities for individual board members, as well as collective school boards. Results also indicated a direct correlation between effective board governance and student achievement.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
The influence of formalized school board training on California school 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
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
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 governance training and student achievement
PDF
K−12 school board training in California
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
PDF
Effective governance: the impact of the Masters in governance training on school boards in California
PDF
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice
Asset Metadata
Creator
Gideon, William Ward, Jr.
(author)
Core Title
Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/15/2021
Defense Date
01/26/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Education,K-12 education,Masters in governance,MIG training,OAI-PMH Harvest,School boards
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy (
committee member
), Hinman, Charles (
committee member
), Thorossian, Katherine (
committee member
)
Creator Email
gideon@usc.edu,williamgideonjr@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-442747
Unique identifier
UC11667832
Identifier
etd-GideonWill-9460.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-442747 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-GideonWill-9460.pdf
Dmrecord
442747
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Gideon, William Ward, Jr.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
K-12 education
Masters in governance
MIG training