University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

(USC Thesis Other)

The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Influence of Formalized School Board Training on California School Districts
by
Jennifer Lynn-Gates Jackson

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 Jennifer Lynn-Gates Jackson 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jennifer Lynn-Gates Jackson certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Rudy M. Castruita
Charles Hinman
Katherine Thorossian
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv

Abstract
This study examined the influence of formalized school board training in California public
school districts on the effective governance characteristics identified in the literature that create
the conditions for success. The purpose of the study was to determine whether the Masters in
Governance (MIG) training provided by the California School Boards Association improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. This was a qualitative study using the triangulation of data
collected from a literature review, surveys, and interviews. The findings indicated that the MIG
training program in California was effective in providing school governance team members with
skills that enabled them to lead more effectively, including having a clear understanding of how
their roles and responsibilities paved the way for collective governance. Increasing accessibility
to the training through proximity and convenience would encourage a higher participation rate
for school governance teams. This study found that mandatory school board training could
enhance the work of school governance teams across California, if designed appropriately.

v

Dedication
To a group of people whom I consider to be my village, an inner circle of love and support:
Starting from the beginning are my mom and dad. Both of them have provided me with
unwavering support and love from the day that I entered the world until the present day. They
have allowed me to be my authentic self and never put me in a position to do something that I
was not ready or committed to do. I thank them for the love that has motivated me to work hard
and give people my best, even when it meant sacrifice.
To my husband and daughter, my “212 family”: Darvin inspires me with his love, adoration,
hard work, support, and leadership qualities. I thank him for encouraging me to pursue this
degree, for being the safety net when the days were hard, and for stepping up when the
responsibilities were overwhelming. I adore him and am so thankful that he is my partner in this
crazy world! I thank Layla for teaching me that hope and resilience are real and that there is no
other way to face challenge and fear. She entered this world as a heart warrior and has taught
both me and Daddy that we must trust the process and live each moment beautifully. She inspires
me and makes me a better human, but I still have work to do!
To my extended family (both biological and soul), who have stepped forward in so many ways to
ensure that I had the ability to give my best to a doctoral program: I am thankful for the love and
unconditional support so that I could manage a multitude of responsibilities with ease. Just their
being there or checking up on me reminded me how fortunate I am. The simple text, bitmoji,
GIF, card, prayer, or verbal encouragement did not go unnoticed and were a continued sense of
strength for me. I know whom I can turn to, and I will never take for granted the memories with
each of them who made this very journey possible.

vi

To my closest friends and colleagues, who have been a shoulder to lean on, an ear to vent to, and
a ray of hope when I needed realignment: The time spent with each of them not only charged my
battery but reminded me of why I choose to do hard things. I am reminded of my strength and
ability because each of them encouraged me to dig deep, which gave me confidence to forge
ahead when the days were hard. They will never know how a simple gesture fills my cup or how
their words have been an ongoing source of encouragement for me. The countless reminders that
gratitude and kindness matter most permeate my inner voice and remind me of my purpose: to
inspire.
To the many students whom I have had the privilege of teaching and leading over the course of
my educational career: My life is richer because of each of them, and I will cherish the memories
we had together that have inspired my life’s work in education. They are my heroes!

vii

Acknowledgements
There are so many people to whom I am indebted who made the pursuit of a doctoral
degree a reality for me. First was my dissertation committee: Dr. Michael F. Escalante, Dr.
Katherine Thorossian, Dr. Rudy Castruita, and Dr. Charles Hinman. I thank them for their
leadership and guidance throughout this process. I am so grateful for being chosen to be a part of
Dr. Esca- lante’s executive cohort and the underlying checkpoints and encouragement to keep
the process moving to completion.
I would like to thank all of my 19 cohort members, especially Jayne Nickles, Devon
Rose, Isabel Brenes, Will Gideon, Julie Harrison, Stephanie Kearns, Ryan Parry, and Benson
Kwok.
Those racehorses were the reason that I stayed motivated and was inspired to go above
and beyond for our cohort. They are smart, funny, and super entertaining; and I am grateful for
their friendship, comradery, and the memories we created on and off campus. I consider them
cherished friends for life! I would also like to thank other doctoral students with whom I had the
privilege of sharing classes. I have so many memories from our time spent together, and it was
amazing to share space and knowledge with them.
I would like to thank the amazing USC professors who challenged my thinking, gave
amazing feedback, and pushed me to be a better educator: Dr. David Cash, Dr. Artineh Samkian,
Dr. Kenneth Yates, Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. Wes Smith, and Dr. Michael Escalante. I will
remember my time in their classes fondly and will use my newly acquired skills to push for
excellence and equity in my future roles in public education. This experience was nothing short
of trans- formational.

viii

I would like to thank my current superintendent, Dr. Katherine Thorossian, who also
served as part of my dissertation committee. Kathy was a constant source of support. She
encouraged me to pursue the degree and was so understanding when school pulled me away
from my duties of being a principal. There are not enough words to properly thank her, and I am
so grateful for her leadership and friendship.
I would also like to thank all of my other Monrovia Unified colleagues who stepped up
and forward when my obligations conflicted. My former assistant principal, Courtney Glass; my
current assistant principal, Rich Morrison; my office manager, Enrique Simuta; and my
instructional specialist, Nancy Kemp, will never know how appreciative I am for their leadership
and professionalism and how thankful I am to have people like them who stepped up in my
absence. I thank them from the bottom of my heart for being my rocks. Additionally, I must
acknowledge those influential leaders who coached me, guided me, and afforded me leadership
opportunities that have paved the way for my success; Dr. Louise Taylor, Dr. Debby Collins, Dr.
Linda Harding, and Jim Coombs.
I cannot forget to acknowledge my educational Renaissance family, especially Paul Dols,
Dr. Larry Biddle, and Richard Parkhouse, in addition to all of the others to whom I remain
connected across the United States. This group of amazing educators has served as the
foundation to my commitment to students and has inspired my career moves all along the way. I
cannot begin to explain how every meeting, conference, and celebration have pushed me to go
bigger, to be stronger, and to never give up when things got hard. I am so grateful for our
continued connections and opportunities to learn from one another, to be inspired by one another,
and to celebrate together. Finally, I want to acknowledge by name every family member, friend,
and colleague whom I consider my village: Dr. Darvin Jackson, Layla Jackson, Jim Gates, Peggy

ix

Gates, Tammy Letourneau, Paul Letourneau, Izabel Letourneau, Jade Letourneau, George
Jackson, Bertha Jackson, Roland Jackson, Alexandria Jackson, Darryl Jackson, Dr. Lynn
Jackson, Savannah Jackson, Skylar Jackson, Sean Jackson, the Hirsch family, the Vournas
family, the Brady family, Mark Burks, the Jaime family, the Gelskey family, the Bourgault
family, the Iwasaki family, the Walker family, the Aldridge family, the Vitti family, and the Dols
family.

x

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xiii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xv
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 4
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 5
Limitations of the Study...................................................................................................... 5
Delimitations ....................................................................................................................... 6
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 6
Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
Historical Context of School Boards ................................................................................ 12
Historical Context of Superintendents .............................................................................. 14
Role of School Board Member Governance ..................................................................... 16
Role of Superintendent Governance ................................................................................. 19
School Board–Superintendent Relations .......................................................................... 23

xi

School Board Training and the Influence on Student Achievement ................................. 26
Accountability ................................................................................................................... 31
Theoretical Frameworks ................................................................................................... 34
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 38
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ........................................................................................ 40
Research Team .................................................................................................................. 41
Research Design................................................................................................................ 41
Sample Population and Participants.................................................................................. 44
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 45
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 47
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 48
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 49
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 49
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 51
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 53
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 56
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 68
Results for Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 88
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 100
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 103
Purpose of the Study Restated ........................................................................................ 104
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 105
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 110

xii

Delimitations ................................................................................................................... 110
Implications..................................................................................................................... 111
Recommendations for Future Study ............................................................................... 112
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 113
References ................................................................................................................................... 115
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails .................................................................... 125
School Board Recruitment and Information Email ........................................................ 125
Superintendent Recruitment and Information Email ...................................................... 126
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey .............................................................................. 127
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 129
Appendix D: Interview Guide: School Board Members............................................................. 131
Appendix E: Interview Guide: Superintendents ......................................................................... 132
Appendix F: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 133
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix .................................................................................. 134

xiii

List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participants 57
Table 2: Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the
Masters in Governance Training

58
Table 3: Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Should Be
Encouraged for School Governance Teams by the Local District Policy

60
Table 4: Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Should Be Mandated
in California

62
Table 5: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether the School Board Culture Encour-
aged Participation in Masters in Governance Training

62
Table 6: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Would Recommend Masters
in Governance Training to School Governance Teams

63
Table 7: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Believed That All California
School Board Members Could Benefit From Masters in Governance Training

65
Table 8: Participants’ Responses to Whether the Current Cost of the Masters in Gov-
ernance Training Program Impeded School Board Members From Participating

66
Table 9: Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the Masters in Gov-
ernance Program Would Increase Chances of Participation

67
Table 10: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether It Is Important to Attend Masters in
Governance Training With Their School Board Members (N = 62)

71
Table 11: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training
Clarified the Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of a School
Board Member and Those of the Superintendent (N = 180)

73
Table 12: Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Helped
School Board Members to Differentiate Among Policy, Leadership, and
Management

74
Table 13: Superintendents’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in Order
of Importance to Their Roles as a Member of the Governance Team (N = 62)

75
Table 14: School Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules
in Order of Importance to Their Roles as Members of the Governance Team (N
= 180)

76

xiv

Table 15: Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Members Who
Were Masters in Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning
the Decision-Making Process With the District’s Vision and Goals (N = 62)

78
Table 16: School Board Members’ Responses Regarding Whether Board Members Who
Were Masters in Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning
the Decision-Making Process With the District’s Vision and Goals (N = 180)

79
Table 17: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training
Encouraged School Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of
Their School Board Meetings

80
Table 18: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training
Had Improved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the
Majority Decision, Even When They Held the Minority View (N = 62)

82
Table 19: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance
Training Had Improved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept
the Majority Decision, Even When They Held the Minority View (N = 180)

84
Table 20: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training
Had Impacted Their Ability to Govern

86
Table 21: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Had
Earned Masters in Governance Certification Demonstrated an Increased Focus
on Student Achievement (N = 62)

90
Table 22: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in
Governance Training, Their Focus Was on Student Achievement (N = 180)

92
Table 23: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in Governance
Training Had Positively Impacted Student Achievement in Their District

94
Table 24: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether, as a Result of Masters in
Governance Training, They Encouraged Governance Team members to
Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions Regarding Student
Achievement

97

xv

List of Figures
Figure 1: Theoretical Frameworks for Study 43

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
School board members have held the responsibility of governing thousands of K-12
public schools in America for centuries. As accountability related to student achievement has
intensified, the position of superintendent has become a pivotal role in school governance.
Together, the partnership between school board members and superintendents requires a
dynamic of shared leadership in order to carry out the essential functions of a school district
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). This begins with creating a shared vision and collaborative goal-
setting to ensure student achievement is a top priority (Devarics & O’Brien, 2019). As public
dissatisfaction regarding scrutiny of public schools still remains, according to a 2017 Gallup Poll
(Calderon et al., 2017), the knowledge and skills required of both superintendents and school
board members to work cohesively becomes critical to address complex issues and to change
perceptions. Professional learning is central to building shared knowledge in a collaborative
structure that focuses on continuous improvement and achievement (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Effective school governance requires a deep understanding of the roles and
responsibilities for both school board members and superintendents in order for them to
contribute individually, yet function interdependently. Participating in formal training can
provide school governance team members with specific knowledge to carry out their
responsibilities as well as strengthen the working relationships required to face challenges. The
California School Board Association (CSBA) offers a formal training called Masters in
Governance (MIG) training that provides a series of five training modules specifically related to
effective school governance (CSBA, 2018b). However, the training is optional in California, thus
raising the concern that there are many school board members and superintendents who lack
2

adequate skills to provide the expertise in all areas they find themselves traversing (Dahlkemper,
2005).
This study, through the lens of three theoretical frameworks consisting of (a) Bolman and
Deal’s (2008) four-frame model for effective leadership, CSBA’s (n.d.) Professional Governance
Standards, and the Iowa Association of School Boards’ (IASB; Rice et al., 2000) Lighthouse
Inquiry examined school board members and superintendents who had participated in the MIG
training in California. Specifically, participation was analyzed to determine whether the training
has led to effective district governance. With MIG training being optional in California, it was
important to examine the motivation of individuals to participate in the training. Finally, an
analysis was conducted to determine whether there was a correlation between formal MIG
training and the success or growth of individual school districts.
Background of the Problem
Expertise in the areas of school governance, policy, finance, human resources, and
community partnerships are essential to carrying out school district responsibilities effectively
with today’s school accountability system (CSBA, 2018b). School board members must
continually adapt to changes and make critical decisions regarding policy based on changing
laws. While school governance has been in existence for over 2 centuries, the roles and
responsibilities have shifted and the position has evolved (Gemberling et al., 2000; Land, 2002).
The knowledge and skills necessary for school board members to develop a strong partnership
with a superintendent and to make decisions that promote continuous school improvement
require time and training. This allows for informed decision making to address the myriad of
challenges of public schools in support of an equitable education for all students (Dillon, 2010;
Plough, 2014; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
3

California is one of the many states in America that do not require formal board training
for school board members. However, the CSBA (2007) offers a five-module MIG program for
those who choose to opt in. Every district operates differently with this formalized training
opportunity, with some requiring it and some not. This situation creates inconsistencies between
school districts and impacts the quality of decisions made by members of the school governance
team that can have a lasting impact on the success of school districts. While it is the
recommendation of the CSBA (2018b) that all elected officials participate in this training, it is
not a practice that is valued in order to serve by the majority of school governance teams across
the state. This opinion is contradictory to the literature indicating that formal board training is
influential for student achievement and district success (Canal, 2013; Dillon, 2010; Gomez,
2013; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Although any form of school board training can be considered beneficial for school board
members, formalized MIG training adapts to the complexities facing public schools and is
directly connected to state and federal mandates that may be overlooked locally. Additionally,
out of the over 2,000 school board members who have participated in MIG training in California,
an overwhelming 90% feel that the knowledge learned is essential to their role (CSBA, 2018b).
To that end, researchers have concluded that professional learning is correlated to effective
school governance and increased student achievement (Plough, 2014: Roberts & Sampson,
2011). The decision-making power of school board members holds great responsibility and
requires competent and knowledgeable people who are entrusted by the public. The only way to
acquire this knowledge is to engage in professional learning that equips each member with new
knowledge and additional skills (Dillon, 2010). Until then, school districts will continue to face
public scrutiny and distrust due to achievement gaps and lack of progress (Land, 2002).
4

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 influences the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance,
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
The following research questions were investigated in this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
5

3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Importance of the Study
The importance of this study was to determine whether there was a correlation between
California’s MIG training and effective school governance that had an impact on student
achievement and growth. Current research has indicated that formalized training prepares school
board members with the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively lead. This study narrowed
the learning considered to be valuable by school governance members. This study also sought to
identify the motivating factors pertaining to why school governance team members chose to
attend formalized training when it is not required. The data collected from the study should serve
to provide a rationale as to why school board members and superintendents should attend MIG
training as a school governance team and the need for policymakers to initiate legislation
requiring the training to be mandated in California K-12 public school districts. Although there
have been research studies in the past directly related to MIG training in school districts, the
research designs differed structurally, thereby making this study the first of its kind.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of this study were connected to the design of the study and the criteria set
for participants. The collection of responses from the surveys and interview guides entailed
subjective and personal accounts of school board training and its influence on school
governance. These opinions varied from recent experiences to those experienced years ago and
included the best recollections that participants had to offer. While the participants represented
multiple counties in California, the data collected were not reflective of all California school
board members and superintendents who have attended MIG training and therefore cannot be
generalized. Additionally, the data were collected over a short period of 4 months by a cohort
6

team of 20 researchers. The validity of the study was limited by the voluntary participants and
the reliability of survey questions and interview guides. The interviews took place in a virtual
environment due to the unprecedented global coronavirus pandemic conditions resulting in
school district closures.
Delimitations
The ability to generalize the findings of this study was limited by a number of factors
adopted by the research cohort:
1. School district participation involved only public schools.
2. The school districts were from one of 12 California counties (Alameda, Los
Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura).
3. The majority of school board members had received MIG training.
4. Research was conducted over a short, 4-month period.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made regarding the findings of the study:
1. That a qualitative approach was appropriate for the study,
2. That the instruments were valid and reliable,
3. That the participants were honest in their responses in both the surveys and the
interviews,
4. That school boards have a direct governance impact on their districts,
5. That training for board members positively influenced board governance,
6. That training for board members improved the effectiveness of the board,
7

7. That training for board members improved school board–superintendent
relationships,
8. That the information provided by the CSBA was current and accurate, and
9. That this research would lead to further studies.
Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
• Accountability: The concept that schools and school districts will be held responsible
for performance or producing documents and records, creating and following plans,
and reporting student performance on assessments.
• Assessment: The annual summative evaluation of student learning through state-
sanctioned standardized exams.
• California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): A state
assessment consisting of the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment System and
the California Alternate Assessments (CAAs), including the CAA for Science, the
California Science Test, and the California Spanish Assessment (California
Department of Education [CDE], 2019).
• California School Boards Association (CSBA) is described as follows (CSBA, 2007):
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-
8

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. (2018a, para. 1)
• DataQuest: The CDE’s 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)
• Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP):
A 3-year plan that describes the goals, actions, services, and expenditures to
support positive student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The
LCAP provides an opportunity for LEAs [local education agencies] to share their
stories of how, what, and why programs and services are selected to meet their
local needs. (California Department of Education [CDE], 2020b, LCAP Overview
section, para. 1)
• Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): The law enacted in 2013–2014 to simplify
how funding is provided to local education agencies (LEAs). Previously, funding
included over 50 categorical funding lines designed to give targeted services based on
student demographics.
• LEAs:
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,
9

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.
• MIG: A five-course training program offered by the CSBA to support the
development of school board members (CSBA, 2018c).
• National School Boards Association (NSBA): A nonprofit educational organization
operating as a federation of state associations of school boards across the United
States (NSBA, 2019).
• 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).
• Student achievement: The performance by students on the annual summative
assessment given by the state of California.
• School governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district
through the development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation
(CSBA, 2007; Gemberling et al., 2000).
• Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district with
oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
10

Organization of the Study
This dissertation is comprised of five chapters. Chapter One, the introduction to the
study, is an overview of the entire process, including 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 underlying the
study’s purpose and rationale for the research design. 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 upon the analysis of data. Chapter Five presents a
summary of the overall study that includes conclusions, considerations, implications, and
recommendations for further research.

11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Over the past 2 centuries, school governing boards comprised of appointed or elected
officials have held the responsibility of school governance that has evolved with time (Grissom,
2007; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Public education has become dependent on this
democratic structure in an effort to provide quality education to all American children. The
responsibility of school boards to the public they serve entails creating a foundation of
governance that fosters success (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Dervarics & O’Brien, 2019). While
complex, the foundation must originate from and be sustained by board members’ knowledge
and skills to effectively handle the array of issues confronting education. The effective working
relationship and collective leadership of the school board and superintendent incorporates
another layer to the leadership dynamics of a school district.
Educational accountability has amplified in the past few decades and has resulted in the
need for school district leaders to acquire intricate knowledge in order to effectively handle the
vast needs of school districts. Federal, state, and local accountability measures intertwine, and
student achievement is at the forefront of every conversation in the K-12 environment. Roberts
and Sampson (2011) contended that equipping board members with comprehensive professional
learning is essential to governing a school district. These responsibilities in today’s culture
involve policy, student achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities.
Establishing a collaborative structure for the working relationship between board members and
the superintendent becomes the foundation for shared leadership that has the potential to disrupt
change.
This chapter reviews the history of school boards and superintendents, the roles and
responsibilities of school board member and superintendent governance embedded in multiple
12

theoretical frameworks, school board–superintendent relations, the role of school board training
and its influence on student achievement, and educational accountability. While there is research
relating the effectiveness of school board members to successful districts, there is little research
that accounts for whether school board training enhances the relationship with superintendents
that, in turn, positively impacts school governance and perceived student achievement. The
CSBA (2007) offers MIG training for board members in California but only if the district
leadership teams opt to invest in the training. Therefore, a question remains regarding the
perceived benefits of MIG training and the debate surrounding whether such training should be
considered mandatory for school board candidates pursuing election.
Historical Context of School Boards
Historically and under the protection of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
school districts were the responsibility of selectmen under the notion of town governance in
Massachusetts prior to decentralization in 1837 (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Land, 2002). During
this time, individuals were appointed to serve as school board members. With a rising population
in the early 1800s due to the arrival of immigrant families, a new governance structure became a
requirement to handle the establishment of new schools and school districts (Land, 2002; Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). This led directly to decentralization that perpetuated local control for school
districts and the newly announced role of Massachusetts State Board of Education and the Office
of State Superintendent (Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Although these positions were
established at the state level to acquire some level of oversight, school boards still maintained
their same level of control due to public doubt and distrust.
This power position of school board members became official just prior to the turn of the
20th century when the state granted officials local control (Land, 2002). Activists used this
13

opportunity to focus on the corruption of politics and decentralization to push their agenda of an
inefficient educational system thwarted with political influence (Alsbury, 2008; Danzberger,
1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Initially, school boards consisted of over 20 members
but eventually decreased to a smaller group of five to seven elected officials with no affiliation to
politics. This led to the centralization of school member roles and responsibilities to include
public interest (Goldhammer, 1964; Land, 2002).
As town governance dissipated, educational governance began to evolve whereby elected
school board members became responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of school
districts with the majority of control (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The
structure of this new governance was modeled after corporate boards but eventually shifted to a
need for policymaking. With increasing population sizes and a lack of infrastructure failing to
meet the needs of all students, the call for the position of superintendent emerged (Callahan,
1966). This situation allowed school boards to establish a foundational structure from which to
build that fostered administrative policymaking. The early 20th-century reform for school boards
proved to be historic in terms of how over 15,000 school boards function today within diverse
structures in America (Hess, 2002).
The mid-20th century proved to be an educational turning point for school boards with
regard to government influence as a result of the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) court
decision. This decision mandated the emergence of new policies that focused on equal
educational rights for all students. Public schools were desegregated and the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed in 1965, distributing federal funding equally to
marginalized and underserved students (Alsbury, 2008; Hess, 2002; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst,
2005). While ESEA has undergone reauthorizations such as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB;
14

2002) and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; Klein, 2016; U.S. Department of Education,
n.d.), funding has become tethered to specific populations of students, thus increasing
educational policymaking. Some of these policies fall to local control and state control, thereby
reducing the federal influences in schools (Klein, 2016). The U.S. Secretary of Education, Betsy
DeVos, and her staff have been heard in transcript interviews stating that federal funding may
potentially harm education. Her rationale considers a centralized approach to public school
federal funding as a disruption to local control (Bock, 2019; Klein, 2018).
Historical Context of Superintendents
As the need for policymaking emerged for school board members within communities, in
the 1830s, the position of superintendent came into existence to oversee school districts, with an
emphasis on oversight (Glass et al., 2000). The original position was given to master teachers
who could inspire others to make academic gains in schools (Björk et al., 2014). Kowalski and
Brunner (2011) noted that by 1850, there were 13 school systems with established positions of
superintendent in the cities of Buffalo, New York, and Louisville, Kentucky. By the turn of the
century, most city school districts had established superintendency roles due to newly developed
territories of consolidated rural school districts and the emergence of education laws that
required mandates and increased accountability (Björk et al., 2014). With the convergence of the
industrial revolution and scientific management, the master teacher image of superintendents
quickly changed to that of a manager (Björk et al., 2014). Schools were constantly compared to
the business community, wherein superintendent involvement in managerial responsibilities
included oversight of budget, facilities, and operations (Björk et al., 2014).
During the Depression era, the role of superintendent centered on politics as individuals
in the role operated as lobbyists to secure financial backing for schools (Björk et al., 2014; Björk
15

& Lindle, 2001). This role required foundational skills that pertained to community relations,
shared decision making, and policy work in order to effectively incorporate the needs and
expectations of the community aligned with the school district’s areas of focus (Kowalski &
Björk, 2005). The role closely resembled that of a democratic leader but started to change during
the mid-1950s, with a new emphasis on accountability and scientific management (Glass et al.,
2000). Problem-solving approaches used applied scientific inquiry to ensure that schools were
operating fairly and justly (Björk et al., 2014). It was the expectation of those serving in the role
of superintendent that they were well versed in social science theories to address the problems
facing their school districts (Glass et al., 2000).
By the 1970s, superintendents were operating under the expectations of transforming
school culture and identifying problems of practice requiring a skill of effective communication
(Björk et al., 2014). Glass et al. (2000) described the need for superintendents during this time to
foster the support of technology information systems within the teaching and learning process.
This role was further described in the 1980s as being an effective communicator that allowed the
superintendent to address a multitude of district needs including but not limited to politics,
community support, vision, branding, instruction, and information processing (Kowalski, 2004).
With the increased visibility of the superintendent position, the public criticized the work of
these individuals, calling into question their level of expertise due to failed attempts to address
community needs. This issue created the platform for reform whereby policymaking became a
shared responsibility of superintendents and school boards. Glass et al. explained that legislation
acted as a catalyst for the changing role, where state and federal initiatives and mandates became
the norm. The idea of choosing the superintendency as an occupation very soon became that of
16

choosing a profession. Thomas and Moran (1992) described superintendents during this time as
program implementers and evaluators, addressing problems by using informed decision making.
The job of the 21st-century superintendent is characterized as an instructional leader who
requires knowledge involving all aspects of the teaching and learning process (Björk et al., 2014;
Glass et al., 2000). Additionally, the role has become highly politicized and scrutinized over the
years due to schools not meeting the expectations of the public or the expectations of state and
local accountability systems (Glass et al., 2000). The increased demands and complexities of the
superintendency role over time are in response to societal changes and the demands of the public.
Superintendents today are required to hold expertise within the realm of instructional and
managerial leadership to be deemed effective. To that end, decision making has to be strategic in
highly politicized environments to result in academic progress for students (Glass, 2010).
Role of School Board Member Governance
School board governance and its fundamental purpose have experienced very little
change with history. Established roles included the responsibility of establishing and maintaining
policy, but the specific roles must be defined (Campbell & Greene, 1994). The CSBA (n.d.)
Professional Governance Standards contain two areas of focus for board members: (a) how to
function as a governing body and (b) how to function as an individual. Both of these areas
translate into five responsibilities that currently shape the role of board members: (a) creating the
vision of the school district, (b) establishing effective organizational processes and structures, (c)
providing superintendent and personnel support, (d) ensuring public accountability, and (e)
providing local and community leadership. The IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry research (Rice et al.,
2000) suggests that the roles and responsibilities of school board members should include clear
expectations, accountability, structure, shared commitment, and teamwork through established
17

patterns of behavior and consistent practices with seven additional conditions that foster higher
student achievement: (a) sustainability, (b) data-driven decision making, (c) employee support,
(d) organizational structures, (e) professional learning, (f) community involvement, and (g)
integrated leadership.
Creating the Vision for a School District
The school board has the responsibility of representing its constituents when developing a
vision for a school district. Leading a school district through the development and
implementation of a shared vision process is a critical aspect to fulfilling the role of school board
member (Brenner et al., 2002; CSBA, 2007; Land, 2002; Senge, 1990; Supovitz, 2006). The
vision allows for the establishment of attainable goals reflective of the school community and
governance team (Land, 2002). The vision entails the intended outcome for student success, and
it is the school board that creates the conditions for this outcome to occur (Delagardelle, 2008).
This goal is accomplished by an individualized commitment to the elected position, coupled with
a collective effort to making board decisions in the best interest of students. Board members’
level of effectiveness is determined by their working relationship to ensure that decisions are
built on consensus and made in accordance with state laws and local policies (Land, 2002).
Establishing Organization Structures and Processes
School boards play an essential role in developing coherence aligned with the district’s
vision through the development of streamlined organizational structures and processes. These
structures are built upon overarching polices and laws that drive the decision-making (Campbell
& Greene, 1994; CSBA 2007; Danzberger et al., 1987; Grissom, 2007; Land, 2002). A top
priority of a school board entails the hiring of a highly qualified superintendent who possesses
the knowledge and skills to effectively manage a school district (CSBA, 2018b). The school
18

board works closely with the superintendent to enact the vision through goal setting and
performance reviews aligned with student achievement and success. Additionally, school board
members must have technology proficiency to effectively use data to monitor progress toward
established goals (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2019). Maintaining established expectations and
guidelines allows a district to remain focused on goals in order to take the necessary steps to
realize is vision.
Establishing Support to All Stakeholders
School boards have the responsibility of ensuring that everyone, including the
superintendent, employees, and students, are provided with a supportive environment. While it is
not the direct responsibility of the board to establish a positive culture, each individual within the
district deserves an environment in which he or she can thrive. The CSBA (2018b) bolstered this
level of support by ensuring that school board members act with professionalism, set the tone for
the core values and beliefs aligned with the vision of the district, make informed decisions based
on priorities and goals, uphold all district board policies, and are knowledgeable about all
initiatives so that they can speak to them directly. This process, in turn, will contribute to a
positive and supportive district culture where innovation and work ethic are prevalent.
Ensuring Public Accountability
School boards hold the responsibility to each local community of governing to ensure
that students are provided with the resources needed to achieve success. Timar (2003) described
an exponential increase in accountability due to the multiple measures used to determine the
success of schools. Additionally, it is the mutual accountability between the school board
members and the superintendent that determines the level of effective governance (Goodman &
Zimmerman, 2000). To that end, both bureaucratic and professional accountability play a critical
19

role and a balancing act for school board members as they ensure that state and federal mandates
are upheld while keeping the interests of the community a top priority (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). This
is why it is crucial for school board members to be knowledgeable about their role to keep the
district out of harm’s way, all while ensuring the community at large feels heard and supported.
Providing Community Leadership
It is the responsibility of the school board members to advocate for student success at the
local, state, and federal levels. This requires that each member interact with the public in a
multitude of ways so that members of the public are well versed on educational issues and
initiatives in a manner that supports advocacy. Providing community leadership requires input
from stakeholders in order for school board members to pave the way for goal attainment in
alignment with the district’s vision. Waters and Marzano (2006) emphasized the importance of
collaboration among school boards and the community that requires effective two-way
communication mechanisms. This type of communication allows for a forum for the expression
of thoughts, ideas, and opinions that can shape the policy work of elected officials. To that end,
school board members need to participate in various community activities to build relationships
and trust.
Role of Superintendent Governance
By the late 19th century, superintendents’ roles shifted from managerial leaders of day-
to-day operations to being instructional leaders (Glass et al., 2000). In this role, the
superintendent had direct oversight of curriculum implementation as well as teacher supervision.
Superintendents were no longer managing school districts and left this responsibility to their
school board member colleagues. As educators themselves, superintendents were in a position of
influence in the teaching profession and were considered the most valued members of the
20

National Education Association (Kowalski, 2005). Edwards (2007) noted that while
superintendents’ responsibilities can shift from one district to the next and at the discretion of
school boards nationally, there are some commonalities that are widespread:
1. Serving as a chief executive officer of the school board and thus assuming
responsibility for all aspects of the work;
2. Providing leadership planning and evaluating all phases of the instruction
program;
3. Selecting and recommending all personnel to the school board for appointment
and guiding the growth of said personnel;
4. Preparing the budget for submission to the board and administering it after its
adoption;
5. Determining building needs and administering building programs, construction,
operations, and maintenance; and
6. Serving as a leader of the school board, the staff, and the community in improving
the educational system. (pp. 10–11)
Locally, the CSBA’s Superintendent’s Advisory Council, coupled with the Association of
California School Administrator’s (ACSA) Superintendents Committee, created suggested
governance standards for the position of superintendent in California. Most recently, there has
been joint interest to have these governance standards officially adopted for implementation in
California for anyone assuming the position of superintendent (CSBA, 2018b). These standards
cover the breadth and depth of the role and responsibilities of the superintendent that include the
following:
21

1. Promoting the success of all students and the efforts of the school board to
maintain student achievement as a top priority;
2. Demonstrating advocacy for public education;
3. Respecting diversity within the school board and all stakeholders to respect
multiple perspectives;
4. Acting with civility and respect in all settings;
5. Serving as the head learner and supporting the school board’s professional
learning;
6. Serving as part of the governance team to build unity, define a vision, and
promote a healthy culture;
7. Using district leadership to support superintendent–school board member
relations;
8. Understanding the distinct roles and responsibilities of the school board and staff;
9. Understanding the decision-making power of the board and serving to provide
support and leadership;
10. Serving as the liaison to the school board with honest and open communication to
all school board members; and
11. Accepting leadership responsibility for implementation of the vision, goals, and
policies of the district.
Superintendents have the colossal job of leading the efforts to meet the needs of all
stakeholders through ongoing change and reform efforts in educational settings. Waters and
Marzano (2006) outlined further characteristics perceived to be central to the effectiveness of
superintendents and establish coherence for increased student achievement: collaborative goal
22

setting, nonnegotiable goals, board alignment to goals, progress monitoring of goals, and use of
resources to support goals. Effective superintendents build capacity in their administrative team
to create and implement collaborative goals so there is buy-in and investment in the work.
Aligned with this process are non-negotiable instructional goals that contain specific targets,
both global and specific in nature, that align site level work to district level visions. These goals
and targets must be in agreement with the school board so that priority is given to student
achievement above all. Effective superintendents create progress monitoring systems to gauge
progress toward goals and remediation plans when goals are not reached. Additionally, the
responsibility of the effective superintendents is to oversee the allocation of resources that align
with the district’s goals and vision of the board. This requires superintendents to articulate and
make very difficult decisions at times not aligned with the agreed-upon goals of the district
(Waters & Marzano, 2006).
The roles of the school board and superintendent are embedded in the theoretical
framework of Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four leadership frames that consist of the political,
human resource, structural, and symbolic frameworks. The framework emphasizes the balance
between instructional leadership and management in organizations of any size. The political
frame is particularly critical to both, due to balancing the needs of so many constituents. The
complexity lies in handling both individual and group interests. Bolman and Deal noted that the
political frame is organized by a natural exercise of power and that those who utilize it best will
win. The human resource frame requires the superintendent to focus on the relationships with
employees of the school district. This focus entails the enticing, hiring, and support of the
employee collective good to ensure a healthy working environment. The symbolic frame
involves the building of rituals and traditions that are representative of perspective needs,
23

visions, and core values. This frame has to be made a priority by both board members and the
superintendent to ensure that legislative, executive, and judicial expectations are executed. To
that end, the development of a vision and mission serves to provide a foundation for the
actionable steps necessary to propel the organization forward. Finally, the structural frame
represents the entire framework that both the school board members and superintendent must
build to define the roles, responsibilities, and priorities of the school district. If done correctly,
individual and collective goals are attainable and aligned with the organization’s vision and
mission that feed student achievement (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
School Board–Superintendent Relations
Superintendent and school board member relations are best described as shared
leadership in service to a diverse set of stakeholders (Waters & Marzano, 2006; Weiss et al.,
2014). In fact, Youssef (2017) noted that superintendents and school board members alike
perceive a focus on student achievement as one of the most crucial aspects to their working
relationship—yet superintendent–board member relations can often be described as fractured and
stressful (Mountford, 2004). This situation can be attributed somewhat to the historical
origination of both positions in which roles have shifted over time due to increased
accountability to the public. Both political and social influences have added to the layers of
complexities facing school districts, thereby resulting in the need for trusting relationships
coupled with honest communication (Moody, 2011).
Mountford (2004) suggested that board members’ motives play a role in how
superintendents strategically navigate their relationships with board members. Board members’
reasons for seeking election can determine how a superintendent prioritizes the needs of a school
district while managing the existence of personal and hidden agendas. It is critical that time be
24

spent on building trust with subsequent honest and open communication in order to improve the
working relations between superintendents and school board members that can have favorable
outcomes for students (Mountford, 2004). Waters and Marzano (2006) outlined further
characteristics perceived to be central to the effectiveness of shared leadership that establish
coherence: collaborative goal setting, agreed upon non-negotiables, alignment of the board
vision, effective progress monitoring systems, and the ability to utilize resources effectively.
Therefore, it is critical that superintendents and school board members commit to a set of shared
values of core beliefs on which to build their work.
Collaborative Goal Setting
A critical step for superintendents and school board members is to determine what
constitutes the pathway for student success and to make this a first priority. This shared vision
will then lay the groundwork for an established working relationship tied to goal setting and
open communication (Youssef, 2017). Collaborative goal setting allows for a collegial process to
solidify non-negotiables and to reach a level of agreement to which each person will adhere
when addressing the needs of the district (Waters & Marzano, 2006). These collective
commitments and partnership must then be used by school board members to communicate to
the public so that there is a perception of a team working on behalf of students (Thompson,
2007). Waters and Marzano (2006) contended that all work should then align with the goals set
forth in order to avoid deflection and misuse of resources. When superintendents and school
boards align their core beliefs and values, there are minimal opportunities for adversarial
relations (Weiss et al., 2014).
25

Agreed-Upon Non-Negotiables
In order to prioritize district initiatives in an effort to reach the goals set forth by the
governance team, school governance teams must determine a set of non-negotiables to remain
focused. Waters and Marzano (2006) referred to these as priorities that allow for a laser-like
focus on continuous learning and improvement. This ensures that instructional leadership is not
impeded by barriers that negatively impact student achievement (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2019;
Weiss et al., 2014). While there is always the chance for unexpected issues to arise, non-
negotiables allow for the commitment, enforcement, and implementation of policies that lend
themselves to academic achievement (Danzberger, 1994).
Board Vision Alignment
A set of established goals aligned with a district’s vision is critical to achieve academic
gains and improvements. It is up to both superintendents and board members to ensure that the
working relationship is productive in order for this goal to occur (Delagardelle, 2008). This
process requires a level of professionalism and commitment to student success to ensure that
initiatives are streamlined and an instructional focus is preserved. Differences in opinions can
exist, but consensus must be reached with a student-centered approach. Land (2002) emphasized
that consensus must originate from local, state, and federal policies and built upon shared
knowledge.
Effective Monitoring Systems
While there can be great determination and commitment bound to the creation of an
aligned, shared vision based upon core beliefs between superintendents and school board
members, there must be established monitoring systems that ensure that trustees’ conduct is
monitored and that the working relationship of school governance members is preserved through
26

the process of establishing norms (Thompson, 2007). A solutions-based approach should be
outlined and understood in case an issue arises that creates opposition between the two parties
(Thompson, 2007). Norms must be utilized that require particular questions to be asked that
gauge alignment to the shared vision of what constitutes student success and achievement
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). To that end, a process for determining how to proceed when
superintendent and school board member relationships are suffering should be established to
realign with the goals and to prevent stagnation (Thompson, 2007). The purpose of this process
is to ensure that poor professional relationships do not interfere with the implementation of
initiatives geared toward the teaching and learning process.
Utilization of Resources
The superintendent holds the responsibility of guiding and advising the school board on
the resources necessary to carry out the district’s vision. These include developing a solvent
district budget that provides the proper supports to effectively work toward the collaborative
goals established by the school governance team. A solvent budget requires strategic decision
making and the ability to find a balance between district needs and mandates. Waters and
Marzano (2006) stated that it is the collegial relationship of the superintendent and school board
that allows for school governance members to achieve consensus when making critical decisions
about what schools need in terms of resources to achieve academic success.
School Board Training and the Influence on Student Achievement
School board governance and leading change require skills and knowledge that can only
be acquired through formalized training, networking, and professional learning (Dillon, 2010).
However, school board preparatory programs are neither universal nor standardized across the
United States, thus resulting in a wide array of expectations from voluntary to mandatory.
27

Roberts and Sampson (2011) noted that out of 26 states, most did not require any formalized
training for school board members, although state board officials and school board associations
feel that professional learning is essential for effective governance. Alsbury (2008) stated that 26
states do not mandate training—which is why California has an interest in providing robust
training to ensure that school governance teams are well equipped with the knowledge and skills
to serve. With increasing internal and external accountability systems, school board members are
faced with increasingly complex challenges that include creating a district’s actionable vision,
setting policy, providing financial oversight, and building and sustaining systems of support that
foster student success.
As with any other job positions in education, there are certain requirements and
credentials that must be obtained to serve in the role. However, the elected position of school
board member in California requires a minimum level of education and no accompanying formal
training (CSBA, 2007). The vulnerability of this position produces individuals who have little to
no knowledge of educational settings yet hold enormous responsibility with respect to a large
number of stakeholders. For this reason, it can take on average up to a year for a board member
to settle into the position and to truly understand how to serve in the role (Bianchi, 2003). This
situation is due to the fact that K-12 education is layered with intricacies of governance that
include commitments, practices, actions, accountability, and interactions with the surrounding
community (Maricle, 2014). Roberts and Sampson (2011) suggested that taking part in
governance training can tremendously reduce the length of time to acclimate into the position of
school board member. Another factor to consider that can add to the issues surrounding a lack of
training is that of board members’ motives for election and the existence of personal and hidden
28

agendas (Mountford, 2004). This factor can influence a board member’s ability to adequately
serve the needs of all stakeholders.
While different states offer various types of training, the premise is essentially the same
in that the goal is 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 those 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 (2018b) offers an optional MIG training
program to both new and veteran school board members to equip them with best practices for
effective governance that include the foundations for governance, policy and judicial review,
school finance, human resources, and community relations and advocacy. The CSBA is available
for school districts and school boards to join should they wish to utilize these services.
There is a far-reaching 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 MIG professional learning seminars in
California for school board members and superintendents who choose to opt in, and it is
recommended that both participate in the training simultaneously. To date, there are collectively
over 2,000 school board members and superintendents who have taken advantage of this
opportunity, with 90% of the participants recommending the training to fellow colleagues
(CSBA, 2018b). Of the 90% of participants, all but 10% felt that the training provides essential
information for effective governance (CSBA, 2018b). 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).
29

The MIG training consists of 60 total hours within five overarching courses that cover an
array of topics, with a 2-year completion deadline (CSBA, 2018b). These trainings are offered at
multiple times of the year to assist school boards and superintendents with scheduling due to the
myriad of calendar responsibilities that can conflict with the trainings. The intent of these
modules, in addition to defining the roles and responsibilities of school governance, is to provide
those who serve with the opportunity to examine all issues through the lens of students (CSBA,
2018b). These modules are as follows:
1. Foundation of Governance. This course covers three areas of focus: trusteeship,
governance, and vision setting.
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 and addresses community leadership, crisis management and media
involvement, and building community support (CSBA, 2018b).
The commitment and follow through of superintendents and school board members to
MIG governance training creates 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 and where district goals
are aligned with a collective vision using data-informed decision making (Canal, 2013).
30

Additionally, the collaborative relationship allows for an acceptance of majority voting even
when there is opposition (Canal, 2013). This process helps to maintain professional relations
even when faced with complex issues, keeping students as a top 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
collaborative training create the focus, behavior, and practices needed in order to facilitate
change (Canal, 2013). The consequential positive relationship between superintendents and
school board members after investment in training can have a profound influence on the success
of a school district (Center for Public Education, 2011). There is a correlation in higher
achieving districts where school boards are uniformly aligned with the non-negotiable district
goals of the district, thus eliminating the possibility of new initiatives that have the potential to
impede the plan (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
In a study comparing board member responses from both high-and-low-achieving
districts, themes of commitment, deliberate policymaking, and community partnerships emerged
congruent to those serving in higher achieving districts (Plough, 2014). Board members who
operate within an academic lens tend to be associated with higher student achievement than those
with alternative agendas (Shober & Hartney, 2014). There is an identified correlation between
effective leadership skills and higher student performance indicators that have the potential to
create first-order change (Waters et al., 2003). However, it is up to the governance team to
ensure that emphasis is placed on building a culture aligned with a shared vision, establishing
tangible goals, and providing resources to ensure that second-order change takes place (Waters et
al., 2003). If school board members are lacking in their own personal educational endeavors,
31

increasing their content knowledge in areas pertinent to education is essential for them to make
quality decisions as elected officials (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Accountability
School districts are expected to represent the interests of the communities they serve by
providing learning experiences through curriculum and programs centered on student
achievement (Gemberling et al., 2000). Goldhammer (1964) described the responsibilities of
governance teams that the public expects as including being promoters of public interest,
defenders, and upholders of community values; public servants to hear complaints and
grievances; supervisors of personnel; and organizers of resources. In the modern world, these
expectations have turned to increased accountability due to the laser-like focus on student
performance using a variety of accountability measures (Timar, 2003). Board members are the
locally elected public officials or accountability agents entrusted with the community’s interests,
including oversight of the superintendent, to ensure that state and federal mandates are met (Wirt
& Kirst, 2005). These mandates are met with local initiatives to achieve them. Ultimately,
though, it is the accountability between the school board members and superintendents that
determine effective governance (Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000).
Critically important is the understanding of accountability within the governance team.
Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) noted that accountability is the hierarchical relationship
between two parties, a director and provider. The director has oversight over the provider to
ensure that accountability measures are met, thus aligning with the responsibilities of the school
board members. These responsibilities include decision making on policy, programs, personnel,
finances, and resources. These responsibilities put school governance members in a position of
power where they can determine outcomes. The provider, on the other hand, can be a number of
32

school district entities, including the superintendent, teachers, programs, services, and outside
consultants. However, school board members can be classified as providers, too, when
referencing voting dynamics where voters are characterized as directors. If the conceptual
understanding of accountability is understood and practiced, the likelihood of a shared and
collaborative accountability system is attainable and has the ability to significantly influence
student achievement (Gemberling et al., 2000).
Bureaucratic Accountability
The governing board has the constitutional responsibility to uphold the state and federal
mandates that have steadily increased over the years (McGuinn, 2006). This situation has
increased pressure for school board members and superintendents alike, because every decision
becomes critical for student outcomes. Governance teams face a wide variation of accountability
measures that impact the ability to utilize resources aligned with community interests
consistently, thus leaving behind poor perceptions of their level of effectiveness (Timar, 2003).
Wirt and Kirst (2005) suggested that the school board is the only entity able to ensure state and
federal mandates are adhered to which justifies the need for governance teams to be
knowledgeable and equip for enforcement of policy and difficult decision-making.
The CDE (2020d) has described the history of accountability measures for school
governance teams as including NCLB (2002), annual yearly progress, English Language
Proficiency Assessment for California (ELPAC), the ESSA (Klein, 2016; U.S. Department of
Education, n.d.), the California dashboard (CDE, 2017), and the Local Control Accountability
Plan (LCAP), to name a few. Each one of these accountability measures is designed to promote
student achievement, but attainment is unrealistic. California’s attempt to address this problem is
through the 10 priority areas of the LCAP plan for achievement, financial solvency, and
33

resources, in addition to the California Dashboard system that grades the health of a district using
color identification (CDE, 2017, 2019).
The financial responsibility of the governing board is complex and requires knowledge of
local, state, and federal funding sources embedded in different types of measures in order to
determine the effectiveness of programs and initiatives. Since the establishment of public
schools, the majority of funding comes from local and state governments, which generate
approximately 90% of total revenue; the remaining 10% comes from the federal government.
Additional monies in the form of grants are given to public schools, but funds are restricted for
particular student groups aligned with compliance laws (McGuinn, 2006; Timar, 2003). The
balancing act to remain fiscally solvent is a challenge and continues to face public scrutiny—
which is why collaboration among governance team members remains a top priority to
effectively solve problems in highly politicized environments.
Professional Accountability
The governance team has the professional responsibility to consider the needs of the
surrounding community as well as the needs of those who work within the school district to
provide a framework that contributes to student success (Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000).
Examples include conversations with students, parents, and community members; attracting
high-quality employees; and starting innovative practices based on interest (Dahlkamper, 2005).
This responsibility involves decision making based on effective two-way communication
between members of the governance team. Although the superintendents report to school board
members, it is essential that the school board members foster systems of support to allow the
superintendent to carry out his or her duties without intrusion. Farkas et al. (2001) determined
that 65% of superintendents felt that school board members had an interest in hiring only those
34

whom they could control due wanting to micromanage them in their role. To combat this
problem and change practice, a quality, collaborative relationship was encouraged (Goodman &
Zimmerman, 2000).
Theoretical Frameworks
Throughout the review of literature, related research identified replicable practices that
contribute to the success of school districts including leadership, effective school governance,
and school board training. Although definitions and recommendations differed depending on the
study, this section attempts to prioritize the practices through a theoretical framework lens. These
frameworks are Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames of leadership model (leadership), the
IASB’s Lighthouse Study (Rice et al., 2000; best practice for effective school board governance),
and the CSBA’s (2007, n.d.) effective governance standards (school board training).
Leadership
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) frames of leadership identify the four different lenses that both
school board members and superintendents bring to their experience within their roles. These
lenses allows both strengths and weaknesses to be visible when attempting to understand how
both approach leadership. Bolman and Deal suggested that the structural, symbolic, political, and
human resource frames provide a blueprint to help leaders navigate between leadership and
management. In situations where improvement is needed, reframing is an option and can provide
tools and strategies to better outcomes. Bolman and Deal argued that successful leaders pull from
all four frames as needed and do not necessarily become experts in one particular frame.
The structural frame provides the framework for the organization and assumes that rules,
policies, and protocols within the defined roles and responsibilities are being followed (Bolman
& Deal, 2008). This frame pulls from the theoretical framework of the foundations of sociology.
35

When in sync, these interdependent structures heighten the organization’s ability to be successful
and allow access to the organizational goals set forth to align with the mission and vision. When
a weakness is observed, barriers between resources and structure become evident and create
misalignment.
The symbolic frame represents the identity of the organization through rituals and
traditions that pull from core values and beliefs (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This frame is derived
from the theoretical framework of social and cultural anthropology that aligns school district
priorities with the vision and mission of the organization. Evidence indicating weakness occurs
when roles and responsibilities are hindered, ultimately damaging goal attainment. Strength is
achieved when individuals work collectively toward common goals and avoid operating in silos.
The human resource frame originates from the theoretical framework of psychology and
places emphasis on human interactions. Bolman and Deal (2008) emphasized the need to focus
on individualism to better understand the gifts, talents, and limitations of those who comprise the
organization. The strength of the organization depends on this knowledge in order to build upon
people’s strengths and set them up for success. Weaknesses entail strong belief systems and
biases that prevent people from embracing change and holding on to past practice as a means of
staying comfortable. While school board members are elected and superintendents are hired, this
frame emphasizes the need to find common ground and work toward agreed-upon goals aligned
with the organization’s vision.
The political frame derived from the theoretical framework of political science
emphasizes the balance between conflict and the power of individuals and groups (Bolman &
Deal 2008). This frame comes into play when there is a strong community response to a school
district issue or when there is posturing on the part of union membership. Ideally, the strength
36

within the framework occurs when politics are used to stay focused on the priorities, to sustain
positive relationships, and to negotiate with a student-centered approach. Weaknesses occur
when individuals or groups seize power from school board members and/or superintendents and
lose focus, thus wasting time, resources, and energy on issues that do not directly impact student
achievement.
Effective School Governance
CSBA’s (n.d.) Professional Governance Standards have shaped how school board
members approach vision setting, protocols, employee support, accountability, and community
leadership within their role. In their colossal job of leading the efforts to meet the needs of a
wide range of stakeholders, superintendents and school board members must adapt to change and
rely on vast expertise to properly address the challenges that arise. The governance team has a
monumental task of influencing the direction of the school district and will be the first set of
people to be given credit or publicly scrutinized while experiencing success or failure. This task
means that the success of a school district is an indicator of effective school governance. The
relationship between the superintendent and school board members becomes a critical aspect of
effective district governance (Youssef, 2017). In order to operationalize the collegiality, a shared
purpose based upon a vision, mission, and agreed-upon norms must exist to create the foundation
on which to build (Givens, 2008). Trust and communication through established systems must be
made a priority to ensure consistent practice through difficult decision making. Northouse (2013)
described leadership as a group of people who are actively working toward the same outcome. If
the priority of the working relationship between superintendents and school board members is
embedded within organizational structures, there is an array of positive outcomes that can result
that have the potential to inspire student success and to build a healthy culture. This process
37

begins with employee retention, improved work ethic, and improved interpersonal relations
(Givens, 2008). Ultimately, it allows superintendents and school board members to understand
their defined roles and to trust the process of shared leadership (Weiss et al., 2014).
The IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000) examined the similarities and
differences of school board members in successful school districts and determined indicators that
contributed to effective practices. These practices can be used as a measure for school districts to
evaluate themselves and entail identified conditions associated with successful school boards.
Successful school boards begin with creating the conditions for an organized structure of support
through shared decision making and leadership. School board members and superintendents alike
can articulate how district initiatives and data sources align with the district’s vision and goals.
School boards such as these have a desire and drive for continuous improvement and make
student outcomes the highest priority. Less successful school boards view challenges as obstacles
and tend to remain stagnant in the face of adversity. Through shared leadership, successful
school boards are able to sustain improvement efforts through effective communication systems
and implementation strategies, while less successful school boards are unaware of and not
involved in the essential roles that people and teams play in reform efforts.
To gauge effectiveness, Delagardelle (2008) suggested that effective school boards
ensure that multiple measures of data are accessible to certificated staff for progress monitoring
of individual students as well as student groups. This information is used to align initiatives and
to ensure that the teaching and learning are appropriate. Less successful school boards rely on the
superintendent as their information source and do not know or understand how the data ties in to
the district’s vision and goals. The trust of the school board to empower employees builds
capacity in individuals and contributes to the collective good of the school district. Effective
38

school boards take the time to recognize these efforts and to celebrate successes. Less successful
school boards lack confidence in employees and fail to carve out time for recognition or
celebrations.
Delagardelle (2008) suggested that school board members in successful school districts
value professional learning and invest time in knowing and understanding what teachers need in
order to meet the diverse needs of students. Board members are active in the community and
allow organizations to partner with the school community to enhance the opportunities given to
students. In less successful school districts, professional learning falls to the responsibility of
individuals and is disconnected from the vision, mission, and goals of the school district. To that
end, school board members fail to ingrain themselves in the community and tend to use parent
involvement as an indicator of the level of community’s interest in the schools.
Chapter Summary
In summary, research supports that school board training contributes to the knowledge
and skills necessary for effective school board governance. Although school board training
varies from state to state and ranges from voluntary to mandatory, common themes emerged
from the research suggesting that policy, curriculum, finance, facilities, and special education
should be a part of a required training (Bianchi, 2003; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Dillon (2010)
stated that leading change requires skills that can be acquired only through formalized training
and professional development. If student achievement is the top priority, then there should be no
question as to the importance of establishing training requirements for governance teams to
ensure that they possess the skills necessary to address complex problems.
The CSBA’s (2018b) MIG program is designed to provide governance teams with five
areas of focus: foundation of governance, policy and judicial review, school finance, human
39

resources, and community relations and advocacy. This program allows individuals to establish
their defined roles aligned with a shared vision (Canal, 2013). Participating and committing to a
training such as this can improve professional relations and foster a healthy environment during
difficult times. The Center for Public Education (2011) emphasized the impact school that board
members–superintendents’ relationships can have on the success of a school district. Maricle
(2014) suggested that school districts in which governance teams participate in MIG training
have experienced better student outcomes. This is because the organizational structures and
protocols foster alignment with the vision, mission, and core values of the greater good.
Effective school governance characteristics are the result of a desire to learn and being a
willing participant in professional learning (Dahlkemper, 2005; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). The
increasingly complex issues that face school districts in America require a diverse skill set that is
impossible to attain without formalized training or years of experience. Delagardelle (2008)
explained that delineated roles and responsibilities must be defined and adhered to in order to
achieve shared leadership. Demands made of school district governance teams are the result of a
high accountability culture in K-12 education; therefore, individuals within governance teams
must be well versed in their knowledge and up to date with the current issues facing education.
Simply participating in MIG training on the part of school board members and superintendents
does not guarantee effective governance, but it does increase the chance for district stability
comprised of a healthy culture that has the potential to positively influence student achievement.

40

Chapter Three: Research Methodology
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on success
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 superintendents and school board members regarding MIG training and the impact
on school governance and perceived student achievement.
The following research questions were developed by the cohort to guide the study and to
gauge whether formal school board training enhances the ability for governance teams to lead
successful school districts:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
This chapter provides a thorough description of the study: (a) the research team, (b) the
research design, (c) participants and sample population, (d) instrumentation, (e) data collection
and analysis, and (f) ethical considerations. Within this research study, there was a detailed
analysis of responses by school board members and superintendents regarding their perceptions
about formalized governance training and its impact on school governance and student
achievement.

41

Three theoretical frameworks provided the foundational base for this study and were used
to acquire in-depth data to analyze the practices and behaviors of school board members and
superintendents that contributed to the overall success of governance teams. Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) four-frame model for effective leadership was used to identify practices within the frames
of political, symbolic, human resources, and structural, all of which contribute to the overall
success of school governance teams. The Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000) was used to
identify specific behaviors of school governance team members that are associated with
perceived district success factors. The CSBA’s (n.d.) Professional Governance Standards were
used to identify expectations of school board members when elected to school governance teams.
These frameworks served to provide the basis of the research questions, the purpose of the study,
and the instrumentation choices.
Research Team
The research team consisted of a cohort of 20 doctoral candidates from the University of
Southern California’s (USC) Rossier School of Education. Dissertation Chair, Dr. Michael
Escalante, served as a mentor to the cohort and provided guidance and leadership in order for the
team to successfully design and implement the study. The cohort examined and discussed three
theoretical frameworks that provided the underlying basis of the study. These frameworks
outline effective school governance attributes and provide the theoretical lens to look through
when determining the influence of MIG training on school governance teams and their ability to
lead. These frameworks are illustrated in Figure 1.
Research Design
A qualitative research design was utilized to gather and analyze data that directly
addressed the three research questions. The qualitative approach allowed for an in-depth study
42

between the variables of formal board training (i.e., MIG) and its impact on superintendents and
perceived school district success indicators. The study of the relationship between the
aforementioned variables aligned to qualitative research and was therefore most appropriate
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Through a grounded-theory research design, the researcher, as the
primary instrument of data collection and analysis, sought to determine comparative data through
the lens of multiple theoretical frameworks (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study utilized data
from school board member and superintendent surveys and interview guides developed by the
research team to determine the perceptions of MIG training and its influence on school
governance and student achievement.

43

Figure 1
Theoretical Frameworks for Study
Note. IASB = Iowa Association of School Boards; CSBA = California School Boards Associa-
tion. Based on Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership 4th ed.), by L G.
Bolman and T. E. Deal, 2008, Jossey-Bass; Professional Governance Standards, by California
School Boards Association, n.d.,
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/ProfessionalGovSta
ndards.aspx; and The Lighthouse Inquiry: School Board/ Superintendent Team Behaviors in
School Districts With Extreme Differences in Student Achievement (ED453172), by D. Rice, M.
Delagardelle, M. Buckton, C. Jons, W. Lueders, M. J. Vens, J. Bruce, J. Wolf, & J. Weathersby,
2000, Iowa Association of School Boards, ERIC, https://files .eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453172.pdf

The research team’s instrumentation tools were discussed and designed deliberately in
accordance with the three research questions. These tools enabled the team to gather information
on the behaviors and practices of school governance teams through the theoretical frameworks
44

discussed previously: (a) Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four-frame model for effective leadership,
CSBA’s (n.d.) Professional Governance Standards, and (c) IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et
al., 2000). Triangulation using multiple sources of data collection in addition to a comprehensive
literature review ensured research credibility and trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The surveys for both school board members and superintendents were distributed via
email to those individuals deemed a part of the study by the research team. Qualtrics™ software
was used to analyze the survey data. The purpose of the surveys was to gather perceptions about
participation in formal board training and its influence on effective school governance and
impact on student achievement.
Interviews were scheduled using the interview guide protocols for those individuals
chosen to participate in the research study. The global coronavirus pandemic caused school
districts to unexpectedly close and an unprecedented “Safer at Home” order issued by California
Governor Gavin Newsom. This situation resulted in the research team having to shift to an
alternative means of data collection. Hence, the interviews were virtual Zoom™ interviews
between the researchers and the school board members and superintendents to gauge behaviors
and practices perceived as influential for school governance as a result of participation in MIG
training. The interviews were recorded via the app Rev.com™ and transcribed using the
Atlas.ti™ software. A semi structured approach to interviews was utilized to allow for probing
when appropriate. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described this process as the ability to provide
clarification to responses and to also gain greater insight into the responses of participants.
Sample Population and Participants
Purposeful sampling was used in the study for an in-depth evaluation of school board
members and superintendents and their perceptions of formalized school governance training.
45

This method allowed for an analysis of a phenomenon versus empirical generalizations (Patton,
2002). Maxwell (2013) emphasized critical decisions surrounding sampling and the impact on
the quality of the research study. The phenomenon examined was the impact of MIG training on
effective school governance. The participants were representative of diverse counties in
California, and their participation in the research study was dependent on their experience with
MIG training—a form of intensity sampling (Patton, 2002). However, criterion sampling
techniques were used to ensure that participants met the minimum criteria prior to participation
in the study—with at least a majority of school board members having attended MIG training.
The research team emailed participants meeting the study’s criteria using the recruitment and
information letter in Appendix A. Predetermined criteria of participants were (a) a public school
district, (b) a district in one of 12 California counties (Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey,
Nevada Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and
Ventura), and (c) a majority of school board members having received MIG training.
Instrumentation
The research team relied on interviews and surveys as the form of data collection for this
study. Through the spring of 2020, the research team met regularly to collaboratively design the
surveys and interview guides using research collected through the literature review process. Due
to the team approach with the research study, sections of the dissertations are similar in nature
among the executive cohort members. The instruments consisted of (a) a school board member
survey (Appendix B), (c) a superintendent survey (Appendix C), (d) a school board member
interview guide (Appendix D), and (e) a superintendent interview guide (Appendix E). Prior to
participation, the superintendents and school board members had the opportunity to voluntarily
consent using the accompanying consent form (Appendix F). The surveys and interview guide
46

were designed to work in tandem for analysis purposes. All instruments were aligned with the
research questions, as shown on the matrix in Appendix G. There were 20 scaled score questions
on both surveys generated for superintendents and school board members that required open-
ended responses and/or a scaled response with four choices increasing in value (strongly agree to
strongly disagree). The questions were aligned with the research questions and were developed
through the lens of the three theoretical frameworks of Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames of
effective leadership, the CSBA’s (n.d.) Professional Governance Standards, and Delagardelle’s
(2008) Lighthouse Inquiry to discern effective behaviors and practices of school board
governance.
The composition of the survey allowed for the presentation of questions in identical order
for all participants so as to eliminate possible bias due to the nature of the questioning. To that
end, survey questions for superintendents were designed to gauge their perspective of the
influence of MIG training on school board members’ ability to employ effective leadership
practices and behaviors. Survey questions for school board members were designed to garner
their personal perspectives on the influence of MIG training related to their own behaviors and
practices that impacted their ability to govern. The research team emailed the recruitment letters
and survey packets to eligible superintendents and school board members; these allowed them
the opportunity to volunteer for participation by documenting consent.
The interview guide consisted of 13 open-ended questions for superintendents and 13 for
school board members. Using a semi structured approach, the design of the questions were
geared toward gathering perspectives of superintendents and school board members regarding
the influence of MIG training on behaviors and practices within the governance team. Patton
(2002) noted that interview guides provide the foundation from which the researcher can probe
47

to seek an in-depth examination of perspectives and beliefs. Both interview guides were
developed using the lens of the three theoretical frameworks to discern effective behaviors and
practices of school board governance. A minimum of 11 virtual interviews were conducted by
each member of the research team: three superintendents and at least two school board members.
Each interview was designed to last 20– 45 minutes.
Data Collection
The research team conducted the collection of qualitative data from the instrumentation
tools described in this chapter in the spring and summer of 2020. These data were brought back
to the research team for analysis and discussion, particularly patterns and similar responses that
directly supported the research questions. Patton (2002) described this qualitative design study as
an inquiry of a phenomenon of study; in this case, it was the phenomenon of the MIG training
and its influence on school governance teams and the success of school districts.
Participation in this study was voluntary for both superintendents and school board
members. The recruitment letter that described the purpose of the study, participant
confidentiality, and the opportunity to consent was sent via email to all superintendents and
school board members who met the criteria designed by the research team. In alignment with
USC’s Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) expectations, all participants contacted were required
to provide written consent of their willingness to participate in the research study.
The data collection process commenced in the spring of 2020 after email distribution of
survey packets to those who met the criteria for participation and had provided written consent to
participate. The email packets included (a) a school board or superintendent recruitment letter
and information letter (Appendix A), (b) a school board member survey (Appendix B), and (c) a
superintendent survey (Appendix C).
48

As completed surveys were collected and organized, the research team conducted follow-
up, semi structured virtual interviews in the spring and summer of 2020. Interview participants
were chosen based on their MIG experience; each researcher conducted a minimum of 11
interviews: three superintendents and at least two school board members. Each interview was
designed to last 20–45 minutes. All interviews were scheduled at the convenience of the
participants. The purpose of these interviews was to further inquire about MIG training and the
influence of school board and superintendent relationships, as well as success performance
indicators. Each research team member used the interview guides (Appendices D and E). The
interviews included (a) an introduction and purpose of the study, (b) a review of informed
consent, (c) possible additional questions or probes, and (d) a closing statement. Interviews were
virtual with participants who had signed consent, and researchers relied on notes and
transcription to ensure the accuracy of responses.
All participant information and data collected as a result of the study will be kept
confidential and secured for a 3-year period. All audio recordings were destroyed immediately
after transcription.
Data Analysis
Data collected from the survey and interview methodology were coded and analyzed
using the Atlas.ti software in accordance with the three research questions designed by the
research team. These data were then merged with the information gathered in the literature
review to appropriately triangulate the data. Strengthening the validity of a research study
requires the triangulation of multiple data sources (Patton, 2002). Coding took place in cycles for
both the surveys and interviews to allow for the emergence of themes and patterns in alignment
49

with the research questions. Coding was specific to the researcher to make sense of the data
before the research team compiled the findings using the Atlas.ti software.
Data gathered from all school districts were compiled and disaggregated by the entire
executive cohort research team. Data collection included surveys and interviews and their
correlation to the three research questions. This process allowed for an in-depth analysis of the
impact of MIG training on the relationship between school board members and superintendents,
as well as the behaviors and practices of effective school governance that contributed to positive
performance indicators.
Ethical Considerations
All research team members participated in the IRB requirements to ensure that ethical
considerations were made a priority. Included in this process was individual completion of the
IRB Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) program. The specific course titles of
Human Research and Social-Behavioral Human Subjects ensured an understanding of the ethical
components of conduct when researching human subjects within research studies. Each
researcher had to select a total of six modules to complete and had to earn an average score of at
least 80% to complete the process. The purpose of the program was to ensure that all participants
would be free from any physical or emotional harm as a result of the study.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has described the detailed approach of the research methods to be used in
this study, designed collectively by the research team. The methodological approach focused on
surveys and interview guides that aligned with the research questions. To that end, a detailed
description of the study design, study participants, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis,
and ethical considerations was included. A grounded-theory approach was used to determine the
50

influence of MIG training on school board–superintendent relationships and the effect on
performance indicators of school districts.

51

Chapter Four: Results
Serving as an elected official in the position of a school board member is a demanding
job and requires individuals to be well versed with current educational knowledge and expertise.
The responsibility has increased with time due to additional accountability measures that put a
multitude of demands on school governance teams (Bianchi, 2003; Danzberger, 1994; Grissom,
2007; Land 2002; Timar, 2003; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Knowledge associated with school
governance, policy, finance, human resources, and community relations have become the key
areas of expertise for those seeking school board positions today (CSBA, 2018b). Within these
five domains, there is a complex array of roles and responsibilities that require intricate
knowledge in order to effectively govern (Bianchi, 2003). To gain this knowledge, professional
learning must be intentional for board members to make informed decisions in the best interest
of students (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). In the absence of this knowledge, school board
members can halt the process of school governance teams moving toward a shared vision aligned
to district goals and negatively impacting the ability to progress (Bianchi, 2003).
There is widespread acknowledgment that professional learning for school board
members is essential in order to effectively govern to achieve school district success (Canal,
2013; Dillon, 2010; Gomez, 2013; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). However, how school board
members retrieve this learning is vastly different from one district to the next because California
does not mandate formalized board training. The CSBA (2018b) strongly recommends the MIG
training to equip new and veteran school board members with a set of foundational skills that
allow them to govern effectively. While literature proves that formal board training positively
influences school district success, it is not made a priority in many districts for a number of
reasons (Canal, 2013; Dillon, 2020; Gomez, 2013; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
52

The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. The study examined the benefit of MIG training and its
implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective
governance. The study aimed to examine the perceptions of school board members and
superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school governance and student
achievement. The students examined the perspectives of school board members and
superintendents that were representative of 12 California counties: Alameda, Los Angeles,
Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, San
Diego, and Ventura.
This chapter presents a detailed analysis of the qualitative data collected by the executive
cohort of 19 other research team members, in addition to evidence from this individual
researcher to substantiate the findings. An extensive discussion of the findings is presented in
this study, representative of the collaboration and cooperation of the research team. Triangulation
of data using a literature review, analysis of participants’ survey results, and transcription of
virtual interviews conducted by the researcher compiled the data analysis. Individual data
collected from the three school districts were coded using a qualitative data analysis instrument
Atlas.ti and examined by the researcher to identify corresponding themes. This information was
thoroughly analyzed by the larger cohort to determine patterns for the purpose of further research
studies. The chapter concludes with a summary of significant findings of the study in
coordination with the following research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
53

2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
The cohort relied on the three research questions to guide the triangulation of data points.
As described in Chapter Three, the data collected entailed (a) an extensive review of
literature, (b) superintendent and school board member electronic surveys using Qualtrics, and
(c) virtual superintendent and school board member interviews using Zoom to gather data and
Atlas.ti to code transcripts. This triangulation approach using multiple sources of data collection
confirmed the credibility and trustworthiness of the research study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Participants
The executive research cohort examined a diverse sampling of public-school districts
across California as an unintended consequence of the global pandemic that allowed easier
access to school districts via use of email, Qualtrics, and Zoom. Purposeful sampling was used to
guide the selection of participants from 12 California counties: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin,
Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, San Diego,
and Ventura. Criterion sampling ensured that participants were representative of public-school
districts and that the majority of school board members had participated in MIG training (Patton,
2002). The executive research cohort strategically chose 62 school districts from the 12 counties
for further study. A minimum of 180 school board members, corresponding to 62
superintendents, were identified as having participated in some aspect of MIG training. Each
research team member chose three school districts to contact and used an email to contact them
to further explain the purpose of the study and request voluntary participation. Included in the
54

email was the consent letter attachment required of each participant. Consent letters were
received by the researchers prior to participation in surveys or interviews.
School Districts
In order to protect the anonymity of participants, names of school districts and
superintendents were altered with pseudonyms and are herein referred to as follows: Lime
School District led by superintendent Tim, Mountain View Unified School District (USD) led by
superintendent Ted, and Olander USD led by superintendent Jan. These districts were
representative of three counties in California: Los Angeles County, Riverside County, and San
Diego County.
Lime School District was a small K-8 suburban school district located in Los Angeles
County with approximately 3,000 students at the time of this study. Lime was led by
superintendent Tim; the school governance team consisted of five school board members with
varying degrees of school board experience ranging from newly elected to over 15 years.
Superintendent Tim had been in the position for just under 3 years. With a student population
that was over 40% socioeconomically disadvantaged, the performance indicators of the CAASPP
were green in the areas of English language arts (ELA) and mathematics, thus demonstrating
success in terms of student proficiency and growth.
Mountain View USD was a large, transitional K-12 suburban school district located in
Riverside County. The district had been led by Superintendent Ted for the previous 5 years; the
school governance team consisted of five school board members. School board experience
ranged from 2 years to over 20 years of service. Over 80% of the student population were low
socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and approximately 20% of the student population
were English learners. There were approximately 32,000 students in the school district at the
55

time of this study. The performance indicators of the CAASPP were yellow in the areas of ELA
and mathematics, thus demonstrating some level of success in terms of student proficiency but
with room for growth.
Olander USD was a mid-sized transitional kindergarten (TK)-12 suburban school district
located in San Diego County and had been led by superintendent Jan for the previous 2 years.
The school governance team consisted of five school board members ranging in experience from
newly elected to 6 years. With over 60% low socioeconomically disadvantaged students and over
15% of students classified as English learners, the total student population was approximately
17,000 students at the time of this study. The performance indicators of the CAASPP were
orange in the areas of ELA and mathematics, thereby demonstrating the need for improvement in
terms of proficiency for both subject areas.
Surveyed Participants
Each participating school district received the Qualtrics survey link from their research
lead; the survey consisted of 20 scaled-score questions. A minimum of two school board
members and the corresponding superintendent were asked to participate in the survey by each
researcher in the executive cohort. The totals were 62 superintendents and 186 school board
members; however, only 180 of the total 186 school board members participated in the survey.
For this individual researcher, three superintendents and nine school board members (100%)
completed the surveys.
Interviewed Participants
Corresponding with the completion of surveys, each research team member requested
Zoom interviews from the same set of individuals, consisting of school board members and their
superintendents. Zoom links were provided by the individual researcher and were recorded via
56

Zoom and the transcription app Rev.com with the permission of each participant. Interviews
consisted of 13 open-ended questions, and responses were transcribed for further data analysis.
Sixty-two superintendents and 177 school board members completed the interviews for the
executive cohort. Table 1 summarizes the participants in the study.
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?” Board members have the enormous responsibility
of serving the communities in which they are elected by relying on multitude of facts in order to
make critical decisions surrounding policies that create the conditions for success for their school
districts. Bolman and Deal’s (2008) political, human resource, structural, and symbolic frames
outline the vast and diverse information that is required to truly understand their role within the
larger school governance team. Without specific training, it can take school board members
years to acclimate to the job simply because of the intricacies involved. Knowledge associated
with school governance, policy, finance, human resources, and community relations are the
critical areas that require expertise of a school governance team (CSBA, 2018b). Additionally,
effective governance is perceived to be the result of formalized training (Canal, 2013; Dillon,
2020; Gomez, 2013; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Successful school districts whose leaders invest
and seek out professional learning have a better handle of the needs of the institution
(Delagardelle, 2008). The analysis of data for Research Question 1 revealed three themes related
to the factors impacting the decision for school board members to participate in MIG training:
1. That board members possessed the desire to learn in order to gain a greater depth
of knowledge to govern effectively;
57

2. That school board members were encouraged and influenced by their peers to
attend MIG training for the purpose of board continuity; and
3. That the accessibility of the training, described by a set of variables, would make
attending the training more realistic to complete for school governance teams.

Table 1
Summary of Participants

Participants Districts (N=62)
N %

Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses

62

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

180

97
Interviewees 177 95

58

Desire to Learn
Through data analysis of interviews and surveys for both superintendents and school
board members, the desire to seek more knowledge through participating in MIG training was a
significant factor as to why people chose to attend. Survey participants were asked to indicate the
primary factor that influenced school board members to participate in MIG training. Survey
results showed that the majority of school board members (133 of 180) and superintendents (37
of 62) identified self-motivation as a primary factor for MIG participation. This finding was
substantiated by this researcher’s findings whereby 75% of superintendents and 66% of school
board members shared the same sentiment. Table 2 summarizes results from the superintendents
and school board members for the executive cohort.

Table 2
Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the Masters in
Governance Training

Superintendents
(N = 62)

Board members
(N = 180)
Participants f f

School board expectation

33

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

Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.

59

Additionally, survey results revealed that all 62 superintendents and 169 out of 180
school board members felt that MIG training should be encouraged for school governance teams
by a local district policy. Of these participants, the researcher found that nine out of 12
respondents strongly agreed. This finding gave credence to the perceived value of the learning
and the desire to acquire new information in relationship to the positions that they held. Table 3
summarizes results from the superintendents and school board members for the executive cohort.
Interview data further validated self-motivation as a substantial factor impacting school
governance team members to pursue MIG training. One Lime School District board member
expressed:
So, what prompted me was I knew nothing about being a board member and I was under
the impression that the training that I was going to undergo was going to give me the
information that I needed to be a successful and appropriate board member.
Similarly, a Mountain View USD board member explained that in pursuit of becoming an
effective board member, training was necessary:
One of my colleagues introduced me to, first of all, to the association CSBA…. So, I
started looking into it, and I realized that all the different elements that were part of the
training would be beneficial to me to be a more effective board member.
The Mountain View USD superintendent described the need for unity: “You got to have
common ground. That’s why you need training. That’s why you need common training, so
you’re using common language.” The Lime School District superintendent emphasized the need
for continuity: “Because we have newer board members, and there are board members that have
been around awhile, we’ve started to do it because it helps to bring that continuity.”

60

Table 3
Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Should Be Encouraged for
School Governance Teams by the Local District Policy

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

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

Upon further analysis of the survey results, 57 out of 62 superintendents and 138 out of
180 school board members felt that MIG training should be mandated in California. This strong
majority suggested that training is invaluable and serves a critical purpose in preparing school
governance team members with the knowledge needed to be effective. Without a mandate,
professional learning becomes optional and prevents governance team members from getting
equal access to the critical information they need to serve in their role. Individual research data
revealed that superintendents (100%) were more likely to suggest a mandate than school board
members (78%). Table 4 summarizes results from the superintendents and school board
members for the executive cohort.
Encouragement and Influence
A second significant factor influencing the desire to attend MIG training was the
encouragement and influence of members of the school governance team through the use of
interview and survey data. Survey participants were asked whether the school board culture
encouraged participation in MIG participation. Survey results revealed that all 62
61

superintendents and 167 out of 180 school board members agreed that the school board culture
encouraged participation. Interestingly, superintendents felt more strongly that the culture of the
governance team impacted the desire to attend MIG training; however, this researcher
determined that all respondents (100%) felt that the school board culture encouraged MIG
participation, whether they agreed or strongly agreed. Table 5 summarizes results from the
superintendents and school board members for the executive cohort.
Interview data further validated encouragement and influence as a second significant
factor impacting school governance team members’ choice to pursue MIG training.
Superintendent Jan from Olander USD, when asked what influenced the decision to participate in
MIG training, responded: “That’s really where it started, was with a board expectation.” A board
member from Lime School District, “The superintendent had said, . . . this is to help grow you
and your knowledge and understanding of what it means to be a board member.” Another board
member from Lime School District noted that “to a great extent, I felt it was expected of myself
as a board member and it was strongly encouraged that I do it.” An Olander school board
member responded, “I was encouraged by other board members that it would be important to
do.” Another Olander board member explained that “the suggestions of both the superintendent
and the current sitting board members was an important factor.” Yet another Olander board
member emphasized that it was “peer pressure from my then colleagues.”

62

Table 4
Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Should Be Mandated in California

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

Strongly disagree 40 65.0 73 40.5
Agree 17 27.0 65 36.0
Disagree 5 8.0 37 20.5
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 5 3.0

Table 5
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether the School Board Culture Encouraged
Participation in Masters in Governance Training

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

Strongly disagree 34 55.0 107 59.4
Agree 28 45.0 60 33.3
Disagree 0 0.0 12 6.7
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 1 0.6

63

Survey results indicated that all 62 superintendents and 174 out of 180 school board
members would recommend MIG to other school governance teams, thus representing an
overwhelming majority of participants. Of these, this researcher found that nine out of 12
respondents strongly agreed that MIG should be recommended to school governance teams.
Table 6 summarizes results from the superintendents and school board members for the
executive cohort.

Table 6
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Would Recommend Masters in Governance
Training to School Governance Teams

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

Strongly disagree 48 77.4 128 71.1
Agree 14 22.6 46 25.6
Disagree 0 0.0 6 3.3
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0

64

Survey results for both superintendents and school board members suggested that school
governance team members agreed that school board members could benefit from MIG training:
62 out of 62 superintendents and 171 out of 180 school board members. However, it is important
to note that survey results indicated that 57 out of 62 superintendents and 120 out of 180 school
board members felt it was important to attend MIG training as a team. While the majority of
respondents (11 out of 12) for this individual researcher agreed that school board members could
benefit from MIG training, both superintendents and school board members generally agreed that
attending training together had its benefits. Table 7 summarizes results from the superintendents
and school board members for the executive cohort about the perceived benefit of attending MIG
training.
Interview data suggested the importance of attending in teams rather as individuals.
Superintendent Ted from the Mountain View USD explicitly stated:
I don’t think it’s a good idea when board members go alone to this. I just think that it’s
really effective when you have someone that you connect with, and you come back and
you hold each other accountable for the learning.
Olander Superintendent Jan emphasized the importance of attending as a team:
I think the main thing is the people that have been through it, and especially in the place
where all five of my board members went through it together, they valued the
understanding and must work as a team. They value those relationships.
A Mountain View USD board member explained, “Over the years, I’ve found it effective when a
board member and the superintendent can go together.”

65

Table 7
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Believed That All California School Board
Members Could Benefit From Masters in Governance Training

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

Strongly disagree 47 75.8 124 68.9
Agree 15 24.2 47 26.1
Disagree 0 0.0 7 3.9
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 2 1.1

Accessibility to the Training
The third significant factor influencing the ability for superintendents and school board
members to attend MIG training was the accessibility of training, as described by a number of
factors that would increase participation. Survey data indicated that school governance team
members disagreed that the cost of MIG training impeded school board members from
participating; 48 of the 62 superintendents and 104 of the 180 school board members felt that
cost was not a factor that determined participation. Table 8 summarizes results from the
superintendents and school board members for the executive cohort.
Survey results from both superintendents and school board members suggested that MIG
participation would increase if CSBA considered an online or hybrid option that was locally
hosted to account for time constraints with travel and proximity to the training. Forty-five out of
62 superintendents and 125 out of 180 school board members preferred a locally hosted MIG
training option. Twenty-nine out of the 62 superintendents and 105 out of 180 school board
members indicated that a hybrid option would increase participation. Finally, 14 of the 62
66

superintendents and 54 of the 180 school board members indicated that an online option would
increase participation. The ability for school governance team members to access the training
conveniently and to minimize the time constraints would encourage more participation. Table 9
summarizes results from the superintendents and school board members for the executive cohort.

Table 8
Participants’ Responses to Whether the Current Cost of the Masters in Governance Training
Program Impeded School Board Members From Participating

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

Strongly disagree 3 4.8 14 8.6
Agree 11 17.7 62 34.4
Disagree 35 56.5 89 49.4
Strongly disagree 13 21.0 15 8.3

67

Table 9
Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the Masters in Governance Program
Would Increase Chances of Participation

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

Online 14 54
Hybrid 29 105
Locally hosted 45 125
Other 2 4

Note. Some participants contributed more than one response.

Personal interviews were conducted to determine ways in which MIG training could be
more accessible by asking what would make the MIG training more accessible to
superintendents and school board members. Responses from both superintendents and school
board members validated the survey data by suggesting that MIG trainings should occur with
increased frequency, with local host options, and that virtual platforms should be considered.
Olander USD Superintendent Jan responded, “So more accessible, I think, would be location.
And actually, now that everyone might be more willing to do a hybrid model.” Similarly, a
Mountain View USD board member stated, “It would be the online and locations.” An Olander
USD board member suggested, “More frequency of trainings in locales that are nearby.”
The collective data gathered from surveys and interviews strongly suggested that the
logistics of MIG training in terms of location, online access, and frequency would increase the
chances of superintendents and school board members attending MIG training either as
individuals or in teams.
68

Summary of Results for Research Question 1
The results for Research Question 1 revealed that there was a strong desire of
superintendents and school board members to increase their knowledge to be more effective in
their individual roles on the school governance team. Not only did these individuals desire newly
acquired learning by attending MIG training but they were also encouraged by their peers to
participate in the training. The culture of expectation to participate in MIG training built upon
both intrinsic motivation and mutual accountability. However, the obstacle to getting all
superintendents and school board members MIG trained was the inaccessibility of training, both
in proximity and convenience. If the CSBA were to consider offering alternatives to account for
these hurdles, MIG participation would likely increase for both superintendents and school board
members and teams would be encouraged to attend training together.
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?” Knowing that
MIG training was valued by both superintendents and school board members despite the
logistical barriers that prevented access for some school districts and individuals, the research
team examined how participation in MIG training encouraged and equipped school board
members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance. The level of accountability
required of school board members requires an extensive understanding of roles and
responsibilities (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frame model
specifies four frames that provide the blueprint for balancing management and leadership:
structural, symbolic, human resource, and political. In particular, the structural frame represents
the foundation from which the organizational structure is derived; roles, responsibilities, policies,
69

and protocols are assumed to be in operation to attain effective leadership. The political frame
aligns directly to this frame by allowing school governance team members to stay focused on
established priorities aligned to a district’s vision and mission. Northouse (2013) would describe
this form of leadership as common goal seeking. Campbell and Green (1994) emphasized the
critical need to define roles and responsibilities in order to effectively govern. The IASB’s
Lighthouse Inquiry research suggests that roles and responsibilities should originate from clearly
communicated expectations coupled with accountability, structure, collective commitments, and
unity (Rice et al., 2000).
The CSBA’s (n.d.) professional governance standards outline how board members should
function as a unit and as individuals through the use of a shared vision, protocols and procedures,
personnel support, public accountability, and community leadership. This level of collective
governance contributes to shared responsibility and mutual accountability. The level of
collaboration within the school governance team can determine its overall effectiveness, and that
is why it is necessary for the team to see themselves not as just individuals, but rather as a team
of unified trustees (Land, 2002). Shared leadership to stakeholders rich in diversity defines the
relationship between superintendents and school board members (Waters & Marzano, 2006;
Weiss et al., 2014). Building core beliefs and investing in the power of positive relationships
contribute to favorable outcomes built upon trust and respect (Mountford, 2004) .
Research Question 2 exposed three themes that defined how MIG training encouraged
and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance:
1. That MIG training established clearly defined roles and responsibilities for school
board members to allow them to govern effectively,
70

2. That school board members adopted a mentality of collective governance where
boundaries were established to allow for a focus on priorities aligned to the
district’s vision and mission, and
3. That MIG training fostered strong and positive relationships among board
members and with the superintendent as well as with the surrounding community.
Clearly Defined Roles and Responsibilities
Results for Research Question 2 showed that superintendents perceived school board
members who had participated in MIG training to have a clearer understanding of their roles and
responsibilities, thereby enabling them to better acclimate to the role with established protocols
and procedures. Data gathered from the superintendent surveys emphasized that MIG training
contributed to the knowledge required to understand roles and responsibilities. Survey data
revealed that 60 out of 62 superintendents perceived school board members to exhibit a clearer
understanding of the difference between their roles and responsibilities and those of the
superintendent. This individual researcher’s data validated this perception, with two out of the
three superintendents strongly agreeing. Table 10 summarizes the results from the
superintendents for the executive cohort.

71

Table 10
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether It Is Important to Attend Masters in Governance
Training With Their School Board Members (N = 62)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

38

61
Agree 19 31
Disagree 5 8
Strongly disagree 0 0

Olander Superintendent Jan explained that “when board members have gone through a training,
they have a much better understanding of their role and my role, and how we are to interact.”
Lime School District Superintendent Tim validated this thought:
I think it is very important because it helps folks to focus on what are their key roles and
their key purposes, and not, hopefully not to get distracted with other clutter noise
because the key role is to help with student achievement, period.
Data gathered from the school board member surveys clarified the differences in school
board member roles and responsibilities from those of the superintendent. Survey data revealed
that an overwhelming majority of school board members, 171 out of 180, believed that they had
a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities compared to those of the superintendent.
This individual researcher’s data validated this perception, with seven out of the nine
school board members either strongly agreeing or agreeing. Table 11 summarizes results from
the school board members for the executive cohort.
72

The interview data suggested that school board members’ roles were an important aspect
to MIG training when they were asked how MIG training equipped school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance, if at all. An Olander USD board member shared,
“I think the best thing the course does in that arena is to bring board members’ attention to the
scope of actions they are responsible for, and also the impact of their actions.” Lime School
District board member similarly stated, “MIG helps us to understand what a school board
member does and what our role is.” In agreement, a Lime School District board member asserted
that “it’s important to gain the knowledge and best practices and understanding so that we can
come in prepared, full prepared on who we are, what we’re doing, the purpose of the board, all of
that.” A Mountain View USD school board member validated this opinion:
I use it to stay in my place, to make sure I’m only asking questions and doing the role that
I am as a board member . . . because I use the training, the vocabulary they gave me and
understanding that.
Another Mountain View USD board member’s response was similar:
I think it is very effective because the different components touch in different operations
of the school district and you personally, and then teaming up with the board. If you
concentrate on the training, it gives you good definitions as to what your role is, what
your role individually as a member of the team compared to the superintendent . . . so it
gave me a clear definition of my role.

73

Table 11
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Clarified the
Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent (N = 180)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

117

65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly disagree 1 1

Superintendents shared a similar perspective to that of school board members. Olander
USD Superintendent Jan noted, “Bringing everyone around the same vernacular related to their
work, so that when we use the common language, everyone understands it.” Similarly, the Lime
School District superintendent commented that “it gives them a common understanding of the
law and guidelines really are . . . MIG provides that structure.”
Survey data suggested that the professional learning gained from participation in MIG
training helped school board members to differentiate among policy, leadership, and
management and impacted their ability to govern effectively. The specific data identified 61 out
of 62 superintendents and 175 out of 180 school board members who believed that the ability to
differentiate among policy, leadership, and management was attributed to the learning acquired
through MIG training. One hundred percent of the survey participants for this individual
researcher were in agreement to validate these data. Table 12 summarizes results from the
superintendents and school board members for the executive cohort.
74

Table 12
Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Helped School Board
Members to Differentiate Among Policy, Leadership, and Management

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

Strongly disagree 26 41.9 100 55.6
Agree 35 56.5 75 41.7
Disagree 1 1.6 5 2.8
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0

The MIG training consists of five modules of learning: Foundations in Governance,
School Finance, and Policy and Judicial Review, Human Resources, and Community Relations.
Superintendents ranked Foundations in Governance, School Finance, and Policy and Judicial
Review in the top three in terms of importance. These courses focus heavily on leadership, roles
and responsibilities, protocols, and policy development. The knowledge gained from these
professional learning experiences create the ability for board members to delineate between
responsibilities, thereby validating the perceived level of importance pertinent to their role. Table
13 summarizes results from the superintendents for the executive cohort.
When superintendents were asked, which of the MIG modules were most important and
why, Superintendent Tim from the Lime School District stated, “If I had to pick the top two
courses, it would be Foundation in Governance and Policy and Judicial Review. Three, would be
School Finance.” Olander USD Superintendent Jan suggested something similar to Tim:
“Foundations by far, because that’s where they really learn about what the role of school board
75

member is, what they’re responsible for, what the role of staff is, and they learn about protocols
and how to interact.” Mountain View USD Superintendent Ted offered a different perspective:
“It depends on the board member. Each of them, they come from different backgrounds . . . it
just depends on what their background is, and also what they want to pursue.”

Table 13
Superintendents’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in Order of Importance to
Their Roles as a Member of the Governance Team (N = 62)

Ranking

Module #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

Foundation in Governance

54

3

2

1

1
Policy and Judicial Review 2 19 22 9 9
School Finance 2 25 16 16 2
Human Resources 2 6 6 23 24
Community Relations 1 8 15 12 25

76

School board members ranked the same three MIG modules—Foundations in
Governance, School Finance, and Policy and Judicial Review—in the top three rankings of
importance, congruent with the responses from superintendents. Table 14 summarizes results
from school board members for the executive cohort.

Table 14
School Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in Order of
Importance to Their Roles as Members of the Governance Team (N = 180)

Ranking

Module #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

Foundation in Governance

119

34

9

10

8
Policy and Judicial Review 21 63 48 27 21
School Finance 30 56 57 26 11
Human Resources 2 10 33 67 68
Community Relations 8 17 33 50 72

77

Interview data substantiated these data because school board members felt strongly about
high-stakes decision making relating to governance, policy, and district budgets; however,
responses were varied based on the strengths and weaknesses of individuals. A Lime School
District school board member said, “I would say Foundations of Governance is most important
because it’s important to understand our role, how we affect the district as a whole.” Another
Lime School District board member noted, “I suspect it would be finance, because if I have a
weak area, it’s probably there.” A Mountain View USD school board member responded: “So,
I’d put them in the order they’re presented [Foundations in Governance, Policy and Judicial
Review, School Finance, Human Resources, and Community Relations] because I think that’s
the way to present them in order of importance.” Another Mountain View USD board member
stated, “The order they were in the survey [Foundations in Governance, Policy and Judicial
Review, School Finance, Human Resources, and Community Relations], I think that was exactly
the order they should be.” An Olander USD board member emphasized the importance of
building to his weakness:
The policy one is the impactful one that I’ve taken, because I didn’t have a strong
background in understanding how policy differentiates from administrative roles and the
effect of policy on the day-to-day impacts in this school district.
Collective Governance
Through the data analysis of survey and interview data of both superintendents and
school board members, the indication was that MIG training equipped school governance team
members with a skill set that contributed to overall collective governance. This process entails
the creation of shared goals aligned to a clear vision that builds from a foundation of
professionalism and mutual accountability, which contributes to increased productivity.
78

Protocols and procedures kept the focus narrowed through using clear communication and
common knowledge. Superintendents were asked whether MIG-trained school board members
understood the importance of aligning the decision-making process to the district’s vision and
goals. Survey results showed that 61 out of 62 superintendents agreed that MIG training
impacted school board members and their understanding of decision making aligned to the
district’s vision and goals. One hundred percent of this individual researcher’s superintendent
participants agreed, with 66% strongly agreeing. Table 15 summarizes results from the
superintendents for the executive cohort.

Table 15
Superintendents’ Responses Regarding Whether School Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With
the District’s Vision and Goals (N = 62)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

31

50
Agree 30 48
Disagree 1 2
Strongly disagree 0 0

79

School board members were asked whether attending MIG training had helped them to
understand the decision-making process and its alignment to the district’s vision and goals.
Survey results showed that 166 out of 180 superintendents agreed that MIG training impacted
their understanding of decision making aligned to the district’s vision and goals. One hundred
percent of this individual researcher’s school board participants agreed, with 66% strongly
agreeing. Table 16 summarizes results from school board members for the executive cohort.

Table 16
School Board Members’ Responses Regarding Whether Board Members Who Were Masters in
Governance Trained Understood the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With
the District’s Vision and Goals (N = 180)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

104

58
Agree 62 34
Disagree 13 7
Strongly disagree 1 1

80

School board meetings require a multitude of business operations conducted and
coordinated by the superintendent and school board members with the involvement of district
administration. These operations require precise protocols to ensure that laws are abided by and
decisions and policies are approved so that the district can conduct required business. What is not
required is a commitment to professionalism and/or mutual accountability to ensure that
protocols are adhered to and that communication is productive. Superintendents and school
board members were asked whether MIG training encouraged school governance teams to
contribute to the overall effectiveness of school board meetings. Survey results revealed that 60
of the 62 superintendents and 176 of the 180 school board members agreed that MIG contributed
to the overall school board meeting effectiveness. This overwhelming majority was substantiated
by this individual researcher’s data, whereby 100% of the participants were in agreement. with
eight of the 12 participants strongly agreeing. Table 17 summarizes results from the
superintendents and school board members for the executive cohort.

Table 17
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Encouraged
School Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of Their School Board Meetings

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

Strongly disagree 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

81

Interview data affirmed the survey findings from both superintendents and school board
members when asked what changes they had seen as a result of MIG training. Lime School
District Superintendent Tim shared, “We’ve seen a reaffirming, maintaining, and the stability of
the cohesiveness of five.” Mountain View USD Superintendent Ted emphasized, “I think they
listened more to each other, as they tried to see how they can work as a governance team.”
Olander USD Superintendent Jan was in agreement with both superintendents: “They’ve done a
better job at staying up here and keeping their roles very clear.”
School board member responses were in direct alignment with the superintendent
responses in terms of positive behaviors resulting from MIG training that contribute to collective
governance. Lime School District board member explained, “I think it gave me more knowledge
and understanding.” Olander USD board member described the experience as providing, “more
collaboration, more compassion, and more objectiveness.” Mountain View USD board member
stated, “Yes, because it teaches you or it reminds you of how you should act around anybody,
how you should treat anybody if you want the job done.” Another Mountain View USD Board
member shared:
Well, again, I go back to understanding the concept of what it is to be one board member
in a team of five. I’m only one. I’m not the boss, again. I’m one of five. Understanding
what my role is, what my limit of power is individually or none, no power individually—
what the power is that I have when I’m sitting with the five. I think it is another piece; it
is critical to understand the role of the superintendent.
A critical aspect of school board meetings is the voting process that requires a majority
vote in order for policies to be set and decisions to be made. A consequence of such a system is
the personal beliefs that contribute to an individual’s stance, hence impacting the overall
82

outcome. The ability to support decision making when holding an oppositional view becomes a
challenge for school board members. To gauge perspective, superintendents were asked in the
survey whether MIG training had improved their board members’ ability to accept majority
decisions, even when they were in opposition. Fifty-nine out of 62 superintendents agreed that
MIG did play a role in a board member’s ability to stay committed to decisions even when in
disagreement. This finding aligned with this individual researcher’s data in which 100% of
superintendents agreed, with 66% strongly agreeing. Table 18 summarizes results from the
superintendents for the executive cohort.

Table 18
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training Had Improved
Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even When They
Held the Minority View (N = 62)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

17

27
Agree 42 68
Disagree 3 5
Strongly disagree 0 0

83

Interview data from Mountain View USD Superintendent Ted substantiated the survey
data:
Trust is so important. There’s five board members, or seven, and they come from very
different backgrounds and different circumstances. The Masters in Governance is just
critical in helping them be effective agents of support for their communities. That’s how
they are agencies of change and learn how to advocate for what they want, but to do it in
a way that is not offensive to people, or using bullying tactics. They use the strategies
they learned in there . . . harmony and the synergy among the board members.
School board members were asked in the survey whether their MIG training improved
their ability to accept majority decisions, even when they were in opposition. One hundred fifty-
three out of 180 school board members agreed that MIG did play a role in their ability to support
the entire board of education, even when in dissent. This finding aligned with this individual
researcher’s data in which the majority (66%) of school board members agreed that MIG had
influenced the ability for board members to support the decisions made, regardless of their
stance. Table 19 summarizes results from the school board members for the executive cohort.

84

Table 19
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether the Masters in Governance Training Had
Improved Individual School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even
When They Held the Minority View (N = 180)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

78

43
Agree 75 42
Disagree 26 14
Strongly disagree 1 1

A Lime School District board member emphasized, “It’s important to understand our
role, how we affect the district as a whole . . . how that all works together.” A Mountain View
USD board member further noted:
Because I use the training, the vocabulary they gave me, and understanding that. And,
also, that we only function as a five. One person doesn’t make the decision. We function
as five. And the idea that as a board member that I can’t tell someone how to do their job.
To me, if you take it serious, it really keeps conflict down and you really can function
more effectively.
Another Mountain View Unified board member commented:
You’re part of a team, and if you don’t understand that from the beginning, then there’s a
risk that your participation is not going to be effective—an effective member of the team,
effective for the work of the district. So, it can create a lot of divisiveness. When you
have a board, and I’ve seen many boards . . ., when everybody’s trained through Masters
85

in Governance, I think that’s a very effective board and they walk together. Walk
together does not mean they are all in agreement. When I vote no on something, the
understanding [is] that I still have to support it if it goes through. If the majority voted for
yes and I voted no, well, I have to go with yes because that’s the decision—the majority.
Similarly, an Olander USD board member shared:
I want to be able to support all of my board members in what their goals are, too, because
we are a team and there’s no “I” in team, obviously It’s all of us collaboratively working
in what’s best for our community.
Strong, Positive Relationships
The ability for school governance teams to stay student focused while faced with the
pressure and adversity of accountability and the needs of the community, superintendents and
school board members must build strong, positive relationships with one another as well as the
surrounding community in order to create cohesiveness that builds resiliency. Decision making
can be a grueling process when there are so many stakeholders involved. School governance
team members must strive to trust one another; but the process to achieve trust takes time,
understanding relationships, and respect. With MIG participation perceived to impact the ability
for 56 out of 62 superintendents and 154 out of 180 school board members to govern effectively,
school governance team members were definitely receiving the tools necessary from their
learning to foster positive relationships with one another and their constituents. Individual
research data revealed that only 66% of superintendents and 44% of school board members felt
that MIG impacted their ability to govern effectively. This opinion could be attributed to the
number of other variables that impacted effective governance better articulated through
86

interviews. Table 20 summarizes results from the school board members for the executive
cohort.

Table 20
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Had Impacted
Their Ability to Govern

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

Strongly disagree 20 32.3 72 40.0
Agree 36 58.1 82 45.6
Disagree 6 9.7 20 11.1
Strongly disagree 0 0 6 3.3

87

Data from interviews strongly suggested the impact that positive relations has on the
effectiveness of the governance team when superintendents and school board members were
asked what role MIG training played in strengthening the collaborative process and teamwork in
their district. Lime School USD Superintendent Tim stated:
MIG helps to under the heading of—let’s talk about how this normally works to then
spearhead out on to some other topics—it gives them that time to just connect and bond,
because we do it all together.
Mountain View USD Superintendent Ted emphasized the power of collaboration:
When you come back, you hold each other accountable for the learning. One of the
hallmarks of our district is our collaboration, our listening to each other, and listening to
understand. It’s a bridge builder between me and the board. I’m glad that I have this
foundation to build on and to use to support them, and them to support me.
Olander USD Superintendent Jan explained: “I think just bringing everyone around the same
vernacular related to their work, so that when we use the common language, everyone
understands it.” To that end, a Lime School District board member stated, “I would say it created
. . . a cohesiveness, like understand the process, understanding the role, and just sort of getting to
know, I think, each other better.” A Mountain View USD board member elaborated:
I think once you become an elected official, you belong to the community 24 hours a day,
wherever you are. You have to keep maintaining a good, positive image of the school
district. It’s a very cohesive board; and this is an important piece for me too, that when
the board is cohesive and you show that cohesiveness at the board table or at an event or
at a concert, whatever the board shows together, even if we’re in disagreement, but we’re
together, we’re talking to each other, we are demonstrating to the people what it is to be
88

together, what it is to be working as a team. So, a lot of these concepts you learn in
Master’s in Governance.
Olander USD school board member echoed the importance of positive relationships:
I think when we are doing the training, it gave us a connection, because some of us were
new and some of us were already there and midway through the term. With
Superintendent Jan going, it gave us an opportunity to connect with each other, to know
each other differently and understand where we come from and our passions. So, then
seeing what our weaknesses and what our strengths were within the classes themselves
and what we got out of it, I feel like it helped us to connect better.
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
The results for Research Question 2 revealed that the knowledge gained in MIG training
strongly contributed to superintendents and school board members understanding that their
defined roles and responsibilities aligned with protocols that fostered effective governance. This
understanding allowed school governance teams to stay focused on collective commitments
aligned with the district’s vision and mission with a laser-like focus. This alignment increased
productivity and kept informed decision-making student centered. MIG training provided the
space and time for school governance team members to learn together, to share common
knowledge, and to build a common vocabulary to function effectively. All these factors
contributed to stronger bonds, trust, and the ability to demonstrate professionalism even when in
disagreement or when faced with challenges.
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth?” Effective governance relies on formalized training to acquire the knowledge
89

necessary to carry out the complex duties of a school governance team member (Canal, 2013;
Dillon, 2010; Gomez, 2013; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). The array of information needed to set
policy and make critical decisions is outlined in CSBA’s (2018b) MIG training modules:
governance, policy and judicial review, finance, human resources, and community relations. The
fact that the decisions of school board members must be embedded in a student lens is why
knowledge on these topics becomes so critical for the role. However, attending formalized
school board training in California is optional, thus creating the question of its relevance to and
influence on student achievement, whether directly or indirectly.
Canal (2013) described the work of school governance teams as the foundation from
which to build where data-informed decisions are centered around a collective vision and
successful conditions are set to support student achievement. School districts that embrace
learning in the form of formalized training such as MIG experience higher levels of student
success (Maricle, 2014). The districts in which school governance team members work towards
common goals aligned to a shared vision built on common knowledge have a student-centered
approach that correlates to higher student achievement (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Alternate
agendas for school board members distract from shared goals and thus impede the ability for
student achievement to remain the focus (Shober & Hartney, 2014).
The analysis of data for Research Question 3 uncovered two themes related to the factors
impacting the decision for school board members to participate in MIG training:
1. That school governance team members who had attended MIG training made
decisions that indirectly impacted student achievement, and
90

2. That the knowledge gained from MIG training enabled school governance team
members to operate in ways that kept a student-centered approach to decision
making that created the conditions for success.
Indirect Impact on Student Achievement
Through a detailed analysis of surveys and interviews for school governance team
members, it was evident that the knowledge gained from the MIG training experience indirectly
impacted student achievement. From decision making to setting policy, school board members
do influence the direction of a district with their actions that can have major implications for
student success. When surveying superintendents particularly about whether MIG training
increased the focus on student achievement for school board members, 58 out of 62
superintendents agreed that the training given in MIG provided the tools that enabled this focus.
Their opinion was substantiated by this individual researcher’s data, in which the majority (66%)
of superintendents surveyed agreed. Table 21 summarizes results from superintendents for the
executive cohort.

Table 21
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Had Earned Masters in
Governance Certification Demonstrated an Increased Focus on Student Achievement (N = 62)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

14

23
Agree 44 71
Disagree 4 6
Strongly disagree 0 0

91

Interview data with superintendents were indicative of the survey results where the
majority of superintendents believed that MIG training increased the focus on student
achievement for school board members. Superintendents were asked how MIG training impacted
student achievement, if at all. Lime School District Superintendent Tim explained:
I think it is very important because it helps folks to focus on what are their key roles, and
their key purposes, and not, hopefully, get distracted with other clutter noise because the
key role is to help with student achievement, period. We’re all here so students get better.
MIG helps focus that this is what our purpose is.
Mountain View USD Superintendent Ted emphasized the influence of MIG knowledge:
I do think Masters in Governance is critical information . . . that you address mindset and
things about student achievement. I do think when board members go to CSBA and they
learn about other districts, they want our district to be good like other districts. I think it
is a good thing.
When school board members were asked whether MIG training increased their focus on
student achievement, 150 out of 180 school board members agreed that it did, thereby
representing a majority of school board members. The finding coincided with this individual
researcher’s data in which the majority (55%) of school board members were in agreement that
student achievement became the focus after having attended MIG training. Table 22 summarizes
results from school board members for the executive cohort.

92

Table 22
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether, as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,
Their Focus Was on Student Achievement (N = 180)

Response category

f

%

Strongly agree

49

27.2
Agree 91 50.6
Disagree 39 21.7
Strongly disagree 1 0.6

School board members were explicitly asked how MIG training impacted student
achievement, if at all. After a detailed analysis of interview data with school board members, it
was clear that their survey responses did not fully capture how they felt about MIG training with
respect to impacting their focus on achievement, nor had some of them every really entertained
the thought. A Lime School District school board member shared:
I didn’t fully understand that leap, or how it would, but because of the decisions that we
are making as a board are important with curriculum and how to shape the district and
climate of the district—all of that affects student achievement.
Another Lime School District school board member began her response stating:
To me, I don’t see it. The only thing that I could say is a connection is the good training
for a school board member is to be able to say when the teachers are doing right, get out
of their way.
Mountain View USD school board members similarly shared information aligned to the
thinking of school board members in the Lime School District. One board member from
93

Mountain View noted, “I think with conversations starting with the board asking questions like,
‘What are we doing to increase our math scores?’ So, it helps trickle down our priority, really.”
Another Mountain View board member stated:
I think it is a good tool for understanding the roles of the board. Understanding that the
district has roles. They have a mission, ambition. They have goals. And how do we walk
together to accomplish those goals? And of course, I want to believe that one of the
objectives is student achievement all of the time. Through all that training, all that
understanding of all the different concepts and the roles and practices—all helps us work
together to accomplish the mission, to accomplish those goals.
The other Mountain View USD board member admitted, “I’ve never given that any thought, but
I think that the more knowledge that we as leaders are equipped with, then that’s the more
knowledge we can impart on the kids.”
An Olander USD school board member said, “If it does affect student achievement, it’s
because a more informed school board member—they would ask better prepared questions.”
Another board member from Olander articulated a similar viewpoint mentioned by the Mountain
View school board member: “It impacted us by reminding us of the curriculum part of it and that
student achievement needs to be a priority of our district. So, we made it a number one priority
and started changing things immediately.”
The ability to have school board members MIG trained enabled school governance teams
to prioritize their work to create a culture shift that aligned decisions and policies to student
growth and excellence. The ability for school governance team members to focus on
achievement stemmed from aligning resources to achievement, making student-centered
decisions, and clearly knowing what questions to ask when the stakes were high. The work of
94

school board members as elected officials may not directly impact student achievement
compared to teachers in the classroom delivering instruction; however, there is no doubt that
their work indirectly impacts student achievement.
Superintendents and school board members were asked in the survey whether MIG
training had positively impacted student achievement in their district. Fifty-four out of 62
superintendents and 128 out of 180 school board members agreed that MIG had had a positive
influence on student achievement in their experience. However, this individual researcher’s data
showed that the majority of superintendents (two out of three) and school board members (seven
out of nine) did not agree that student achievement had been positively influenced by those who
had attended training. Table 23 summarizes results from superintendents and school board
members for the executive cohort.

Table 23
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in Governance Training Had
Positively Impacted Student Achievement in Their District

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

Strongly disagree 8 12.9 39 21.7
Agree 46 74.2 89 49.4
Disagree 8 12.9 50 27.8
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 1.1

95

The contradictory data between the executive cohort and this researcher might relate to
how individuals defined student achievement and whether there were other contributing factors
that influenced their response. To determine where school governance team members truly stood
on the influence of MIG training on student achievement, the interview data were analyzed to
capture the essence of the perceptions of superintendents and school board members. Both
superintendents and school board members were asked what improvements in student
achievement and growth could be attributed to their experience with MIG training. Lime School
District Superintendent Tim noted that “it helps us to have a laser focus. When we talk about our
board’s goals and objectives, our guiding goals for [Lime] are very specific, very deliberate. And
they’re very focused on student progress.” The Olander USD superintendent had a different
perspective: “It’s one of the areas that boards are supposed to oversee as far as making sure that
the budget is directed towards student achievement.” Mountain View USD Superintendent Ted
described a whole-child approach:
I fully believe that our reduction in suspensions and expulsions, and our positive behavior
intervention system are a direct result of them having more knowledge and information to
their colleagues. I don’t think we would be moving in that direction if they hadn’t learned
about those things and been interested in them through their learning at Masters in
Governance. I think that has a lot to do with them learning about how that impacts
student achievement.
A Lime School District school board member stated, “Starting from the top, we set the tone for
the district.” Another Lime School District board member explicitly described the indirect
influence:
96

I just think it is a leap to try and take what we do as a school board and have that direct
link to student achievement. I think that what we do as a school board is we do
everything in our power to make sure that the right people are on the bus, sitting in the
right seats, so that the bus moves forward.
An Olander USD school board member shared similar thinking: “There’s nothing even close that
I’d be able to point to as a direct result.” Another Olander school board member described the
indirect influence this way: “MIG is now focused on the interaction of adults.” A Mountain View
USD board member further explained: “The board focusing on student achievement and
supporting the superintendent with questions, “What do you need?” “What do you need to raise
our math scores?” . . . It trickles down as a priority to everybody.”
Conditions for Success
While it is clear that the work of school board members alongside superintendents
indirectly influenced student achievement, specific actions in their role as a team created the
conditions for success. Informed decision making begins with the ability to utilize data to drive
the process. This eliminates the possibility of decision making based solely on past practice or
anecdotal opinions. Data used correctly identifies need, determines overall effectiveness, and can
expose what things must be adjusted or altered. A detailed analysis of survey results of
superintendents and school board members indicated that a strong majority believed that the
information learned in MIG training had encouraged them to consistently use data when facing
decision-making scenarios regarding student achievement. Fifty-nine out of 62 superintendents
and 157 out of 180 school board members agreed that MIG training encouraged school
governance team members to utilize a data-driven decision-making process in relation to student
achievement. That finding coincided with this individual researcher’s data whereby nine out of
97

12 participants agreed and six out of nine strongly agreed. Table 24 summarizes results from
superintendents and school board members for the executive cohort.

Table 24
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether, as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,
They Encouraged Governance Team members to Consistently Use Data to Make Informed
Decisions Regarding Student Achievement

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

Strongly disagree 31 50.0 69 38.3
Agree 28 45.2 88 48.9
Disagree 3 4.8 21 11.7
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 1.1

98

A detailed analysis of interview data from both superintendents and school board
members revealed a collection of conditions for success not specific to data-driven decision
making. Lime School District Superintendent Tim shared the importance of a narrowed focus
and addressing the whole child:
MIG helps to eliminate or buffer out that clutter noise that just has no bearing on real
student achievement. If we believe arts are important, then we’re going to have arts for
every kid. Band, choir, theater, drama, whatever it is. Those improvements impact
student achievement.
Mountain View USD Superintendent Ted validated the survey data by noting that MIG gave
school board members a data lens through which to look:
I do think Masters in Governance is critical information . . . because people don’t always
know how much it takes to move students. They don’t always look at multiple measures.
I look at multiple measures because I work at a district where our students don’t do well
on standardized tests.
Similarly, the Olander USD superintendent explained:
It helps boards understand if they remember the training, what kinds of data to ask for.
We provide it any way; we provide all kinds of multiple measures, but that might not be
the case in every district. So, it helps them just make decisions based on data.
School board members took a more global approach in their responses, emphasizing the
importance of working as a team, setting priorities, setting policy, and being student centered in
their approach. A Lime School District school board member explained that student achievement
is dependent on the team creating the appropriate environment for students to thrive:
99

Understanding how we can best all work together and creating the environment that
would help kids the most. Kids need a good environment that they can grow. They need
to feel safe. They need to feel believed in.
A Mountain View USD school board member emphasized the importance of setting priorities:
“Narrow the focus a little bit more on what’s effective and what’s not, instead of just approving
things.” Another Mountain View board member elaborated:
We set up policies for the work of the district when we are exercising one of our main
roles as school board members. We look at policies not only for student achievement, but
for safety, and for everything else that happens in the district.
An Olander USD school board member agreed and shared the following regarding MIG
training: It reminded me of where we needed to be and what we needed to do for our
students. Because of that, we’re able to push through and make things better for them and
give them what they need, so we’re not shortchanging them and we’re not failing them.
Summary of Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 results divulged that MIG training did influence the work of school
governance team members and indirectly impacted student achievement, thus creating the
conditions that could be attributed to student success. A focus on student achievement is made
possible when school board members operate under the same premise of aligning priorities,
eliminating distractions, aligning goals to vision, and knowing what questions to ask to provide
teachers with the tools they need to be effective. Moreover, data-driven decision making
centered around a vision becomes a top priority and impedes the ability for other distractions to
interfere (Canal, 2013). Knowledge from MIG training increases the focus on student
achievement and increased the chances for student growth and improvement.
100

Chapter Summary
This chapter addressed three critical questions regarding formalized school board training
and the influence on school governance and the success of school districts:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
A detailed analysis of data using triangulation included the use of a review of the
literature, superintendent and school board surveys, and superintendent and school board Zoom
interviews. Embedded in the literature review were the three theoretical frameworks: (a) Bolman
and Deal’s (2008) four frame model for effective leadership, (b) CSBA’s (n.d.) professional
governance standards, and (c) the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000). All of the
instruments used in the study served to identify themes related to each of the three research
questions that validated the importance of formalized school board training for California school
districts.
After careful examination of survey and interview responses relating to Research
Question 1, school governance team members possessed an intrinsic desire to learn more to be
effective in their role. Gaining knowledge through formalized training prepared school board
members with vast knowledge otherwise not known unless they possessed a background in
education. To that end, school board members influenced and encouraged others to access the
training because of its perceived value. However, participation rates were hindered due to
obstacles related to training location and convenience. If access to formalized training were
101

revamped, participation rates for school governance team members would likely increase
exponentially.
Further analysis of survey and interview responses associated with Research Question 2
indicated that MIG training created a clear pathway for superintendents and school board
members to understand their roles and responsibilities that contributed to the overall
effectiveness of the governance teams. They functioned under the foundation of collective
commitments that allowed them to mutually hold one another accountable for the work, even
when in disagreement. This difficult and complex work is rooted, however, in strong
relationships comprised of trust and respect that create the professional environment that lends
itself to positive outcomes.
Finally, after an analysis of survey and interview responses for Research Question 3,
there was a definite indirect impact on student achievement by school governance team members
who had been formally trained, because behaviors and practices were student centric.
Superintendents and school board members operated under a common vision aligned to goals
that prioritized the work and eliminated potential distractions. School board members were better
equipped to ask questions that initiated a superintendent’s response focused on student
achievement and growth. Decision making occurred using multiple measures of data that
contributed to informed decision making, thereby creating the conditions for student success.
The culmination of themes associated with the three research questions listed in this
chapter suggested the following findings:
1. School governance team members valued MIG formalized training, but
accessibility should be addressed in order to accommodate the individualized
needs of school districts.
102

2. MIG training did equip school board members with effective governance skills
that enhanced the work of teams to better serve.
3. MIG training did indirectly impact student achievement and growth by creating
conditions for success for school districts in which priorities were identified and
aligned to a collective vision that kept school governance teams focused on
common goals.

103

Chapter Five: Discussion
With the mounting responsibility of school governance teams to effectively lead school
districts due to increased accountability and public pressure, school board members must be
knowledgeable about the complexities of educational systems. This knowledge includes school
governance, policy, finance, human resources, and community partnerships (CSBA, 2018b).
However, the elected position of school board member in California requires no formalized
board training resulting in individuals with little to no experience within this realm (Bianchi,
2003; Danzberger, 1994; Dillon 2010; Land 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). School board members
who enter the role with limited knowledge tend to take longer to acclimate to the job, thus
potentially impacting their ability to effectively govern (Bianchi, 2003). Requiring and providing
formalized school board training could potentially change the landscape of school districts to
better equip school board members for the job with the necessary skills required to lead and
serve with purpose (Bianchi, 2003; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). The formalized MIG training in
California provided by the CSBA (2018b), with its five training modules, could provide school
board members with the knowledge and skills needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities.
The significance of this qualitative study on the influence of formalized school board
training in California school districts combined a thorough literature review, detailed research
methodology, and a theoretical framework lens as described in Chapters One to Three. The
triangulation of data was presented in Chapter Four with the identification of research themes
that correlated to suggested findings. Chapter Five serves to summarize the qualitative study, to
review the purpose of the study, and to review the summary of findings. The chapter concludes
with an explanation of the limitations, implications, and recommendations for future study.

104

Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
The three theoretical frameworks consisted of (a) Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four-frame
model for effective leadership, (b) the CSBA’s (n.d.) Professional Governance Standards, and (c)
the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000). These served as a foundational lens for the
study in order to analyze the impact of MIG training on school governance team members,
including school board members and superintendents.
The executive cohort, consisting of 20 researchers, worked cohesively to design the
qualitative study beginning with the emergence of three research questions. From there, the
cohort outlined the appropriate methodology with a unified statement of the problem and
purpose of the study. School districts across California were identified and contacts were made
to determine research participation eligibility based on criteria set by the team. This process
resulted in 12 identified California counties with a total of 62 school districts; 180 school board
members and 62 superintendents comprised the total number of participants. Qualitative surveys
using Qualtrics and interview protocols via the virtual Zoom platform were strategically
developed by the executive cohort to ensure coherence so as to increase the reliability of the
instrumentation.
105

Surveys and interviews were arranged by each individual researcher, totaling a minimum
of nine participants. The instrumentation was designed to gather data in relation to the following
three research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1
The analysis of data revealed that school governance team members consisting of school
board members and superintendents encountered a number of factors associated with the desire
to pursue formalized training that could help or hinder participation. These factors were
intertwined, and three prominent themes emerged from the research:
1. Both superintendents and school board members possessed the intrinsic desire to
learn to ensure that their roles contributed effectively to the success of their team.
2. There was a perception of value associated with MIG training that contributed to
school governance team members encouraging one another to attend.
3. There were variables that impacted accessibility to training, including proximity
and convenience.
Self-motivation was the primary reason that school governance team members sought
new knowledge from MIG training. There was a desire to acquire this knowledge due to the
complexities of the roles and responsibilities of their positions so as to effectively govern.
106

Delagardelle (2008) described the willingness to learn as a key factor when evaluating school
board performance. With minimal requirements required of school board members who are
running for office, board members felt compelled to learn about unfamiliar aspects of school
district functions to better equip themselves to lead and serve. Moreover, superintendents felt
that MIG-trained school board members who sought professional learning were more unified
through a common purpose and common knowledge.
The school board culture contributed to school governance team members attending MIG
training because there was an underlying expectation that members would attend. With the
majority of superintendents and school board members feeling strongly that participation in MIG
should be encouraged through local district policy, the perception was affirmed regarding the
benefits of MIG training and the need to use policy as leverage in getting entire teams trained.
The lack of a mandate requiring training created inconsistencies within school governance teams
and from one school district to the next. Therefore, school governance teams who made
professional learning such as MIG training a priority expected it from all members, regardless of
the number of years that they had occupied the elected position.
MIG training offered locally and in a more convenient fashion can encourage school
governance team members to participate in MIG training. Most school board members occupy
professions that are completely separate from their elected role. The sacrifice of extended travel
time as well as the loss of evenings and weekends create a burden for people who are juggling
large responsibilities. The consideration of hosting local offerings that more closely cater to
individual district needs becomes enticing in order to allow school governance team members to
have easier access to the learning. Trainings can be condensed and offered more frequently so
that teams can easily incorporate the training expectations into their norms.
107

Research Question 2
Data from surveys and interviews revealed that MIG training provided school board
members and superintendents with knowledge that influenced their leadership behaviors related
to governing. Three themes arose from the research, all interconnected:
1. Attending MIG training allowed school governance team members to understand
their roles and responsibilities and enhanced their ability to govern effectively.
2. The experience of MIG training contributed to an adopted mentality of collective
governance driven by a common vision, mission, and priorities.
3. Participation in MIG training created positive bonds and improved relationships
among members.
Defining the roles and responsibilities of each board member congruent to the roles and
responsibilities of the superintendent paved the way for established protocols that were priority
driven and free from distractions. Without this knowledge, school board members might have
ventured outside of the scope of their position and possibly tampered with responsibilities that
fell to the superintendent district or site-level administration. This factor aligned to CSBA’s
(n.d.) Professional Governance Standards, whereby policies and procedures are aligned to a
shared vision and lend themselves to stronger leadership teams. A large majority of
superintendents and school board members felt that MIG training provided them with the
opportunity to define their roles and made very clear what they could and could not do. The
understanding of one’s role fosters team coherence and the ability to face a multitude of
challenges with detailed focus. This concept aligns with Bolman and Deal's (2008) assertion that
successful leaders utilize all four frames of leadership, requiring a multitude of skills: structural,
108

symbolic, human resource, and political. This intricate knowledge must be framed within the
responsibility of each school board member in order to effectively govern (Bianchi, 2003).
Participation in MIG training provided school governance team members with skills that
allowed for the use of a common vocabulary that contributed to the establishment of shared goals
built from a shared vision and mission. This vision and mission created a laser-like focus for
school district teams built upon protocols and procedures that prioritized the work in the form of
collective governance. This concept aligned to the CSBA’s (n.d.) claim that school governance is
built upon collective responsibility among school board members. Delagardelle (2008) described
this as integrated leadership that allows for effective decision-making processes where
superintendents and school board members alike agree that decisions are derived from the shared
vision of the school district. The strong majority of superintendents and school board members
indicating that MIG training encouraged school governance teams to contribute to the
effectiveness of school board meetings spoke volumes to the importance of process and
procedure that contribute to effective governance.
The ability to work collegially within a school governance team was largely influenced
by those who participate in MIG training. The learning together experience built trust and
stronger bonds that fostered a collaborative working environment. These relationships became
the foundation of the work when school governance team members encountered challenges that
could result from differing opinions. This shared leadership produced favorable outcomes where
perspectives could be understood and consensus achieved (Mountford, 2004), thereby allowing
school board members to remain supportive even when in dissent and to stay focused on student-
centered decision making. This level of cohesion can mean all the difference when comparing
successful versus struggling school districts.
109

Research Question 3
Student achievement is a broad and multifaceted term comprised of numerous measures
that are not generally agreed upon universally. This is the result of the complex educational
system built upon state and federal accountability, coupled with local control. Data analyzed
from surveys and interviews indicated that the knowledge of school board members influenced
effective decision making and did, in fact, contribute to the overall success of school districts.
The two emergent themes were the following:
1. School board members in their governance roles did have an indirect impact on
student achievement.
2. School board members created the conditions for success through their priorities
in their respective school districts.
Knowledge acquired through formalized school board training created the frame from
which individuals operated within their roles on school governance teams. To that end, there was
a standard of behavior relied upon in successful school districts by school board members that
framed methods of communication (Delagardelle, 2008). A large majority of superintendents and
school board members felt that participating in MIG training created an increased focused on
student achievement and helped to prioritize the innumerable number of critical decisions facing
school districts. This issue is why the CSBA (2018b) offers five training modules to assist school
board members in setting policy and making critical decisions related to a wide array of
educational topics. Low-priority items do not detract from the more essential duties, and school
board members stay focused on policy and decisions that foster productive learning
environments for students.
110

The ability to decipher between data-driven and informed decision making versus
decisions rooted in popular opinion or past practice can have lasting impacts on school district
productivity. MIG training provides school governance team members with the ability to look
objectively at issues through an instructional lens and to determine their overall effectiveness
using defined protocols. This situation creates a laser-like focus on high-priority items and helps
to eliminate distractors that contribute to the demise of productivity. A strong majority of
superintendents and school board members alike felt that MIG training encouraged school
governance team members to use data-driven decision-making processes. These informed,
student-centered decisions fostered an environment that was rich with resources and
opportunities within the realm of teaching and learning (Canal, 2013).
Limitations
The research design was altered with the restrictions from the global pandemic that
prevented close contact with voluntary research participants. For this reason, virtual interviews
were arranged and recorded via Zoom. Additionally, the districts chosen to participate met
criteria that required the majority of the school board members (three out of five) and their
corresponding superintendents to have been MIG trained. This criterion created a data collection
not reflective of all regions of California and not encompassing of entire school governance
teams. Furthermore, responses by the participants in both surveys and interviews were subjective
responses based upon individual perceptions in response to questions posed by the researcher.
Delimitations
The research study focused on only public schools in 12 out of 58 counties in California
due to the established criteria agreed upon by the executive cohort. The research participants had
to have been MIG trained and to have agreed to participate in the research study. These criteria
111

meant that in some cases only two school board members and their corresponding
superintendents comprised the district sample size and were not representative of the entire
school governance team. The data collection occurred over a short 4-month period of time due to
the nature of the doctoral program and the requirements of each researcher within the executive
cohort.
Implications
The qualitative case study examining the influence of formalized school board training on
California school districts contributed to previous research studies whose assertions validated
that effective governance is reliant on specific training that provides people with the tools
necessary to effectively lead and govern. The research findings in the present study have
implications on both superintendents and school board members who comprise school
governance teams across school districts.
School board members and superintendents who engage in professional learning such as
MIG training are more equipped to govern due to the knowledge they have gained and the clear
understanding of their roles and responsibilities. They function under the notion of shared
leadership with common knowledge, a common vocabulary, and a common purpose. The
emergent themes in this study serve to benefit school district governance teams in their entirety
but also the CSBA, which designs and implements the MIG module training. Customizing
training opportunities that are affordable, convenient, and easily accessible can encourage entire
school governance teams to attend together and can have lasting benefits on the success of their
respective school districts.
There was an overwhelming perception of both superintendents and school board
members that MIG training was valuable and provided critical skills necessary to function and
112

lead, especially with increasing demands on public school districts. However, there were
obstacles that prevented universal access to the training that, if reconsidered, could drastically
improve participation rates. First, having a mandate or local board policy that requires
formalized board training would eliminate the need for superintendents and school board
members to make decisions surrounding the voluntary decision to attend. It would naturally
eliminate the pressure on school board members needing to influence their peers about the
importance of the training and would prevent teams that were only partially trained. This
situation would require legislation that would support the mandate of elected officials to attend
formalized training that is accessible and attainable, regardless of their geographic location in
California.
Recommendations for Future Study
It is clear that there are future recommendations for research needed based on the
limitations and delimitations of this qualitative case study. Access to a comprehensive literature
review surrounding formalized board training was limited, thereby creating a need for further
study and inquiry. Suggestions are as follows:
1. Study school districts where entire teams of school governance team members are
MIG trained in order to gain a greater perspective of the behaviors of effective
governance and perception about its influence on student achievement versus just
sampling a majority of those trained.
2. Compare productivity and school achievement indicators of school districts
whose school governance team members are all MIG trained versus school
districts who have chosen not to participate.
113

3. Expand the sample size to incorporate more counties of California to include a
greater cross section of the state.
4. Compare different types of formalized board training, especially those offered in
other states where training is mandatory.
5. Conduct observations of official school board meetings to observe school
governance teams in action and the corresponding meeting minutes.
6. Conduct research on the effectiveness of each MIG module and what can be
customized to meet the individual needs of school districts.
Conclusion
The enormous responsibilities of school governance teams consisting of school board
members and superintendents have evolved over time and require intricate knowledge and
complex decision making (Gemberling et al., 2000; Land, 2002). With fast-tracked
communication methods that include social media and multimedia journalism, school districts
are always at the forefront of public scrutiny, consequently requiring that those in leadership
positions to hold specific knowledge to navigate the challenges. School governance team
members have to strategically approach their roles and responsibilities in collaboration with one
another in order to carry out the essential functions of a school district with ease. Together, they
must work in unison through shared leadership to ensure that policy and procedures are built
upon a common vision aligned with collaborative goals (Devarics & O’Brien, 2019; Waters &
Marzano, 2006). This collaboration must be built on trusted relationships and collegiality.
CSBA’s MIG training modules in California are specifically designed to train school
board members about the many facets of public-school districts. MIG training equips and
encourages school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance through an
114

understanding of their roles and responsibilities coupled with collective governance. Self-
motivation, in pursuit of acquiring knowledge to be a better leader, drives the desire to attend
training. The skills learned allow school governance team members to exhibit effective
leadership qualities that foster their ability to adapt to change, allow individuals to deeply
understand the complexities of accountability, and enable them to engage in informed decision
making that ultimately creates the conditions for student success. If MIG training became a
requirement either by legislation or through local district policy, elected officials in California
would experience foundational training that would enhance their ability to lead and to create
equitable conditions across school districts.

115

References
Alsbury, T. L. (Ed.). (2008). The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation.
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Bianchi, A. B. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast, 1(3), 1–4.
https://www.nyssba.org/news/2003/10/01/forecast/school-board-training-mandatory-vs.-
voluntary/
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., & Lindle, J. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1),
76–91. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904801015001005
Bock, M. (2019, May 7). A conversation with Betsy DeVos: Live from EWA [Video and
transcript]. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2019/05/conversation_with_
betsy_devos.html
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Brenner, C. T., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school boards:
Linking local governance with student academic success.
http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=iped_techrep
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

116

Calderon, V. J., Newport, F., & Dvorak, N. (2017, September 14). Confidence in U.S. public
schools rallies. https://news.gallup.com/poll/219143/confidence-public-schools-
rallies.aspx
California Department of Education. (2017). California School Dashboard.
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/about/accountability
California Department of Education. (2019). California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress (CAASPP) system. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ca/
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/
California Department of Education. (2020d). Testing and accountability.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards. https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrd
LeadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2018a). About CSBA.
https://www.csba.org/About/AboutCSBA
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Effective governance: Resources, training and
support. https://www.csba.org/en/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance

117

California School Boards Association. (2018c). Masters in Governance: Governance education
for school board members and superintendents.
https://www.csba.org/en/TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance
California School Boards Association. (n.d.). Professional Governance Standards.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/Professiona
lGovStandards.aspx
Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools—a historical analysis (ED010410). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED010410.pdf
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 391–395.
Canal, S. A. (2013). California school boards: Professional development and the Master’s in
Governance training (Publication No. 3563807) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Center for Public Education. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards: Full report.
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-education/Eight-
characteristics-of-effective-school-boards/Eight-characteristics-of-effective-school-
boards.html
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Dahlkemper, L. (2005). Making the grade: School board members navigate education
challenges. SEDL Letter, 17(2). http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v17n02/school-
board.html
118

Danzberger, J. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring the local
school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 67–73.
Danzberger, J. 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. L. (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. (2019). Eight characteristics of effective school boards. Center for
Public Education. https://www.nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/cpe-eight-characteristics-of-
effective-school-boards-report-december-2019.pdf?la=en&hash=1E19C481DAAEE2
5406008581AE75EB2ABA785930
Dillon, N. (2010). The importance of school board training. American School Board Journal,
197(7), 1–7.
Edwards, M. (2007). The modern school superintendent: An overview of the role and
responsibilities in the 21st century. iUniverse, Inc.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (P.L. No. 89-10).
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., & Foleno, T. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the game:
Superintendents and principals talk about school leadership. Public Agenda.
Gemberling, K. W., Smith C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key work of school boards
guidebook. National School Boards Association.
119

Givens, R. J. (2008). Transformational leadership: The impact on organizational and personal
outcomes. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 1(1), 4–24.
https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/elj/issue1/ELJ_V1Is1_Givens.pdf
Glass, T. E. (2010). Superintendent of large-city school systems: History of the urban
superinten- dent, the profession, school boards, characteristics of the large-city
superintendent. Edu- cation Encyclopedia.
https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2470/Superintendent- Large-City-School-
Systems.html#ixzz0p6HySmU0
Glass, T. E., Björk, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school
superinten- dency 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new
millennium. American Association of School Administrators.
Goldhammer, K. (1964). The school board. Center for Applied Research in Education.
Gomez, M. (2013). Impact of the Master’s in Governance training program on effective school
board leadership and governance [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of
Southern California.
Goodman, R. H., & Zimmerman, W. G., Jr. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for
21st century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for
high student achievement. Education Research Service and New England School
Development Council.
Grissom, J. A. (2007). Who sits on school boards in California? Institute for Research on
Edu- cation Policy & Practice.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University
of Southern California Urban Education, n.v., 17–19.
120

Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges
of district governance. National School Boards Association.
Klein, A. (2016, March 31). The Every Student Succeeds Act: An ESSA overview.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/every-student-succeeds-
act/index.html
Klein, A. (2018, October 3). Betsy DeV os: The K-12 System has ‘stolen decision-making
power from families.’ Education Week. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-
12/2018/ 10/betsy_devos_choice_rethink_schools_alabama.html
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 superintendent as communicator.
Communication Education, 54(2), 101–117.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1741143217714255
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
Publications.
121

Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation
to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229–
278. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543072002229
Legal Information Institute, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. (n.d.). § 34 CFR §
303.23— Local educational agency. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/303.23
Maricle, C. (2014). Governing to achieve: A synthesis of research on school governance
to support student achievement. California School Boards Association.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/~/media/CSBA/Files/Gov
ernanceResources/GovernanceBriefs/201408GoverningToAchieve.ashx
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
McGuinn, P. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education
policy, 1965–2005. University Press of Kansas. 10.1017/S1537592707071083
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Moody, M. (2011). Superintendent–board relations: Understanding the past to promote the
future (EJ965228). Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and
Program Development, 23, 75–84. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ965228.pdf
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school
board–superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 704–
741. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X04268843
National School Boards Association. (2019). About us. https://www.nsba.org/About
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
122

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications. Plough, B. (2014). School board governance and student achievement:
School board members’ perceptions of their behaviors and beliefs. Educational
Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 25, 41–53.
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Bruce, J., Wolf,
J., & Weathersby, J. (2000). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/superintendent
team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student achievement
(ED453172). Iowa Association of School Boards. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED453172.pdf
Richter, L. A. (2013). The impact of the Masters in Governance training program on
California school board governance (Publication No. 3563990) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management,
25(7), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline? The art and practice of the learning organization.
Doubleday/Currency.
Shober, A. F., & Hartney, M. T. (2014). Does school board leadership matter? Thomas B.
Fordham Institute.
Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining
school improvement. Harvard Education Press.
123

Thomas, W., & Moran, K. (1992). Reconsidering the power of the superintendent in the
progressive period. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 22–50.
Thompson, R. (2007). Perceptions of the Texas school board–superintendent working
relationship [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Stephen F. Austin State University.
Timar, T. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Peabody
Journal of Education, 78(4), 177-200. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7804_09
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
https://www.ed.gov/ESSA
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for
Education and Learning. http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-
prep/ASC/4005RR_superintendent_Leadership.pdf
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-
Continent Research for Education and Learning.
Weiss, G., Templeton, N., Thompson, R., & Tremont, J. W. (2014). Superintendent and school
board relations: Impacting achievement through collaborative understanding of roles
and responsibilities. School Leadership Review, 9(2), Article 4.
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol9/iss2/4?utm_source=scholarworks.sfasu.edu%2F
slr%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 Corporation.
124

Youssef, H. (2017). School board member and superintendent relationship and its perceived
impact on a school district [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California State
University, Northridge].

125

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

Dear School Board Member ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

126

Superintendent Recruitment and Information Email
Date

Dear School Board Member ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

127

Appendix B: School Board Member Survey

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

Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

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

Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

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

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

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

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

Q Encouraged by board members
5

Q Increasing student achievement

Q Increasing effective governance

Q Unable to determine
Q Other

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

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

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

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

The MIG training clarified the differences between my roles and Q Strongly Agree
10
responsibilities as a school board member and those of the super-
intendent.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
128

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

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

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

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

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

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

to your role as a member of the governance team. Policy and Judicial Review
16 School Finance
Human Resources
Community Relations

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

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

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

Attending MIG training has positively impacted student achieve- Q Strongly Agree
20
ment. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
129

Appendix C: Superintendent Survey

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

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

Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree

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

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

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

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

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

Q Other
Q Unable to determine

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

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

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

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

School board members who are MIG trained exhibit a clearer un- Q Strongly Agree
10
derstanding of the difference between their roles and responsibil-
ities and those of the superintendent.
Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
130

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

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

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

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

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

Please rank the following five MIG modules in order of importance Foundation in Governance
to your role as a member of the governance team. Policy and Judicial Review
16 School Finance
Human Resources
Community Relations

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

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

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

MIG training has positively impacted student achievement in my Q Strongly Agree
20
district. Q Agree
Q Disagree
Q Strongly Disagree
131

Appendix D: Interview Guide: School Board Members
1 What factors impacted your decision to complete a school board training program?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your experience
with MIG training?
132

Appendix E: Interview Guide: Superintendents
1 What factors impacted your decision to complete a school board training program?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your experience
with MIG training?
133

Appendix F: Informed Consent
Date:

Dear ,

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

Participant’s Signature: _______________________________
Participant’s Printed Name: _______________________________
Date: _______________________________
134

Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix

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

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the influence of formalized school board training in California public school districts on the effective governance characteristics identified in the literature that create the conditions for success. The purpose of the study was to determine whether the Masters in Governance (MIG) training provided by the California School Boards Association improved the relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance indicators for school districts. This was a qualitative study using the triangulation of data collected from a literature review, surveys, and interviews. The findings indicated that the MIG training program in California was effective in providing school governance team members with skills that enabled them to lead more effectively, including having a clear understanding of how their roles and responsibilities paved the way for collective governance. Increasing accessibility to the training through proximity and convenience would encourage a higher participation rate for school governance teams. This study found that mandatory school board training could enhance the work of school governance teams across California if designed appropriately.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy

PDF

School board governance training and student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School board training and governance in California

PDF

Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance

PDF

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards

PDF

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California

PDF

Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts

PDF

K−12 school board training in California

PDF

School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams

PDF

School board training: impact on governance and achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice

Asset Metadata

Creator Jackson, Jennifer Lynn-Gates (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/22/2021

Defense Date 01/29/2021

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

Tag Board,formalized,governance,MIG,OAI-PMH Harvest,School,superintendent,teams,Training

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Escalante, Michael F. (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy M. (committee member), Hinman, Charles (committee member), Thorossian, Katherine (committee member)

Creator Email gatez1@yahoo.com,jack632@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-430560

Unique identifier UC11667824

Identifier etd-JacksonJen-9338.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-430560 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JacksonJen-9338.pdf

Dmrecord 430560

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Jackson, Jennifer Lynn-Gates

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