Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
(USC Thesis Other)
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Masters in Governance Training and Its Impact on California School Districts
by
Eric C. Guerrero
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 Eric C. Guerrero 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Eric C. Guerrero certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Rudy M. Castruita
Alex Cherniss
Gregory Franklin
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
Student achievement is at the forefront of the educational system. School reforms have forced
school districts to operate under a microscope in the public eye. Accountability is demanded of
the school system to provide equitable access to all students. School boards, the governing body
of local education agencies, are challenged to create a vision that is reflective of the district’s
community, to create and implement policies for high academic achievement, to manage budgets
to ensure fiscal solvency, and to work collaboratively with bargaining units. This study examined
the perceptions of school board members and superintendents regarding the Masters in
Governance (MIG) training and its impact on school governance and student achievement. Data
were collected in 62 California school districts, with participation by 62 superintendents and 180
school board members. Participants were interviewed and surveyed by the team of 20
researchers. All data were compiled into one database for coding and analysis. Findings revealed
that completion of the MIG training equipped board members to exhibit effective behaviors of
school governance by establishing roles and responsibilities, establishing and aligning decisions
with the district vision, and collectively functioning as a unit. Implications led to
recommendations for future studies, legislation for mandates, and consideration of engagement
in MIG training.
v
Dedication
To my loving family, who gave me the strength and love to be the man I am today. The
completion of this dissertation marks a milestone that I could not have reached without the
support of my family. I am blessed to be part of a family that has always encouraged me to be
myself and to pursue my dreams. With their support and patience, I found strength to pursue my
dream and accomplish what seemed impossible. It is because of my family that I have been
instilled with characteristics of a warrior, one who will never give up and will fight for their
dreams. I am lucky to have such a support system that would allow me to succeed; every struggle
was an opportunity to show my strength and resilience. I thank each family member.
• Grandfather Pete and Angie, for helping me to understand that not all education comes
from books.
• My parents, Joe and Rita, for teaching me that nothing is impossible with God and for
always being my number one supporters in life.
• My brothers, Ricardo, Jose, and Matthew, for being the best three older brothers one
could have and allowing me to always have my way.
• My partner, Edgar, for enduring and supporting me through the tears, struggles, and
sleepless nights. He stood by my side at my worst to finally enjoy me at my best.
It is through difficult times that we discover our resiliency and humanity. Thank you to my
family for helping me to create the best version of me.
vi
Acknowledgements
This dissertation rested in my hands alone but would not have been accomplished without
people who provided support, knowledge, and time. My family supported my dream of pursing a
doctorate. Their faith provided the strength to proceed in this journey.
My extended work family kept me grounded, sane, and focused. Shelley was there from
Day 1 (literally) and helped me in ways that she will never know. Her support, love, and
dedication never went unnoticed. Julie’s encouraging conversations helped me to make sense of
everything. Diem provided laughs, silent meetings, supportive listening; she kept me focused by
filling in for me. My school community allowed me space and time to fulfill my dream.
USC and the Rossier School of Education provided the support to help me accomplish
the highest accolade in education. It is a true honor to be a Trojan. I appreciate the tough love
shown to me by my dissertation chair, Dr. Michael Escalante. His support guided us all to the
finish line. Dr. Rudy Castruita and Dr. Alex Cherniss provided guidance and suggestions that
focused the research study. With the addition of Dr. Greg Franklin, I feel honored to have
worked with such distinguished committee members.
Dr. Samkian was the light when everything seemed dark. Not only one of the smartest
people I know; she is an empath and supporter to those who seek it. I will carry her advice and
knowledge with me forever.
My relentless cohort saw me through to the end. Gloria’s passion was inspirational; she
has a kind and true heart. Maricela’s leadership will change education; she is authentic, honest,
and an inspiration to us all. Linda is a true and loyal friend; her positive outlook helped us to
reach the end. Hedieh’s calming and gentle nature was important, but her spiciness kicked it up a
vii
notch! Elias is one of the funniest people I know; I truly enjoyed his friendship. He kept us
focused and laughing through all the hard work. Fight on!
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 4
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 4
Limitations of the Study...................................................................................................... 5
Delimitations of the Study .................................................................................................. 5
Assumptions of the Study ................................................................................................... 5
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 6
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 10
History of the School Board ............................................................................................. 11
School Board Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................... 17
History of the Superintendent ........................................................................................... 21
Effective School Boards and Superintendent Relationships ............................................. 26
Effective School Board Governance and Student Achievement ...................................... 29
Leadership Theories .......................................................................................................... 29
ix
School Board Training ...................................................................................................... 32
Masters in Governance Training ....................................................................................... 33
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 34
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ........................................................................................ 36
Purpose of the Study Restated .......................................................................................... 36
Research Team and Research Questions .......................................................................... 36
Research Design................................................................................................................ 37
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 38
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 39
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 40
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 40
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 41
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 42
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 42
Chapter Four: Research Results .................................................................................................... 43
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 44
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 47
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 59
Results for Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 78
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 86
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 88
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 90
Implications....................................................................................................................... 94
x
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 96
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 96
References ..................................................................................................................................... 98
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails .................................................................... 105
School Board Member Recruitment Email ..................................................................... 105
Superintendent Recruitment Email ................................................................................. 106
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey .............................................................................. 107
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 110
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ........................................................... 113
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ....................................................................... 114
Appendix F: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 115
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix .................................................................................. 116
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participation From 62 California School Districts 45
Table 2: Demographics of Focus Group Participating Districts 46
Table 3: Primary Factors That Influenced School Board Members to
Participate in Masters in Governance (MIG) Training
48
Table 4: Responses to the Survey Item “Our School Board Culture
Encourages Participation in the Masters in Governance (MIG)
Training”
51
Table 5: Responses to the Survey Item, “Masters in Governance Training
Should Be Encouraged for School Governance Teams by the Local
District Policy”
52
Table 6: Responses to the Survey Item, “The Masters in Governance
Training Should Be Mandated in California”
55
Table 7: Responses to the Survey Item, “What Platform(s) of the Masters in
Governance Training Program Would Increase the Chances of
Participation?”
58
Table 8: Responses to the Survey Item, “The Current Cost of the Masters in
Governance Training Program Impedes School Board Members
From Participating”
59
Table 9: School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “The
Masters in Governance Training Clarified the Differences Between
My Roles and Responsibilities as a School Board Member and
Those of the Superintendent”
61
Table 10: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “School Board
Members Who Are Masters in Governance Trained Exhibit a
Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and
Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent”
62
Table 11: School Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in
Governance Modules in Order of Importance to Their Role as a
Member of the Governance Team (N = 180)
66
Table 12: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “School Board
Members Who Are Masters in Governance Certified Actively
Engage the Community and Utilize a Variety of Communication
Methods
68
xii
Table 13: School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “As a
Result of the Masters in Governance Training, My Ability to
Constructively Accept the Majority Decision, Even If I Hold the
Minority View, Has Improved”
69
Table 14: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “The Masters in
Governance Training Has Improved School Board Members’
Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even When They Hold the
Minority View”
70
Table 15: School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “As a
Result of the Masters in Governance Training, I Understand the
Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process With the
District’s Vision and Goals”
73
Table 16: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “School Board
Members Who Are Masters in Governance Trained Understand the
Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process to the
District’s Vision and Goals”
74
Table 17: School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “It Is
Important to Attend Masters in Governance Training With Your
Superintendent”
75
Table 18: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “It Is Important to
Attend Masters in Governance Training With Your School Board
Members
76
Table 19: School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “As a
Result of the Masters in Governance Training, My Focus Is on
Achievement”
80
Table 20: Responses to the Survey Item, “The Masters in Governance
Training Encourages School Governance Teams to Contribute to the
Effectiveness of Our School Board Meetings”
81
Table 21: Responses to the Survey Item, “As a Result of the Masters in
Governance Training, I Encourage Governance Team Members to
Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions Regarding
Student Achievement”
84
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Student achievement is at the forefront of the educational system. School reforms have
led to school districts operating under a microscope in the public eye. More accountability is
demanded of the school system to provide access to all students. The California Dashboard has
provided more transparency and accountability to the public regarding a school or district’s
progress. Stakeholders and community members can find a school’s progress toward academic
achievement, engagement, suspension rate, and graduation rate to identify strengths and areas for
improvement. School systems must identify barriers and inequalities within the organization to
ensure that every student has equitable access. The leaders of the educational system are faced
with these challenges to ensure that policies are in place to protect students and to ensure their
academic achievement.
School boards, the governing body of local education agencies (LEAs), face the
challenges of creating a vision that is reflective of the culture of the district, creating and
implementing policies for high academic achievement, managing budgets to ensure fiscal
solvency, and working collaboratively with bargaining units. Board members are privately
elected citizens who are representatives of the district in which they reside. School boards
typically consist of three, five, or seven members and serve a 4-year term. There is no statewide
term limit on school board service in California; however, local boards can set term limits.
The California School Board Association (CSBA; 2018b) sets out to strengthen and
promote school board governance. The association contends that strong school boards are an
essential element to high-quality education for every student in every community. Research is
limited in linking high student achievement with effective school boards, although past and more
2
recent studies have shown that effective boards have an influence on high academic achievement
(Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
The CSBA offers a five-course module training, Masters in Governance (MIG), as an
optional training for school board members. This study differs from the 2013 study on the MIG
as the modules and requirements changed. California does not require school board members to
take the training. This study examined the perceptions of board members and the superintendent
on the effectiveness of the board based on the MIG training.
Background of the Problem
The National School Board Association (NSBA; 2019) is “a federation of 49 state
associations representing more than 90,000 school board officials. These local school officials
govern 13,600 local school districts that serve more than 50 million public school students”
(para. 1). These governing bodies make decisions that affect the education of millions of
students. CSBA reports a membership of nearly 1,000, serving more than 6 million students in
California (CSBA, 2018b). The operation of public schools in California makes it a multimillion-
dollar enterprise by consuming nearly 40% of the state’s budget, making it one of the largest in
the nation (CSBA, 2007).
The role of the school board is even more important as the role of the state has expanded
in terms of assessment, standards, and implementation criteria. Parents and the community
should not be caught between the local bureaucracy and the far-removed decision makers at the
state level. In local school boards, parents and local community members have representation in
determining appropriate steps to exceed state standards, expand the educational experience, and
determine the appropriate resource mix (Resnick, 1999).
3
Little to no training or experience is required to serve on a local school board. For most
members, it is the first time that they serve on a governing board or in a civil office capacity
(Resnick, 1999). Only 24 states have mandated governance training for school board members,
leaving 26 that do not (Alsbury, 2008). California is a state where training is not mandatory for a
board member, but the California School Board Association (CSBA, 2017) seeks to fill that gap
by ensuring that school board members are among the best supporters of public education in the
state (CSBA, 2017). The elected governing board has a responsibility to the students,
community, and staff to ensure the success of the schools. They are community leaders who
must be able to speak on their schools’ progress towards the district’s goals. The governing
board must act as one to accomplish the role and work closely with the superintendent to make
decisions that will serve all students (CSBA, 2018a; Gemberling et al., 2000; Resnick, 1999).
Statement of the Problem
The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of
informed decision making that influence the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on performance
4
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 the study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
The following research questions were developed by the research team, with guidance
from the dissertation chair, to determine whether CSBA’s MIG training program has a positive
impact on the effectiveness of the school board.
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Importance of the Study
Research shows that most school board members assume their roles feeling unprepared to
take on the challenges and responsibilities of their new role (Danzberger et al., 1987; Hess, 2002;
Resnick, 1999). With increased accountability and transparency, due in part to the California
Dashboard, school boards must ensure a district’s academic success. Board members must make
the shift from private citizen to public politician. Most board members have no experience in
education or leadership theories (Resnick, 1999). This study is designed to determine whether
there is a correlation between MIG training and board effectiveness and to determine whether
there is a correlation between board training and student achievement.
5
Limitations of the Study
This study encountered several limitations of time, resources, and scope. First, research
data were collected in spring 2020, giving a small window to send recruitment packets, collect
surveys, conduct interviews, and analyze data. Second, the research team was based in the Los
Angeles area, conducting research delimited to 12 counties in California. This limited the
numbers of participants in a study designed to measure the effectiveness of a statewide training
program. Third, the study focused only on school boards in which some members had completed
at least three of the five modules, limiting the number of eligible participants.
Delimitations of the Study
The research team conducted the study in southern California, where there is a
considerable number of school board members who have participated in more than half of the
MIG training sessions. The research did not consider demographic characteristics of the districts,
such as socioeconomic status, language proficiency, or subgroups. Academic achievement, as
measured by the California Dashboard, was not considered when selecting school districts for the
study.
Assumptions of the Study
It was assumed that all participants gave true and honest responses to the surveys and in
interviews. It was assumed that the instruments used in the study were valid and reliable. The
research team assumed that a qualitative approach was the best approach to measure the
perceptions of the participants regarding their effectiveness in board governance based on MIG
training. It was assumed that the MIG training is research based and that participants agreed that
they would be more effective upon completion of the training.
6
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
Accountability: The concept that schools and school districts will be held responsible for
performance or producing documents and records, creating and following plans, and reporting
student performance on assessments.
Assessment: The annual summative evaluation of student learning through state-
sanctioned multiple-choice tests.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): CAASPP
administration includes the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments, the California Alternate
Assessments (CAAs), including the CAA for Science, the California Science Test (CAST), and
the California Spanish Assessment (CSA; California Department of Education [CDE], 2020b).
California School Boards Association (CSBA):
The nonprofit education association representing the elected officials who govern public
school districts and county offices of education. With a membership of nearly 1,000
educational agencies statewide, CSBA brings together school governing boards and
administrators from districts and county offices of education to advocate for effective
policies that advance the education and well-being of the state’s more than 6 million
school-age children. A membership-driven association, the CSBA provides policy
resources and training to members and represents the statewide interests of public
education through legal, political, legislative, community, and media advocacy. (CSBA,
2018a, para. 1)
7
DataQuest: The CDE’s (2020a) defined as,
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. (para. 1)
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through the
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000).
Institutional Review Board (IRB): An administrative body established to protect the
rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in research activities
conducted under the auspices of the institution with which it is affiliated.
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP):
A 3-year plan that describes the goals, actions, services, and expenditures to support
positive student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The LCAP provides an
opportunity for LEAs to share their stories of how, what, and why programs and services
are selected to meet their local needs. (CDE, 2020c, LCAP Overview section, para. 1)
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): The law enacted in 2013–2014 to simplify how
funding is provided to LEAs. Previously, funding included more than 50 categorical funding
lines designed to give targeted services based on student demographics (CDE, 2020d).
Local Education Agency (LEA):
A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a state for
either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public
elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or
8
other political subdivision of a State, or for a combination of school districts or counties
as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools
or secondary schools. (Legal Information Institute, Electronic Code of Federal
Regulations, n.d., para. 1)
Mandate: An official order or commission to do something.
Masters in Governance (MIG): A five-course training program offered by the CSBA to
support the development of school board members.
National School Boards Association (NSBA): “A federation of 49 state associations and
the U.S. territory of the Virgin Islands, representing their more than 90,000 school board
officials” (NSBA, 2019, para. 1).
Public school: A free tax-supported school controlled by a local governmental authority.
School board or board of trustees: An elected or appointed group of private citizens who
combine to craft policies for a LEA.
School board member or trustee: Locally elected public official entrusted with governing
a community’s public schools (CSBA, 2018c).
School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding at public
meetings of school boards.
School district: Synonym for LEA; a public organization tasked with operating public
schools and serving students within a designated geographic area.
School governance: The dynamic collaboration between school leaders and school boards
to establish and engage in processes and practices to operate schools.
Student achievement: The performance by students on the annual summative assessment
given by the state of California.
9
Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district with
oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter One provides an overview of the
study, the background and statement of the problem, three research questions, limitations of the
study, and definitions of key terms. Chapter Two provides a literature review on the history of
school boards and superintendents, roles and responsibilities, and training for school board
members. Key characteristics of effective governance and its impact on student achievement are
presented from the literature. The literature provides the leadership theories and conceptual
framework that was used to evaluate the study. Chapter Three outlines the methodology that was
used to carry out the study, including the instruments, sampling and population, data collection
and analysis. Chapter Four presents the findings as they relate to the research questions. Chapter
Five summarizes the findings and makes recommendations for future study.
10
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The K-12 public education system has been under reform with the implementation of the
Common Core State Standards, Next Generation Science Standards, and accountability to its
stakeholders. These reforms place pressure on school boards to provide credibility, stewardship,
and direction to local education (Resnick, 1999). The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
gives each state authority over education, which is why state policies vary; however,
accountability is public and transparent.
Education and school boards date back to the colonial times about 200 years ago to the
Massachusetts Education Laws (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). In 1837, the first state board of
education was established in Massachusetts, giving states a greater role in education. The
greatest transformation came in the reduction of local control by school boards because of an
increase in federal and state involvement in education (Kirst, 1994; Land 2002). The governance
system for today’s public schools is complex because of the multiple players and decision
makers, including federal and state courts. Congress, state governors and legislatures, and more
(Danzberger, 1994).
The role of the school board is even more important as the role of the state has expanded
in terms of assessment, standards, and implementation criteria. Parents and the community
should not be caught between the local bureaucracy and the far-removed decision makers at the
state level. With local school boards, parents and local community members have representation
in determining appropriate steps to exceed state standards, expand, the educational experience,
and determine the appropriate resource mix (Resnick, 1999).
The nation’s governing body, NSBA, published The Key Work of School Boards Guide
Book (Gemberling et al., 2000) a framework for effective school boards. The guidebook provides
11
the framework of eight action steps for successful school boards. This provides support and helps
to focus the school board in its efforts to understand and achieve the elements of its essential
work. The CSBA (2018c) stated that the school board, as elected officials, governs public
schools as a governance team with one superintendent and each board member. This chapter
examines the complexities of effective board governance and the MIG training.
History of the School Board
Public education in a democratic society is an essential element as it ensures “an educated
citizenry capable of participating in discussions, debates, and decisions to further the wellness of
the larger community and protect the individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness” (Glickman, 1993, p. 8). Education and school boards date back to the colonial times
about 200 years ago to the Massachusetts Education Laws (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). The
first laws, in 1677, ordered that support for schools be publicly funded. In 1727, a new law stated
that each town in the state create its own organization of governance to supervise public
education (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The selectmen, a group of townsmen, oversaw education with
the initial tasks of setting wages and determining the length of the school year and employment
(Danzberger, 1994). The task became too large due to the increasing population and local
governance responsibilities. “Separate district of school, funded by local taxes, were formed as
more schools were built to accommodate continuing population growth” (Land, 2002, p. 2). The
selectmen appointed a committee to govern education in each town. It was then that a board of
education committee was established, separating educational governance and local governance
(Campbell & Greene, 1990; Land, 2002).
The Tenth Amendment, enacted in 1791, granted states authority over education. Towns
sought to keep governance of the educational system within city limits. In 1837, the first state
12
board of education was established in Massachusetts, giving states a greater role in education.
Again, the local school boards kept most of the control over their schools because of the public
distrust that a distant state board could effectively satisfy local preferences and needs (Land,
2002). The climate of the times speaks to the needs of the people that they wanted local control
over their schools. There existed a distrust because Americans were ruled from distant
governments that had little knowledge of the conditions and experience of the Colonists
(Danzberger, 1994).
Through the 1800s to early 1900s, legislation was passed that gave each district financial
and administrative power over its schools. In 1891, Massachusetts enacted legislation that gave
each district financial and administrative authority over its schools (Land, 2002). According to
Land (2002), this separate educational governance would be the model for today’s school boards.
Separate districts, funded by local taxes, surfaced as more schools were built because of the
increasing population. While there were variances among districts, all local school boards
oversaw and managed public education (Land, 2002).
By the late 1800s, school board members were generally elected within their local
community or wards, connecting the members to local politics. Because of the distrust and
perceptions of local politics, this connection subjected schools to corruption. The belief was that
schools were not sufficiently educating an increasingly diverse population and addressing the
disparities that existed in the diverse communities. The communities responded by seeking
assistance from elite professionals and businessmen to reform and improve the local educational
governance system (Land, 2002).
By the 1900s, the local education governance system and moved away from the multiple,
larger, ward school boards. This crucial reform made the local education governance more
13
centralized, consisting of a smaller city school board made up of local citizens who were selected
by local elections (Land, 2002). Not only did this reform create small school boards consisting of
local citizens; the intent was to separate school boards from general governance and political
influence (Kirst, 1994). According to Land (2002), this last major reform of the school board was
modeled after corporate boards, which focused more on policy than on daily administration. As a
result, the role of the superintendent shifted from one focused largely on instruction and
governed by the board to a more professional role, requiring more training and leading more
administrative and management duties (Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002).
The latest reform allowed local school boards in the United States more flexibility in
governance. Land (2002) stated that school boards developed the following traditional
characteristics:
local control in order to meet the specific needs and preferences of the population;
separation of educational from general governance; large districts with small boards; lay
oversight with concentration on policy making and reliance on a professional
superintendent for management, patterned after corporate boards of directors with a chief
executive officer; and democratic representation of all citizens through at-large elections
rather than subdistrict elections or appointments. (p. 3)
In some school boards, however, these traditional characteristics varied in their administrative
and management operations due to their local climate and surroundings, specifically resources
available and the size and special needs of the student population.
The greatest transformation came in the reduction of local control by school boards
because of a greater increase in federal and state involvement in education (Kirst, 1994; Land,
2002). The 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education justified the need for the
14
federal government’s involvement in public education to oversee desegregation. In the 1950s and
1960s, the federal government took more control through special programs and funding to
improve education. The federal and state governments’ involvement increased through the 1970s
because of categorical funding such as the Elementary Special Education Act and migrant
education (Land, 2002). Through the 1980s, states became more involved in local education
governance because of the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence
in Education, 1983). The publication informed the public of the growing mediocrity in public
education compromising the future of the United States. States sought to improve student
academic achievement by passing legislation to oversee adoption of curricula, teacher
certification, testing, graduation standards, and data collection (Kirst, 1994; Land 2002; Resnick,
1999). In 1990, No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) undoubtedly strengthened state and federal
governments’ involvement in public education with strict and rigorous mandates pushing for
high academic standards and accountability (Land, 2002).
The governance system for today’s public schools is complex because of the multiple
players and decision makers, including federal and state courts, Congress, state governors and
legislatures, and more (Danzberger, 1994). These policy makers respond to the concerns of
special interest groups, businesses, and citizens who want representation in the development of
policies that govern schools. At the local level, it is not only the local institution whose decisions
determine outcomes; teacher and administration unions, principals and teachers at individual
schools, and planning and governing bodies in individual schools collectively make decisions
with the school board.
School boards of the 21st century place an emphasis on student achievement, Special
Education issues, education technology, teacher quality, and funding. School boards have
15
continually assumed a broader range of responsibilities, but there has been little change in the
demographic composition (CSBA, 2007). Currently, it remains the same that locally appointed
citizens and businesspeople continue to define the local school board structure (CSBA, 2007;
Land, 2002). The reform of the early 20th century made school boards smaller, centralized, city
organizations. It also brought higher education, higher income, and more successful
professionals onto the school boards (Land, 2002). According to Grissom (2007), a California
school board member is generally a wealthier, educated, 55-year-old male; women make up 47%
of board members. Also, 77% of school board members are White and 12% are Latino, yet
47.6% of the student population in California is Latino (Grissom, 2007). There exists a disparity
between the demographics of school board members and those of the students whom they serve.
Minority groups are typically underrepresented on school boards, which has stimulated change
of at-large election procedures and decentralization of local control (Land, 2002).
The NSBA (2019) is “a federation of 49 state associations representing more than 90,000
school board officials. These local school officials govern 13,600 local school districts that serve
more than 50 million public school students” (para. 1). The NSBA (2006) defined six attributes
of leadership necessary to fulfill the role of a school board member:
1. Thinks longer term
2. Looks beyond the unit they are heading and grasp its relations to larger realities
3. Puts heavy emphasis on the intangibles of vision, values, and motivation and
understand intuitively the irrational and unconscious elements in the leader
constituent interaction
4. Are outstanding managers with the ability to set priorities
16
5. Have the communication and political skills to cope with the conflicting
requirements of multiple constituencies
6. Thinks in terms of renewal for the organization and its people (p. 64)
The NSBA (2006) has advocated for equity and excellence in public education through school
board governance.
In California, any citizen at least 18 years of age, a resident of the school district, a
registered voter, and not disqualified by the Constitution or laws of the state from holding a civil
office is eligible to become a board member (CSBA, 2007). It is evident that there is little to no
training or experience required to serve on a local school board. For most members, it is the first
time that they serve on a governing board or in a civil office capacity. Board members are
generally elected by residents of the school district, although members can be appointed to fill
vacancies until the next election for the seat is held. There are three methods, or a mixture, that
school board elections are held: (a) at large: all voters residing in the school district may vote for
any candidates running, regardless of geographic location; (b) trustee area: only voters residing
in a specific geographic area within the school district may vote on certain candidates, who must
also reside in that specific geographic area; or (c) trustee area at large: all voters residing in the
school district may vote for any candidates running, but candidates must reside in specific
geographic areas within the school district. School boards typically consist of three, five, or
seven members and serve a 4-year term. No term limit is imposed on school board members in
California, but local boards may set term limits.
In California, more than 1,000 public school districts serve more than 6 million students,
governed by approximately 5,000 board members (CSBA, 2007). The school districts serve a
diverse population that ranges from 20 students in rural areas to as many as 700,000 students in
17
urban areas (CSBA, 2007). There are three distinct structures in California school districts:
elementary, high school, and unified school districts. Elementary districts consist of grades
kindergarten through 6 or 8, high school districts serve Grades 9 through 12, and unified districts
serve kindergarten through Grade 12. The operation of public schools in California makes it a
multi-million-dollar enterprise by consuming nearly 40% of the state’s budget, making it one of
the largest in the nation (CSBA, 2007).
School Board Roles and Responsibilities
The Tenth Amendment of Constitution states that “the powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people” (Legal Information Institute, n.d., Amendment X section, para. 1).
While this amendment does not clearly define any part of education, it leaves individual states
the responsibility to determine how to educate their citizens through local district school boards.
Historically, school boards perceived their role to be supportive in nature by approving
budgets and legal documents, making connections with the community, reviewing reports,
advocating for bond measures, and providing protection on political issues (Resnick, 1999).
School boards provide a voice to local citizens on how schools will educate their children. This
includes all segments of the community, such as business and civic leaders, parents, and
taxpayers. School boards provide citizens input on academic standards, character building,
college and career readiness, addressing cultural diversity, financial commitment and allocation
of resources, and the connection between school, family, and community life (Land, 2002;
Resnick, 1999).
Local school boards not only ensure compliance but also create education policy.
Because they are elected officials, there is accountability that does not equate to that of other
18
staff of the district. Resnick (1999) stated that there is a “dimension of broad stewardship to the
system that does not occur easily or sustain itself from those who work on a day-to-day basis
from within” (p. 13).
Local school boards must provide a public forum for the community to be heard, debate
on key issues, and take a governing vote. All of these elements combined create public
credibility, stewardship, and direction to the schools and local education. This transparency with
the community, stakeholders, and constituents ensures that local school boards are leading
education improvement (Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999).
Resnick (1999) identified responsibilities that define the range of duties for local school
boards signifying their importance and benefit. The responsibilities include the following:
• Determine the mission and vision of the school district.
• Hire and evaluate a superintendent to execute the educational program aligned to
goals, values, and vision of the community.
• Hold the school system accountable for the educational program, the responsible
use of public resources, a nurturing environment for children, and the school
system’s role in the greater community.
• Develop and approve the budget that is aligned to the educational goals and
priorities of the district and community.
• Advocate for the support of the community for tax increases to implement the
budget as well as pass bonds.
• Adopt policies to provide the community direction in the areas of the educational
program, community involvement, employee relations, and student rules.
• Provide opportunities for parents and the community to be heard.
19
• Establish communication with other publicly elected officials and agencies to
provide information and build relationships in the school system.
• Oversee and provide public accountability for the educational program and
compliance with fiscal and legal responsibilities, including state requirements. (p.
14)
The role of the school board is even more important as the role of the state has expanded
in terms of assessment, standards, and implementation criteria. Parents and the community
should not be caught between the local bureaucracy and the far-removed decision makers at the
state level. Through local school boards, parents and local community members have
representation in determining appropriate steps to exceed state standards, expand the educational
experience, and determine the appropriate resource mix (Resnick, 1999).
The nation’s governing body, NSBA, published The Key Work of School Boards Guide
Book (Gemberling et al., 2000), a framework for effective school boards. Gemberling et al.
(2000) stated that the school board’s main function is to improve student achievement through
community relations. The guidebook provides the framework of eight action steps for successful
school boards. This provides support and helps to focus the school board in its efforts to
understand and achieve the elements of its essential work. The eight key areas that successful
school boards must focus on our vision, standards, assessment, accountability, resource
alignment, climate, collaboration, and continuous improvement.
The CSBA (2018c) stated that the school board, as elected officials, governs public
schools as a governance team with one superintendent and each board member. CSBA has
identified five major governing responsibilities:
20
1. Setting the direction for public schools in the community. The governing school
board must develop a long term-vision for the school system. This vision is
reflective of the community as a whole including the board members,
superintendent, and district staff, to ensure the students’ highest potential.
2. Establishing an effective and efficient structure. The board must create and
maintain a system that supports the district’s vision and empowers the
professional staff. The board must: hire the superintendent and set policy for the
hiring of other personnel; oversee, develop, and adopt bylaws and policies;
approve adoptions for curriculum; establish budget priorities including the
adoption of a budget consistent with the Local Control and Accountability Plan;
and adopt collective bargaining agreements.
3. Providing support. The board must provide support to the superintendent and staff
to properly implement the vision by: conducting themselves in a professional
manner; provide resources that support common goals and priorities; upholding
the bylaws and policies; provide a positive climate; and be knowledgeable about
the district’s efforts and explain them to the public.
4. Ensuring accountability to the public. The school board represents the community
and is accountable to the public for the performance of the schools. The board
must establish a system to monitor results, evaluate the school system’s progress
toward accomplishing the district’s vision and communicate that progress to the
community.
5. Demonstrating community leadership. The board is responsible to speak on behalf
of the students, the educational program, and public education. They must also
21
involve the community in meaningful ways and communicate in a manner that is
easily understood about the district’s policies, educational programs, fiscal
condition, and progress on goals. (pp. 2–3)
The governing board, as elected officials, has a responsibility to the students, community,
and staff to ensure the success of the schools. They are community leaders who must be able to
speak on their schools’ progress toward the district’s goals. The governing board must act as one
to accomplish its roles and work closely with the superintendent to make decisions that will
serve all students (CSBA, 2018c; Gemberling et al., 2000; Resnick, 1999).
History of the Superintendent
In the past 150 years, the evolution of the local school district superintendent has
increasingly become more demanding, complex, and extensive. The evolution of the
superintendent dates back to the late 1830s, when public and free education was established
(Callahan, 1966; Kowalski, 2005). The need for the superintendent arose due to several factors.
The rapid growth of populations from native born citizens and immigrants created growth in the
number of children in public schools. From 1870 to 1898, the number of children in public
schools more than doubled from about 7 million to more than 15 million (Callahan, 1966). This
influx created problems in the infrastructure to support and educate everyone. Class sizes were
large, and sickness started to spread. Students were being physically abused and the local school
boards were unable to control the issues (Callahan, 1966).
It was apparent that there was a need for a top executive due to the development of larger
school districts, the consolidation of rural school districts, an expanded state curriculum,
attendance laws, increased accountability, and efficiency expectations (Kowalski, 2003).
Callahan (1966) defined the evolution into four stages: teacher-scholar, manager or business
22
executive, democratic leader, and applied social scientist. A later fifth stage emerged as
communicator, as explained by Kowalski (2003). The five conceptualizations provide a
separation to understand the framework and complexity of the superintendent; however, it is
nearly impossible to separate the roles, as they overlap because of the required skills for effective
practice (Kowalski, 2005).
Superintendent as Teacher-Scholar
Upon creation of the superintendent position, the primary responsibility was to
implement a state curriculum and supervise teachers. Kowalski (1999) stated that the common
school movement was created to help students to assimilate to American culture.
Superintendents were responsible to oversee the process of delivering a set of uniform subjects
and courses in a centralized and standard manner. After the Civil War, public elementary and
secondary schools developed normative standards, making superintendents to be viewed as
master teachers (Callahan, 1966). They were responsible to oversee instruction and publish
professional articles about philosophy, history, and pedagogy (Cuban, 1988; Spring, 1994).
During the late 1800s and early 1900s, superintendents continued to view themselves as
part of the teaching profession and were influential members of the National Education
Association. Management responsibilities of the schools were still functions of school board
members as the superintendents did not want to be viewed as managers or politicians (Kowalski,
2005). Callahan (1966) stated that superintendents remained in their role as professionals,
avoiding city officials who wanted to abuse their authority. Superintendents held to their roles as
professionals overseeing the educational program, not as political figures.
The establishment of the district superintendent as a teacher-scholar began to fade in
1910. Although the role as teacher-scholar never faded out completely, there was a shift in the
23
perception of the influence of the superintendent over educational outcomes. Kowalski (1999)
stated that the research is mixed about the influence that pulls from multiple sources. However,
Petersen and Barnett (2003) found that superintendents can influence the views of school board
members through their involvement and interest in the core curriculum. Björk (1993) found that
superintendents also had an indirect influence on instruction through the functions of staff
selection, principal supervision, and budgeting. Currently, superintendents can recommend
policy and develop rules that will make the educational program more productive (Kowalski,
2001).
Superintendent as Manager
By 1890, speculation arose about district superintendents’ ability to oversee large city
districts. As the country shifted into an industrial era, debates over the superintendent’s
managerial knowledge materialized as schools became larger and the demographics changed.
School board members and city elites shifted their attention to the superintendents and their
ability to incorporate managerial theories into school administration (Callahan, 1962; Kowalski,
2001). The transformation of the superintendent’s role led universities to incorporate courses and
degrees in school management. Glass (2003) stated that there was opposition to this
transformation: Superintendents would be viewed as more political figures, which would connect
them to government elites. This connection would then allow the government to seize control of
public education.
By the early 1900s, the primary role of school superintendent as manager emerged,
although there are mixed motives (Kowalski, 2001). The first tasks assumed were budget and
administration, standardization of operation, personnel management, and facility management
(Björk et al., 2014). By the 1930s, superintendents were criticized for the amount of power that
24
they were perceived to have attained and for the bureaucratic structure that patrons felt left out of
(Kowalski, 2003). Several decades later, educators and policymakers alike concluded that
effective superintendents needed to be both managers and instructional leaders (Kowalski, 1999).
Superintendent as Democratic Political Leader
The development of the superintendent as a political leader has always been embedded in
the work. Since 1923, one of the most significant challenges facing the superintendent was
gaining financial support from the public. Fierce competition for scarce resources grew between
the school system and other public agencies and it became necessary for superintendents to serve
as lobbyists and political strategists to secure financial resources for their schools (Björk et al.,
2014). Superintendents also had to engage communities and families to restore their beliefs in
democracy in the larger school districts that had adopted the scientific methods of governance
and management. Björk and Gurley (2005) stated that, since the 1930s, the issue was not
superintendents assuming the role of a politician but rather executing it.
Superintendent as Applied Social Scientist
The role of the superintendent as an applied social scientist emerged because of societal
and professional forces (Björk et al., 2014; Kowalski, 2005). Callahan (1966) identified four
factors that contributed to this but two emerged to be equally influential: “a growing
dissatisfaction with democratic leadership after World War II that ignored realities of practice . .
. the emergence of findings from social science research applicable to organizations including
public education” (Björk et al., 2014, p. 12).
Callahan (1966) noted that contributions from the Kellogg Foundation enabled professors
of school administration to conduct social science research, also known as the theory movement.
This was necessary as more criticism arose about public schools and their persistent failing of
25
schooling for the nation’s underclass and minority, suggesting that administrators failed to use
social science data for the purposes of schooling and learning.
Due to these criticisms that arose in the 1950s, superintendents were expected to have the
expertise necessary to research deficiencies and to recommend policy to fix them. In addition,
they needed to deal with the social and institutional ills such as poverty, racism, gender
discrimination, crime, and violence (Kowalski, 2005). With this expertise, superintendents could
apply scientific inquiry to identify and solve systemic issues in the educational institutions and
ensure socially just, democratic, and productive schools.
Superintendent as Communicator
In the mid-1950s, the nation began to emerge as an information-based society. This
required that superintendents become skillful communicators to support the use of technology in
learning, teaching, and administration (Björk et al., 2014). By the 1980s, working in solidarity
for administrators ended with a restructuring of the educational institutions. Administrators were
required to collaborate, reshape the organization, and distribute leadership. This required
stakeholder engagement to create change that was holistic and developmental. It was important
to consider how social systems come together and affect individuals on their behaviors, what
they learn, and how they learn (Björk et al., 2014; Kowalski, 2005; Schlechty, 1997).
A superintendent’s communication “is shaped by two conditions—the need to restructure
school cultures and the need to access and use information in a timely manner to identify and
solve problems of practice” (Björk et al., 2014, p. 13). A superintendent’s ability to communicate
over a range of platforms is crucial. The superintendent must communicate district priorities,
strategic planning, fundraising, and curricular decisions to the board, parents, community
members, and other citizens to engage and inform them effectively.
26
Effective School Boards and Superintendent Relationships
An effective school board is dependent on relationships with stakeholders. CSBA (2018c)
stated that the effectiveness of the board is directly dependent on the relationships that they
establish with each other, the superintendent, staff, and the public. Strong relationships affect the
board’s ability to come to consensus on the direction of the school system, support and speak
with credibility, and establish a positive climate that encourages the best from the staff. Each
elected member brings individual strengths and a unique leadership style but CSBA has
identified basic characteristics that effective board members have in common.
The Professional Governance Standards, developed with input from board members and
superintendents in California, are the fundamental principles of effective governance and
developed and acquired through experience. The standards have been adopted by hundreds of
districts and county boards throughout California to recognize the qualities of an effective
trustee. Effective qualities of a board member consist of eight characteristics: (a) primary focus
for all students is learning and achievement; (b) advocates for public education; (c) recognizes
and respects differences among all stakeholders’ perspective and style; (d) has dignity; (e)
understands and maintains confidentiality; (f) is active in professional development and commits
to being informed; (g) understands the distinctions between board and staff roles, and is able to
stay within the boundaries within their role; and (h) understands that the board is one and the
power and authority rests on the unity of the board (CSBA, 2017).
Similarly, Hanover Research (2014) and the Education Writers Association (EWA, 2003)
found that, in order for boards to be effective, they must establish meaningful, positive
relationships with their stakeholders. The EWA (2003) aligned with the CSBA’s (2018c) basic
characteristics of an effective board member. Effective school boards set clear beliefs, have a
27
plan to carry them out, and have a monitoring system. School boards must keep regulations to a
minimum and do their work through the superintendent. They must orient new school board
members and provide continuous learning opportunities for professional growth.
Strong ties between the community and school board members have consistently been
shown to make school boards effective (Hanover Research, 2014; Land, 2002). Dervarics and
O’Brien (2011) found that one of the eight characteristics that make a board effective is the
ability to establish and maintain healthy collaborative relationships with staff, community, and
students. These relationships should be engaging and informing to outside stakeholders in the
establishment and attainment of district goals.
Many of the qualities of effective governance are related to communication and
relationships (Goodman et al., 1997). Quality governance of a school board consists of a board
that collaborates and is united. There is a strong focus and clear vision on student achievement
and policy that provides access to all students. They do not micromanage and create structures
that allow for the superintendent to function as the CEO and instructional leader of the district.
School boards communicate effectively with the community and provide opportunities for input
at monthly board meetings. School boards must work together to become effective and develop
relationships to accomplish their tasks as one. There must be ongoing team building education
and development between the board and superintendent to create long-term service that impacts
the district in a positive manner.
Considered to be one of the board’s most important responsibilities is the hiring of the
superintendent and holding the superintendent accountable for managing the district with the
school board’s policies and state laws (Goodman et al., 1997; Land, 2002). It is important that
the board and superintendent create a trustworthy and credible relationship to sustain each
28
party’s longevity—a key characteristic of effective board governance. This trusting relationship
allows the superintendent to lead the district with support from the board.
It is crucial for the school board and superintendent to continually work on their
relationship for the success of the district. Danzberger (1992) reported a high turnover rate of
urban superintendents due to the lack of education and training to develop productive, positive,
and long-term relationships. Negative relationships contribute to the expected tenure of a
superintendent to last less than 3 years and declining in 1999 (Land, 2002). More recently, the
American Association of School Administrators (AASA; 2019) found that the average tenure for
a superintendent is 5 to 6 years. Negative relationships are characterized as excessive
information and work, excessive board involvement in administrative matters, lack of board
independence, and haste on the part of the superintendent to resolve issues (Carol et al., 1986).
Hanover Research (2014) identified five key principles for effective relationships between
school boards and superintendents. The responsibilities are as follows:
1. Clarify roles and expectations for board members and superintendent
2. Establish and implement a clear process for communication between board
members and administration.
3. Actively work to build trust and mutual respect between the board and
administrative team.
4. Evaluate the whole team.
5. Actively work on improved decision-making. (p. 5)
For a school board and superintendent to be effective, their relationship must be governed by
these five principles. It must be characterized by respect, trust, confidence, support, and open
communication.
29
Effective School Board Governance and Student Achievement
Traditionally, school boards have focused on financial, legal, and constituent issues,
leaving student academic performance for administrators and educators (Resnick, 1999).
Findings from effective school board governance reveal that effective school boards have a
common characteristic of focusing on student achievement (CSBA, 2018c; Gemberling et al.,
2000; Goodman et al., 1997; Land, 2002). School boards risk being scrutinized by community
members and stakeholders should they not develop policies to support the educational program
focused on students’ academic achievement. Land (2002) and Goodman et al. (1997) noted that
there is limited research to substantiate a link between school boards and student achievement.
Waters and Marzano (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of 27 studies to study the
influence of school district leaders on student achievement. Although the study focused primarily
on the superintendent and district leader staff, Waters and Marzano (2006) found a link between
district leadership and student achievement. They concluded that there are responsibilities that
have a positive correlation with average student academic achievement. Of these responsibilities,
the school board must be aligned and supportive of district goals. The board is supportive of the
nonnegotiable goals and ensures the primary focus; no other initiatives must interfere or draw
resources from accomplishing these goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Leadership Theories
Leadership, in any organization or capacity, is a role that consists of skills and innate
qualities to inspire and build capacity in others. Today’s leaders must develop strong
relationships, communicate a clear vision, and move an organization forward. Eicher (2005)
defined leadership as “the skills needed to motivate people to act based on the growth and
30
fulfillment of the mission of the organization” (p. 5). Eicher listed three components to the
definition: communicate organization direction, develop key relationships, and inspire others.
Leadership is not limited to this one definition. Northouse (2013) recorded eight
definitions dating back to the 1900s. Currently, leadership is defined as “a process whereby an
individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 5). Leadership has
four components: leadership is a process, leadership involves influence, leadership occurs in
groups, and leadership involves common goals. Leaders must work in all components to make an
organization successful.
Leaders in any capacity, whether the school board or the superintendent, must develop
relationships with their constituents. This is one component of Eicher’s (2005) leadership
definition. Collin (2001) described that a leader must be surrounded by the right people to move
a company forward; a leader must first be concerned with the who and not the what. It is
important for leaders to demonstrate the capacity to build and foster relationships with all
constituents and use influence to motivate and attract followers in order to move an organization
forward. Leaders must align with these principles of leadership to be effective leaders. Leaders
do not seek to accomplish a personal agenda but validate and seek those who align with their
values.
Expanding on this definition of leadership is Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frameworks
of leadership. Their goal is to have usable and practical knowledge drawing from the social
sciences, thousands of managers, and organizations to identify ideas that work in practice
(Bolman & Deal, 2017). The four major frames, used by practitioners and educators, are defined
as structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. The structural frame focuses on the
hierarchical and social structure of the organization by putting members in the right role and
31
allocating the proper responsibilities. The human resource frame draws on the power of
influence, focusing on investment into relationships and getting people to work through
commitment and motivation. The political frame focuses on individuals competing for scarce
resources and power; leaders must act as politicians, demonstrating skills of building networks,
negotiating, and making choices that are effective and ethical. The symbolic frame reflects the
culture and traditions of an organization through heroes, stories, humor, rituals, and ceremonies.
The Iowa Association of School Boards’ (IASB) Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000) is
yet another framework for school board and superintendent relations that have an impact on
student achievement. Their findings, serving as a guide to other school boards, reveal key
behaviors between high- and low-performing school districts. Rice et al. (2000) found that high-
performing schools had school boards/superintendent relationships that cared about children, had
peaceable relationships, had a board that was satisfied with the superintendent, recognized
tension about roles in a site-based system, served students in categorical programs (special
education, Title I, bilingual programs), and considered local backgrounds of board members and
staff. Rice et al. (2000) identified seven conditions for school renewal and change: (a) emphasis
on building a human organizational system, (b) ability to create and sustain initiatives, (c)
supportive workplace for staff, (d) staff development, (e) support for school sites through data
and information, (f) community involvement, and (g) integrated leadership.
The Lighthouse Inquiry pointed out three key characteristics that were absent in low-
performing districts. First, the board and superintendent viewed students as flexible; it is the
responsibility of the school to raise achievement by each individual. Second, the board
understood the seven conditions for change and were knowledgeable about topics related to the
educational program. Third, district office administrators, principals, and teachers confirmed that
32
the board understood that the seven conditions for change were connected to the work being
done at the school sites and in classrooms.
School Board Training
Research has shown that a key characteristic of effective school boards is that they
encourage and seek professional development (CSBA, 2018c; EWA, 2003; Land, 2002; Rice et
al., 2000). School districts must ensure that board members receive training in order to
understand their role of governance (Dillon, 2010). As board members receive training, they
understand the education system, their role, and how to work with others. Leading change is
complicated and multifaceted. Change in a board member requires a level of awareness of
educational reform and effective practices that occur in other school districts (Dillon, 2010).
Maricle (2014) stated that public opinion of school boards is favorable and people have
placed their trust in them. The general public believes that school boards have the most influence
on what is taught in schools over the state and federal government. Maricle (2014) stated that
research shows that school boards can raise student achievement. In schools with high
achievement, school board members placed focus on providing ongoing support for professional
development as means and willingness to learn.
Professional development for school board members is necessary to function as an
effective unit (Richter, 2013; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). According to Roberts and Sampson
(2011), professional development provides board members with skills and information and
behaviors needed to run a school district effectively. It will give them a level of competence and
performance demanded of adults and professionals. CSBA (2018c) has named these as key
components of effective board members, demonstrating the need for members to be trained and
to seek professional development. Training programs such as MIG equip school board members
33
with a governance framework from which to operate that focuses on the central works of school
boards. It is essential that school boards work as a unit through clearly defined roles and
responsibilities with strict focus on student achievement (Richter, 2013).
Masters in Governance Training
The CSBA offers superintendents and school board members their training program,
MIG. The program provides knowledge and skills to build and sustain an effective governance
structure (CSBA, 2018a). CSBA (2018a) stated that more than 2,000 board members and
superintendents have participated in the MIG, with a 90% approval rating; another 80% reported
that the program gave them the skills necessary to carry out their role and responsibilities
effectively. The training consists of five courses:
The first module, Foundations of Effective Governance and Setting Direction, has two
parts. Foundations sets the foundation for members and develops knowledge in roles and
responsibilities of the governance team. Setting Direction provides knowledge to create a vision
descriptive of the district’s focus, commitment, and beliefs. Trainees will learn to engage
stakeholders into the vision creation process and focus all efforts on student achievement.
In the second module, Policy and Judicial Review and Student Learning and
Achievement, trainees learn about the importance of effective policies and development of such
policies and develop an understanding of the board’s role in the judicial appeals process.
Trainees also learn that the focus of their work is on student learning and achievement and
creating support through policy. Trainees learn to set expectations for learning and using data to
support their decisions.
The third module, School Finance, develops knowledge in establishing budget priorities
and an appropriate process for budget development, adoption, and revision.
34
In the fourth module, Human Resources and Collective Bargaining, the role of the board
and the relationship with the superintendent are defined. Trainees learn their responsibility to
other staff, establish a framework for evaluations, and foster a culture of responsibility.
Collective bargaining provides knowledge about the collective bargaining process and the
board’s role in the process.
In the fifth module, Community Relations and Advocacy and Governance Integration,
communication, relations, and advocacy deepen understanding of applying leadership to
everyday situations. Trainees learn their role and responsibility as effective communicators,
working with media, managing crises, and building community support. Governance integration
explores the concepts of trusteeship and the governance team with the jobs of the board CSBA,
2018b).
The CSBA sets out to strengthen and promote school board governance. The organization
maintains that strong school boards are an essential element to high-quality education for every
student in every community (CSBA, 2018b). Through the training, CSBA promises to create
effective governance team members and build a strong governance team.
Chapter Summary
The history of leadership structures of the educational system reveals important themes in
the theories of leadership, preparation, and relationships of local school boards and
superintendents. Analysis of the literature reveals the complicated relationships between the
board and its one employee, the superintendent. These working relationships can prove to be
effective when both the board and superintendent exercise key essential elements. The CSBA
offers training for board members to improve the governance of local school boards by
35
deepening their knowledge in creating and communicating a vision, maintaining financial
stability, and improving student achievement.
36
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
School board members are faced with difficult decisions every day. Their job requires
them to make informed decisions based on data and to create policies that lead to greater student
achievement. They must be excellent communicators with each other and with the public. As
individuals, they must work as one unit with the superintendent to remove barriers and create a
culture of success. Board members often enter the job unprepared to take on the task of making
decisions related to personnel, curriculum, facilities, and budget (Campbell & Greene, 1994;
Land, 2002). No longer can board members rely on the guidance given to them by individuals
within their organization (Delagardelle, 2008). In order for school board members to be
effective, they must not have their own agendas but must work collaboratively as one. This
chapter describes the methodologies used to conduct the study: research design, research team,
sampling and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.
Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefits of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of the 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 Team and Research Questions
The research team consisted of 20 doctoral students under the direction of Dr. Michael
Escalante of the Rossier School of Education of the University of Southern California (USC).
37
The researchers came together in 2019 and met monthly to work collectively on research
instruments, data collection, sample populations, and completion of the study. Together, the team
created 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?
The team aligned the study design with the various theoretical frameworks from the
literature: Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four leadership frames, CSBA’s (2018a) role and functions
of school boards, and the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000). The team also used the
Northouse’s (2015) definition of leadership, as well as those by Eicher (2005) and Collin (2001),
to frame the study. Drawing on the work of these authors provided the researchers the theory and
context to examine the impact of the MIG training of the effectiveness of school boards.
Research Design
By using a qualitative approach, the researchers intended to add depth, detail, and nuance
to the research (Patton, 2002). The researchers gathered data using a set of questions that allowed
for responses to be analyzed and findings aggregated (Patton, 2002). In order to find meaning
and answers to the research questions, the researchers conducted surveys and interviews.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) defined qualitative research as having four characteristics:
(a) Research focuses on process, understanding and meaning; (b) the researcher becomes the
instrument of data collection; (c) the researcher creates understanding of a phenomenon during
research; and (d) the product is richly descriptive. The researchers, as instruments, sought to
38
“make sense out of data involves consolidating, reducing, and interpreting what people have
said” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 202). The design of the study required the researchers, as
instruments, to ask board members about their experiences and opinions of the MIG training.
Patton (2002) stated that a qualitative method supports a researcher by using a smaller
number of participants in detail. The researchers conducted in-depth surveys and interviews in a
meaningful way to develop understanding that would address the research questions. The
research was naturalistic and purposeful, as suggested by Patton (2002). The research was
conducted in real-world settings, using open-ended questions under conditions designed to make
the respondents comfortable and familiar (Patton, 2002).
In addition to seeking the board members’ opinions and experiences about the MIG
training, the researchers surveyed and interviewed superintendents about their perceptions of the
impact of MIG training. To gather the data, the research team developed survey and interview
protocols. Both were aligned to one or more of the research questions to gain insight into
leadership practices and governance. The surveys were sent to school board members and
superintendents with a cover letter (Appendix A) to introduce the study. Interviews were
scheduled and conducted after the surveys, utilizing Zoom™, a virtual conference platform, at
the convenience of board members and superintendents. The virtual conference arrangement was
necessary due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sample and Population
Sampling is purposeful and deliberate (Maxwell, 2013). Purposeful sampling was
important in this study because helped the researchers to “achieve representatives or typicality of
the settings, individuals, or activities selected” (Maxwell, 2008, p. 235). A small sample was
preferred with the expectation that it would lead to conclusions that represented the average
39
members of the population. The research team selected 62 school districts in 12 California
counties. The research team compiled a list of the school districts in the counties with the
number of schools and the contact information for the superintendent. The researchers contacted
the superintendents to verify that their school board members had completed at least three of the
five modules in the MIG training. School boards members and superintendents who met these
criteria were sent surveys (Appendices B and C).
Instrumentation
In order to conduct the study, the research team developed qualitative instruments. Both
the survey and interview (Appendices B through E) aligned with one or more of the research
questions. The researchers developed two surveys: one for school board members and one for the
superintendent. Each of the surveys consisted of 20 questions using a 4-point Likert-type scale
ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The board member survey questions focused
on the perceived impact of the MIG training on their role and effectiveness as a board member.
The superintendent survey aligned with the board member survey with the exception that the
superintendent survey asked about the observed behaviors of board members as a result of the
MIG training.
In addition to the survey, virtual interviews were conducted, via Zoom, with the
superintendent and at least three board members who had completed at least three of the five
training modules. The virtual interview arrangement was necessitated by the COVID-19
pandemic; researchers and participants needed to stay safe and follow the rules of social
distancing. The interview guides (Appendices D and E) consisted of 13 open-ended questions
designed to gain an in-depth perspective and opportunities to ask probing follow-up questions.
40
Validity and Reliability
According to Patton (2002), triangulation of data increases the validity of a study and is a
strategy to test validity by combining information from multiple sources. Patton (1999) defined
triangulation as the use of multiple methods of data sources to develop a comprehensive
understanding of phenomena. There are four types of triangulation: (a) method, (b) investigator,
(c) theory, and (d) data source. Method triangulation is described as multiple methods of
collection about the same phenomenon. This would include interviews, observations, and field
notes. Theory triangulation uses different theories to analyze and interpret data and can assist
researchers in supporting or refuting findings (Carter et al., 2014). For the purposes of this study,
the researchers triangulated data by using leadership theories described in the literature review,
surveying both school board members and superintendents, and conducting interviews with three
board members and their superintendents. The researchers sought to remain neutral during the
course of the study to increase the credibility of the study (Patton, 2002).
Data Collection
The research team collected data using the survey and interview instruments in spring
2020. The researchers sent the selected school districts that met the criteria a packet consisting of
a recruitment and information letter (Appendix A) to school board members and superintendent.
The recruitment letter described the study and procedures, offered confidentiality and anonymity
to participants, and requested informed consent. The researchers obtained written consent from
participants (Appendix F), according to the USC IRB; participation in the study was completely
voluntary.
Surveys were completed online. The researchers monitored surveys for completion and
return of consent forms. The consent form gave permission for researchers to follow up with
41
participants for a Zoom virtual interview at their convenience. Interviews were scheduled with
the superintendent and three board members. The interviews were recorded and transcribed using
a transcribing service.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed after the researchers had collected the completed surveys and
conducted the interviews, although Patton (2002) stated that analysis begins in the field. The
researchers explored answers and themes related to the three research questions. There are no
formulas to analyze qualitative data (Patton, 2002), so the researchers took extensive descriptive
notes during interviews. The researchers utilized probing questions and transitions to gain insight
into the participants’ responses.
Harding (2013) explained that priori codes are those categories or ideas that come, in
part, from the researcher’s past reading and experiences. Coding, labels attached to raw data, is
essential in the analysis of qualitative data. There are two types of coding: a priori and emergent.
A priori codes are developed before the study, whereas emergent codes are developed because of
an observation that needs to be labeled (Samkian, 2019). In the first stage of coding, researchers
are seeking understanding, searching for patterns and themes. The second stage is more focused
to develop categories to deepen and refine the themes discovered in the first stage. The
researchers continued to refine themes to move toward thematic concepts that were more abstract
from the discrete data (Samkian, 2019).
The researchers compiled data from interviews and surveys and utilized the Question
Alignment Matrix (Appendix G) to sort the data in relation to the research questions. The
researchers analyzed the data according to the three stages suggested by Lichtman (2013): (a)
initial/open coding, (b) focused coding, and (c) axial/thematic coding. Codes from the survey and
42
interview responses were compared by the researchers for increased validity. Finally, with coded
data that had been refined and triangulated, the researchers began to make assertions.
Ethical Considerations
To ensure ethical behaviors, all members of the research team completed and were
certified to conduct research on human subjects according to the USC IRB process. All
participants were informed of the study, were guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity, and
were given the option to withdraw from the study at any point without penalty. All research
members worked closely with the dissertation chair in the development of the instruments to
ensure fair and unbiased questions. Each research was aware of his or her position as a
subordinate when interviewing school board members and superintendents. This researcher’s
position as a site administrator was subordinate to that of some participants.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, the research methodology was outlined in detail regarding how the
researchers conducted the study. Following guidelines of the dissertation chair and USC’s IRB
process, the researchers developed three research questions and instruments to survey and
interview school board members and superintendents. The sampling and selection of districts
was purposeful for this qualitative study. The researchers collected, reviewed, and refined the
coded data to make their assertions.
43
Chapter Four: Research Results
Since their establishment in 1837 (Land, 2002), school Boards have seen an increase in
responsibility to ensure equitable access to education for all students. Governing bodies such as
the NSBA and CSBA advocate for equity and excellence through effective school board
governance (CSBA, 2007; NSBA, 2006). Previously, school boards perceived their role to be
supportive in nature by approving budgets and legal documents, making connections with the
community, reviewing reports, advocating for bond measures, and providing protection on
political issues (Resnick, 1999). While this is still true, school boards have the added
responsibility to ensure student academic success, assessment, standards, and policy (Land,
2002; Resnick, 1999).
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects performance indicators for
school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG training and its
implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit 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.
This chapter reports the findings from the qualitative study developed by the 20-member
research team. The researchers applied leadership theoretical frameworks and surveyed and
interviewed the participants. Each individual researcher was responsible for his or her respective
focus group. The findings are reported as themes related to the three research questions that
guided the researchers to determine whether CSBA’s MIG training program has a positive
impact on the effectiveness of the school board:
44
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Participants
The research team compiled a list of school districts in the following counties: Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. Due to the COVID-19
pandemic, some of the selected and confirmed districts were unable to participate. For this
reason, some of the researchers reached outside of the originally selected districts and included
Santa Barbara County and districts in northern California. Eventually, 62 districts participated in
the study. Participating districts met the criterion stated in Chapter Three: a majority of the board
had completed the MIG training. All 62 district superintendents were surveyed and interviewed.
Of the 186 board members who participated, 97% completed the survey and 95% were
interviewed. Table 1 summarizes the details of participation.
45
Table 1
Summary of Participation From 62 California School Districts
Participants
f
%
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses
62
100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses
180
97
Interviews 177 95
Each researcher was responsible to form a focus group of personnel from three districts
that met the criterion. This researcher formed a group from Apple, Paz, and Rainwater
(pseudonyms) school districts. To maintain confidentiality, pseudonyms were also used for
participants. The details of the focus group are presented in Table 2.
46
Table 2
Demographics of Focus Group Participating Districts
District Members Enrollment SED English Learners
Apple School District 3 28 42.0% 29.0%
Paz School District 5 7,388 33.0% 8.5%
Rainwater School District 5 5,082 42.0% 10.5%
Note. SED = socioeconomically disadvantaged.
Apple School District is the smallest of the three school districts, with 28 students and the
highest percentage of English learner (EL) students in the focus group. Two of the three board
members were in the process of completing the MIG training; permission was granted by the
dissertation chair to proceed with their participation. The superintendent and board members are
herein referred to as Superintendent Dr. Forevermore, Board Member Newton, and Board
Member Jackson.
Paz School District is the largest school in the focus group. The district has the lowest
number of ELs and socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) students. The three board members
were experienced and had served on the board for 5 or more years. The superintendent and the
board members are herein referred to as Superintendent Dr. Moore, Board Member Smiley,
Board Member Endurance, and Board Member Cook.
Rainwater School District is a medium-sized school district, with 42% SED students and
10.5% classified as ELs. Three of the board members had been trained and were experienced,
serving on the board for more than 5 years. The superintendent and the board members are
47
herein referred to as Superintendent Dr. Frameworks, Board Member Banks, Board Member
Minnie, and Board Member Sunshine.
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?” School board members are elected officials
representing their local areas and often have minimal training or experience (Delagardelle, 2008;
Land, 2002). Without experience and knowledge of the educational system, school board
members could make decisions that could result in a negative impact on their schools and the
district. School boards that actively seek professional development and are committed to learning
behaviors of effective governance teams have better results than those that do not do so
(Delagardelle, 2008). California does not mandate training nor are there any prerequisites for
election; therefore, it is important to know what will motivate board members to pursue training
after being elected.
Research Question 1 was designed to understand what motivates board members to
complete MIG training. Considering that the training is not mandated, it is important to
understand what drives a board member to seek professional development opportunities.
Analysis of data related to Research Question 1 revealed three themes: (a) external and intrinsic
motivation, (b) capacity building, and (c) accessibility.
Motivation: External and Intrinsic
Bolman and Deal (2017) stated that the human resource frame draws on the power of
influence to drive people to work through commitment and motivation. People whose basic
needs are met work better than those whose needs are not met. Leaders who value relationships
and feelings lead by empowering others. The participating superintendents used their leadership
48
to motivate board members to seek professional development and complete MIG training.
School board members were also motivated to complete the training to demonstrate the skills
necessary for effective governance. Through the human resource frame, leaders find ways to
adjust the organization to fit people or, as seen in the actions of these school board members,
they come to fit the organization through training and professional development.
Analysis of the data revealed that motivation is a key determinant of school board
member participation in the MIG training. Survey results from both superintendents and school
board members revealed that self-motivation was the primary driver for completing the MIG
training. Of the 62 superintendents, 59% said that self-motivation was the main factor; 73% of
the school board members agreed. Further results from the surveys reveal that self-motivation
was the number one response from both superintendents and school board members. Table 3
summarizes the results from this item.
Table 3
Primary Factors That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in Masters in
Governance (MIG) Training
Response Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
School board expectation 33 84
Self-motivation 37 133
Encouraged by board members 35 71
Increasing student achievement 9 53
Increasing effective government 31 128
Unable to determine 0 0
Other 3 10
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
49
The focus group of three superintendents and nine school board members similarly stated
that motivation was a key driver in their participation in the MIG training. Board Member
Newton, of Apple School District, was motivated to participate for personal gain. “I realized I
didn’t know anything. I didn’t know anything in education. . . . I looked to try to get some
information and then our superintendent told me about this. So, it was more for my information.”
Superintendent Dr. Forevermore stated that her board members were seeking professional
development. It was important to the board that they continue to grow.
MIG training would be one of the things that the board is seeking and that was highly
recommended for the board to go through due to a tough couple of years. . . . When I
came on board, one of the first things I did is . . . one-on-one meetings with each of the
individual board members. Each stated that they really wanted to complete the training.
Part of the external motivators that influenced school board members’ participation was
encouragement from other members and part of the expectations. As shown in Table 3, the
superintendents reported that encouragement (56%) and expectations (53%) motivated school
board members’ participation. School board members reported in the survey that encouragement
(39%) and expectations (47%) influenced their participation in the training. Although there is a
12% difference in how superintendents and school board members responded, these still account
for the highest factors, other than self-motivation, that influenced participation.
Capacity Building
Research has shown that a key characteristic of effective school boards is they encourage
and seek professional development (CSBA, 2017; EWA, 2003; Land, 2002; Rice et al., 2000).
School districts must ensure that board members receive training in order to understand their role
of governance (Dillon, 2010). Board members who receive training will better understand the
50
education system, their role, and how to work with others. Leading change is complicated and
multifaceted. Change by a board member requires a level of awareness of educational reform and
effective practices that occur in other school districts (Dillon, 2010).
Professional development for school board members is necessary so they can function as
an effective unit (Richter, 2013; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). According to Roberts and Sampson
(2011), professional development provides board members with skills and information and
behavior that is needed to run a school district effectively. Training will give them a level of
competence and performance demanded of adults and professionals. CSBA (2018a) has named
these as key components of effective board members, demonstrating the need for members to be
trained and seek professional development.
Analysis of the survey responses revealed that 55% of the superintendents and 59% of the
board members strongly agreed that participation in MIG is part of the school board culture.
According to Table 3, participants agreed that board members are well trained and equipped to
serve in their elected positions. School boards in California have set the standard that training is
an essential part of their role. Furthermore, Table 4 shows that 100% of the superintendents and
92% of the board members agreed that school board culture encourages participation. Table 4
summarizes results for the item school board culture encourages participation in MIG training.
51
Table 4
Responses to the Survey Item “Our School Board Culture Encourages Participation in the
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 34 55 107 59
Agree 28 45 60 33
Disagree 0 0 12 7
Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 1
The data revealed that 74% of superintendents and 64% school board members agreed
that the MIG training should be encouraged. Not only were school board members motivated and
influenced to seek training; they specifically encouraged MIG as part of district policy. This also
suggests that both superintendents and school board members found MIG training to be valuable,
as summarized in Table 5.
52
Table 5
Responses to the Survey Item, “Masters in Governance Training Should Be Encouraged for
School Governance Teams by the Local District Policy”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 46 74 116 64
Agree 16 26 53 29
Disagree 0 0 11 6
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
Interviews with superintendents and board members supported the survey results that
professional development is essential and encouraged. All three of the superintendents stated that
they would be in favor of mandating training. Dr. Moore, Superintendent of Paz School District,
stated,
Professional development for everybody is really important. . . . Professional
development is kinda what we do right? . . . You can’t get to the teaching and learning if
you’re not providing the supports. I also believe that you don’t ask those under you to do
things you wouldn’t be willing to do.
Professional development was important to continue the education of the board and to
model expected behaviors. Dr. Moore added, “We really kind of committed to ongoing
professional development for the board individually as a group and then as a team of six because
it really is kind of what we do in schooling.”
53
Superintendents understood that professional development is important and often comes
from within. Because there is value in educating and training new and veteran board members,
training is taken on personally from the superintendent or from the county office of education.
Dr. Moore added, “If it’s such an important role, and it is, why isn’t there training? So, really
long answer to say absolutely. There needs to be training. I think there should be a certificate.”
Superintendent Dr. Frameworks agreed that training should be mandated:
I think that’s a really good idea. I think having everyone, having a baseline of knowledge
to work from and knowing that they have the information on things such as the Brown
Act and policy and what their role is, is a positive.
Baseline knowledge gives every board member the foundational knowledge and
vocabulary to contribute effectively and to understand their role. Dr. Frameworks mentioned the
important of understanding the Brown Act, something that a new board member might not know
about. Based on the literature review, new board members have little to no experience or
knowledge of what their role will entail. It is important, as Dr. Forevermore suggested, to
establish baseline knowledge.
Superintendent Dr. Forevermore stated that training is important and should be mandated.
“The word mandate sounds pretty strong, but I just think it’s critical and we probably would
have less issues, higher levels and lower levels with it. I think it affects morale.” Dr.
Forevermore contended that, with mandated training, board members will thrive in a healthier
environment. With consistent and ongoing training, an environment is created that puts students
first.
I’ve seen the difference between a healthy organization and an unhealthy organization.
And I think the healthy organizations are ones who have gone through effective
54
governance training. And as I’ve said before, operators are high functioning team,
because they’re clear on their roles and responsibility, they have their core values, they
understand the goals of the organization and all the decisions are centered on the
students.
Board members also stated that training should be part of their duties. Board Member
Endurance of Paz School District stated, “MIG [training] should be mandated. Our district does a
good job of sending us to county meetings and the annual conference. We also receive training
from good superintendents.” Board Member Smiley of Paz School district agreed that training
should be mandated but noted, “It does not necessarily need to be MIG.” Board members value
and seek training opportunities that are ongoing and a part of their school board culture.
Survey data revealed that 65% of superintendents and 41% of board members strongly
agreed that MIG training should be mandated in California. The majority of board members and
superintendents agreed that professional development is important; the survey and interview data
indicated that they agreed that the training should be MIG. Some stated that it does not need to
MIG and about 21% of board members stated that MIG should not be mandated. Table 6
summarizes how superintendents and board members responded to the item of mandating MIG
training in California.
55
Table 6
Responses to the Survey Item, “The Masters in Governance Training Should Be Mandated in
California”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 50 65 73 41
Agree 17 27 65 36
Disagree 5 8 37 21
Strongly Disagree 0 0 5 3
Accessibility
Access to MIG training emerged as a key theme about school board member
participation. Location, frequency, and cost were key factors in the decision-making process,
location being the primary determinant. Interviews with members of the focus group supported
the claim that location was a primary factor in school board members participation. Board
member Sunshine of Rainwater School District stated that,
it’s far away. You have a lot of schools in the [Central] Valley [and] most of your
trainings have been in the major cities like Sacramento, San Diego. But if you could hold
those in areas that are of closer proximity, I think that there will be more people utilizing
it.
Board Member Banks, also of Rainwater School District, stated that adding locations for
training would improve accessibility of MIG training. “Location. More locations need to be
56
added to make it more accessible and adding review classes for those of us that have already
completed the training.”
Board Member Jackson also stated that location would improve accessibility to MIG
training. The location and frequency of meetings make it very difficult and costly for board
members to participate. Board Member Jackson stated,
Location. I did look into MIG training long time ago or I get the emails about it [but]
they’re always either San Diego or San Francisco. For us, that’s like a 5-hour drive in
either direction. So, I think location or having it, now that we do everything on Zoom,
having it be available remotely would be great.
It was agreed that offering the training on Zoom would increase accessibility. Zoom, an
online/virtual platform, would eliminate the need for travel and allow participants to engage
remotely. Board Member Cook stated that the only limitation with online training is the ability to
collaborate with board members from other districts.
Board Member Banks confirmed that going to MIG in person was beneficial because of
the networking. In-person training afforded the opportunity to learn from others:
Getting some ideas from other people and within the curriculum that we learned at MIG
on how you can do things certain ways. By hearing different ideas from other districts,
some of them were using experts on different methods of teaching or related to core
[subjects].
In the interview, Board Member Smiley confirmed that the networking created by
attending in person training was very helpful in the learning process. Hearing from board
members from other districts about how they handle certain situations created a positive impact
57
and the ability to call on them if they needed additional assistance. Board Member Smiley stated
that,
it created a little bit of collaboration with other board members. . . . I feel comfortable
reaching out to another board member. Not necessarily sharing everything but being able
to give them a little bit of vibe of what’s going on. To be able to have that ability to call
on someone when needed, to get a different perspective is something you can only get in
person.
The CSBA (2018a) reported that MIG training is offered throughout the year in
California. MIG training provides the knowledge and skills to build and sustain an effective
governance structure. More than 2,000 board members and superintendents have participated in
the MIG program, garnering a 90% approval rating; 80% reported that the program gave them
the skills necessary to carry out their role and responsibilities (CSBA, 2018a).
Analysis of survey results from both superintendents (73%) and board members (69%)
confirmed that more locations would increase participation in MIG training. The hybrid model, a
blend of in-person and online learning, was favorable among 58% of board members and 47% of
superintendents. Although this option was second to locally hosted training sessions, there is still
a considerable difference between the two options. Table 7 summarizes the responses for
increasing participation in MIG training via different platforms.
58
Table 7
Responses to the Survey Item, “What Platform(s) of the Masters in Governance Training
Program Would Increase the Chances of Participation?”
Response Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Online 14 54
Hybrid 29 105
Locally hosted 45 125
Other 2 4
Note. Some participants contributed mor than one answer.
As shown in Table 8, 56% of superintendents and 49% of school board members
disagreed that cost is an issue for school districts. Most districts cover the cost of the training and
have budgets to do so. Removing the cost to school board members increases the likelihood that
they will participate in training. Table 8 summarizes the details of participation and cost.
59
Table 8
Responses to the Survey Item, “The Current Cost of the Masters in Governance Training
Program Impedes School Board Members From Participating”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 3 5 14 8
Agree 11 18 62 34
Disagree 35 56 89 49
Strongly Disagree 13 21 15 8
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
Using the theoretical frameworks, data from surveys and interviews indicated that
participation in MIG training is driven mostly by school board members’ personal desire to
learn. They are self-motivated, seeking knowledge and skills to represent their community while
being part of an effective governance team. Board members reported that they were part of a
culture where it is expected to participate in MIG training. Influence from other board members
and the superintendent contributed to their participation in MIG training. This culture of learning
created by motivated people and influence from the board and superintendent are especially
nurtured when training is local or light on traveling.
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “How does the MIG training program encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?” The MIG
training consists of five courses that afford knowledge and skills necessary to be an effective
60
member of a governance team. The five courses are Foundations of Effective Governance,
Policy and Judicial Review, School Finance, Human Resources, and Community Relations and
Advocacy. The CSBA goal is to strengthen and promote school board governance throughout
California. They contend that strong school boards are an essential element of high-quality
education for every student in every community (CSBA, 2018b). Through the MIG training, they
promise to create effective governance team members and build a strong governance team.
Analysis of data related to Research Question 2 revealed three themes: (a) clarity of roles
and responsibilities, (b) relationships with fellow board members and the superintendent, and (c)
unity in the board through a clear vision.
Clarity: Roles and Responsibilities
Having clearly defined roles and responsibilities for school board members has been
shown to produce effective governance teams (Danzberger, 1992; Gemberling et al., 2000; Land,
2002; Resnick, 1999). The first MIG course, Foundations of Effective Governance, is dedicated
to developing knowledge about roles and responsibilities of each team member. This course is
only the prerequisite to subsequent courses because it is the foundation to understanding the
work of the individual board member and how to operate as part of a governance team. Hanover
Research (2014) and CSBA (2017) stated that the most effective governance teams operate as
they do because they understand their roles and operate within those parameters.
The IASB Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000) is a framework for school board-
superintendent relations, effective governance teams, and successful educational systems. Their
findings, serving as a guide to other school boards, identified key behaviors that distinguish
between high- and low-performing school districts. The Lighthouse Inquiry pointed out three key
characteristics that were absent in low-performing districts. An analysis of these three
61
characteristics revealed that board members clearly understood their roles and responsibilities,
and each was held accountable by the governance team.
Analysis of the survey responses by school board members showed that 65% strongly
agreed and 30% agreed that the MIG training clarified differences between their role and that of
the superintendent. This understanding, as research has shown, is the foundation for effective
governance teams. Table 9 summarizes board members’ responses regarding the clarity of roles
and responsibilities that came from MIG training.
Table 9
School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “The Masters in Governance Training
Clarified the Differences Between My Roles and Responsibilities as a School Board Member and
Those of the Superintendent”
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 117 65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly Disagree 1 1
62
Superintendents share the responsibility to understand differences between their role and
that of the board members. Forty percent of the superintendents strongly agreed and 56% agreed
that MIG training helped school board members to understand their role. Together, 96% of the
superintendents agreed that school board members who are MIG trained exhibit a clear
understanding of their roles and the role of the superintendent (Table 10).
Table 10
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “School Board Members Who Are Masters in
Governance Trained Exhibit a Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles
and Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent”
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 1 2
63
Interviews with the focus group revealed that board members and superintendents agreed
that they work better as a team and each understands his role and responsibilities. Board Member
Endurance stated that, because of the MIG training, “Board members and superintendents know
their roles.” Board Member Endurance stated that the most important course was Foundations of
Effective Governance:
This is the course that I reference back to the most when I feel lost or overwhelmed. This
course laid the foundation for all of us that attended together. It was because of this
course I came to know my role as a board member.
Board Member Cook of Paz School District agreed that the foundations course was the
most important. The experience as a board member and knowledge of the MIG courses provided
a deep explanation of the importance of the course:
The foundational piece, the one where we come in and start doing it the right way . . . . If
you don’t do that one and thoroughly understand your role, I think the rest of it doesn’t
matter because we all come in with our basic [knowledge], I’m a curriculum person, I’m
a HR person, I’m a finance person . . . . if you don’t understand your role individually as
a member of a team, your relationship to your superintendent and that A team and your
role in the community, it’s not going to make any difference. That foundation piece,
which is why we always do it first, you have to take that one first before you can
[continue].
Board Member Banks stated that MIG participants understood that having their own
agenda would serve them no good. MIG training clarified their role and provided parameters
within which to work. Board Member Banks stated that, when an individual runs for a school
board position, false promises are made to get elected. When the newly elected board member
64
attends training, they realize that they have no power to carry out those promises because the
collective efficacy and agreement by the governance team lead to decisions. Board Member
Banks reported that the role play activity was very effective in training new board members:
They [MIG] role play to deepen that understanding and put everything into perspective.
A lot of people come in with expectations, they make promises to come onto the board,
not realizing that they don’t have any power, or it doesn’t even pertain to their position.
So, they really do a great job of laying that out, of giving examples, role-playing previous
situations. And a lot of the training is done by superintendents, they have real life
experience examples that they can share. That happened a lot. So, I think that that’s
what’s really effective about it.
Superintendents also reported that the MIG contributed to board members exhibiting
more effective behaviors because they understood their role. Superintendent Dr. Frameworks
stated that the first course, Foundations in Governance, was the most important because it
provided clarity to the role of a board member: “I would say Foundations . . . defines the role of
a board member and really helps them structure how they’re going to approach problems, how
they’re going to approach meetings, the importance of working together.” Dr. Frameworks
identified key components of a board member’s role, such as working together and structuring
problems and meetings. When board members demonstrate and understand components of their
role, they are more effective members of the governance team.
Superintendent Dr. Forevermore found that a superintendent’s job is much more
enjoyable when board members are invested and passionate about their role. The governance
team communicates better and is more focused on students because of the training.
65
Right now, I feel like I’m flying on the moon because I feel like we’re all hooked into
this [MIG training], and this is important for us. I’m invested in that school community.
Right now, I have no desire to ever quit my profession and I never did before, but
because how much passion there is with them, I have to say that is a main factor. They
believe, I believe, and we want to be a team and we want to function successfully with
good communication, good norms, good protocols, and a clear understanding of roles and
responsibilities.
According to Superintendent Dr. Moore, board members are able to govern better
because of MIG training. Dr. Moore recalled when a new board member was elected and was
encouraged to complete the MIG training. “For the newest board member, it really assisted them.
It saved all the cabinet members’ lives, I think, including mine.” Dr. Moore found that MIG
shifted the perspective of the new board member from community member and parent to board
member, part of a governance team. There was a distinct shift in the board member after the
foundations course led to understanding the role of a board member.
Going through the training really took a step back and for two reasons. One, attending,
especially the first module. But two, going to training with other newer board members in
other districts in other even counties provided perspective. Partially it was the content.
But actually, more than anything, it was the perspective. [Training] actually provided us
more bang for our buck in that going to see what’s happening across the state and
listening to other board members and then making comparisons.
Dr. Moore noted that MIG training is continually referenced when the board struggles to move
forward. Without the foundation set by MIG, the job of the superintendent would be more
difficult.
66
Analysis of the survey data supported that the Foundations in Governance module is the
most important module. Of the 180 board members who were surveyed, 65% stated that the
Foundations course was the most important course. Participants understood the relevance and
importance of a solid understanding of their role to be an effective member as part of a larger
governance team. Table 11 shows the rankings of the MIG courses by school board members.
Table 11
School Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in Order of
Importance to Their Role as a Member 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 67
Community Relations 8 17 33 50 72
67
Relationships and Teamwork
The Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000) found that high-performing schools have
school board-superintendent relationships that care about children, have peaceful relationships,
are satisfied with the superintendent, and have tension about roles in a site-based system with
students in categorical programs (special education, Title I, bilingual programs), and local
backgrounds of board members and staff (Rice et al., 2000). It is important that the board and
superintendent create a trustworthy and credible relationship to sustain their tenure, a key
characteristic of effective board governance. This trusting relationship allows the superintendent
to lead the district with support from the board.
Many of the qualities of effective governance are related to communication and
relationships (Goodman et. al., 1997). Quality governance of a school board comes from a board.
In fact, 55% of the superintendents agreed that board members seek to establish relationships
with the community. More important, superintendents found that board members utilize a variety
of methods to communicate with and represent their local areas. The MIG training has properly
equipped board members to be effective communicators while establishing relationships with
their communities, as shown in Table 12.
68
Table 12
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “School Board Members Who Are Masters in
Governance Certified Actively Engage the Community and Utilize a Variety of Communication
Methods
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 15 24
Agree 34 55
Disagree 13 21
Strongly Agree 0 0
Quality governance by a school board requires a board that collaborates and is united.
Members do not micromanage but create structures that allow the superintendent to function as
the chief executive officer and instructional leader of the district. School boards must work to
become effective and develop relationships to accomplish their tasks. There must be ongoing
team building, education, and development between board and superintendent to create long-
term service that benefits the district.
Analysis of the survey data indicated that board members who completed MIG training
respected input by fellow board members, even when it did not align with their own view. On
this item, 43% of board members strongly agreed that, because of MIG training, they were able
to accept the majority decision even when it did not align with their own. Board members who
mutually respect each other exhibit the professional behaviors that are needed to function as a
cohesive team. Table 13 summarizes the results of survey responses for this item.
69
Table 13
School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “As a Result of the Masters in
Governance Training, My Ability to Constructively Accept the Majority Decision, Even If I Hold
the Minority View, Has Improved”
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 78 43
Agree 75 42
Disagree 26 14
Strongly Disagree 1 1
Further analysis of the surveys revealed that 68% of the superintendents agreed that MIG
training enhanced school board members’ ability to accept a decision that might not reflect their
own. Again, the relationship of board members must consist of trust and respect to achieve
minimal conflict and the majority decision is for the greater good. From the superintendents’
perspective, board members form an effective team even when individual views do not align
(Table 14).
70
Table 14
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “The Masters in Governance Training Has
Improved School Board Members’ Ability to Accept the Majority Decision, Even When They
Hold the Minority View”
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 17 27
Agree 40 68
Disagree 3 5
Strongly Agree 0 0
Analysis of the interviews indicated that both board members and superintendents found
that, because of the MIG training, the governance team worked more closely with an aligned
vision. The focus group reported that the collaborative process was stronger because of the MIG
training. This is also consistent with the majority of interviews. Board members stated that
meetings were more efficient, and superintendents served longer terms. Board Member Smiley
stated that,
it helps when you all have the same training, and the superintendent helps with annual
retreat. It only helps when you stick to what you have learned. . . . Since I have joined the
board, meetings are faster and more efficient, and the superintendents have longer terms.
Board Member Cook reported that there was trust among members of the governance
team as a result of the MIG training. The team worked together even when their views did not
align. The collaborative process, as a result of the MIG training, has led to more focused
conversations to produce aligned and mutually agreed on outcomes. Board Member Cook stated,
71
The point . . . is if you can get in there early and develop infrastructure and the
foundation for how you view your job, then anything that rolls your way over the many
superintendents . . . you know you’re going to come out because you trust that the
process is solid and how you deliberate is solid, so that even if things go wrong, you’ll be
okay.
In an interview with Board Member Banks, relationships were identified as the core of
the board. The governance team learned to respect and trust each other, which contributed to
their success. Relationships are transparent, leading to honest conversations. Board Member
Banks stated that members may not agree on everything, but they are able to move forward:
We could talk together to the other two and to get them to understand where we were
coming from. But I think one thing’s good about our board is we all appreciate all of our
viewpoints and we all respect each other. We all, I would say, get along. We all work
together as a group within I think we’re all very friendly and personable with each other.
We talk candidly and outside of the board have relationships too. Some of the people I’ve
know from before as well throughout the community that I have that relationship. But a
lot of boards, I think you don’t have this type of a relationship between the five people
here there’s all kinds of stories.
All three superintendents in the focus group responded similarly. The MIG training had
helped to build a governance team that was united and focused. The superintendents reported
that they had witnessed very tough conversations in which views differed, but members were
still able to make a united decision and remain a cohesive team. Dr. Frameworks, Superintendent
of Rainwater school District, stated,
72
The three board members that participated are operating as a very cohesive team now. I
think going through the process helped them bond with each other and get to know each
other and get to know each other’s strengths. And also, just each other as people and
going through the process itself was a bonding experience and helped them become much
more collaborative.
In an interview, Dr. Forevermore said that relationships are about taking care of each
other during difficult times. The MIG training assisted in creating a bond for the board,
especially because they completed the training together. In a small school district with only 28
students, relationships are at the heart of everything that they do. In a small town, where
everyone knows everyone, it is crucial that one team represent the district. Dr. Forevermore
stated, “So it’s this built in, that, ‘Hey, we got to take care of each other.’ But I know how
important it is for me to make sure that those relationships are open and honest and transparent.”
Superintendents and school board members have found that relationships are at the core
of their governance team. The MIG training has helped to solidify the bonds of the governance
team to allow them to get accomplish difficult tasks. Relationships that are transparent and
honest lead to authentic conversations that are focused on students.
Board Unity: Vision
Effective governance teams must work from a unified vision (CSBA, 2018b; Gemberling
et al., 2000; Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999). Gemberling et al. (2000), Land (2002), and Resnick
(1999) stated that the number one priority of the governance team is to establish the mission and
vision of the school community. CSBA (2018c) stated that one of the five major responsibilities
of the school board is to set the direction of the district. The school board must develop a long-
term vision for the school system. This vision is reflective of the community as a whole,
73
including board members, superintendent, and district staff, to ensure that students reach their
highest potential.
Analysis of the data from the surveys indicated that both superintendents and school
board members understood the importance of aligning the decision-making process with the
district’s vision and goals. Of the 180 board members who were interviewed, 58% strongly
agreed and 37% agreed that the decision-making process must align with the district’s vision
and goals. Research from the literature and survey data from the school board members revealed
that all work and decisions revolve around a unified vision. Table 15 summarizes the responses
from school board members regarding the importance of the decision-making process being
aligned to the district’s vision and goals.
Table 15
School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “As a Result of the Masters in
Governance Training, I Understand the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process
With the District’s Vision and Goals”
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 104 58
Agree 62 34
Disagree 13 7
Strongly Disagree 1 1
74
Analysis of the data indicated that, of the 62 superintendents surveyed, 50% strongly
agreed and 48% agreed that the MIG training helped school board members to understand the
importance of aligning the decision-making process to the district’s vision and goals. As a result,
superintendents have confidence in knowing that, when important decisions are presented to the
board for vote, they must be relevant and aligned to the district’s vision. Table 16 summarizes
the results of the superintendents’ responses regarding their perspective of school board
members’ understanding of the decision-making process as aligned to the district’s vision and
goals.
Table 16
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “School Board Members Who Are Masters in
Governance Trained Understand the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process to the
District’s Vision and Goals”
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 31 50
Agree 30 48
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 0 0
75
To maintain cohesiveness in the governance team, it is important for superintendents and
board members to attend training together. Of the school board members, 29% strongly agreed
and 37% agreed that it is important to attend the training with their superintendent. Of the
superintendents, 61% strongly agreed on the importance of attending training together. Although
there is a difference in those sets of responses, the overall majority agreed on the importance of
building a strong governance team that is united in a vision for student success. Survey data
shown in Tables 17 and 18 summarize the responses to this item from school board members and
superintendents.
Table 17
School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “It Is Important to Attend Masters in
Governance Training With Your Superintendent”
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 53 29
Agree 67 37
Disagree 53 29
Strongly Disagree 7 4
76
Table 18
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “It Is Important to Attend Masters in
Governance Training With Your School Board Members
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 38 61
Agree 19 31
Disagree 5 8
Strongly Agree 0 0
Interviews with the focus group members indicated that both superintendents and board
members agree that a more cohesive team with an agreed-on vision resulted from attending the
MIG training. The superintendents reported that school board members understood the strength
in a district vision. They found that the decision-making process was easier, more focused, and
united when the district vision is in place. Superintendent Dr. Forevermore of Apple School
District stated,
You got to have the mission, the vision, your core values, your guiding principles. . . .
And that’s what I see the MIG gives a governance team the opportunity, because when
that board member steps down and the next board member walks in, they know this is an
operating team and that’s the way it worked when I left my schools.
Dr. Forevermore stated that the work of the board starts with the creation of a unified vision.
Much of the board’s work must go back to district vision, which eliminates personal feelings or
agendas. Dr. Forevermore found that the board must work hard and set aside personal feelings to
develop an aligned vision. “A board really whittle downs their vision and the importance of
77
setting a vision for the school district and also the importance of having resources, supporting
that vision.”
School board members agreed that the MIG training strengthened their understanding of
aligning the decision-making process with the district’s vision. They found that, as a result, the
governance team had become more united even when they did not necessarily agree on every
item. Board Member Newton of Apple School District stated,
We’re going to have goals and be ready for the rest of this year, which has been so
strange to begin with. But I think having just sort of a game plan and having us all on the
same page, I think that is going to be important.
Several school board members in the focus group stated that it is especially important to
be united and have a common district vision due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They described the
strong pressure that they face and agreed that, without the MIG training to align their decision to
the district vision, they would crumble. Board Member Minnie of Rainwater School District
stated, “I think that we just came out focused and we were more of a unit, like I said before. It
built a confidence that our board has to go forward and then understanding, a unity.” This claim
was consistent among board members. All board members valued being united because it made
them an effective governance team. Board Member Banks stated,
I think one thing’s good about our board is we all appreciate all of our viewpoints and we
all respect each other. We all, I would say, get along. We all work together as a group
within I think we’re all very friendly and personable with each other.
The MIG training has provided school board members the skills to be effective in the
most challenging of times. Vision emerged as a common theme from superintendents and school
board members. MIG training provided governance teams and individuals the foundational
78
knowledge to work from an aligned vision. When teams work from the vision, they remain
united and eliminate personal agendas so they can focus on students.
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
Data from the literature review, surveys, and interviews suggest that school board
members who attend MIG training are equipped with behaviors that make them part of an
effective governance team. School board members who attended the training exhibit such
behaviors as understanding their role and responsibilities, develop a professional and collegial
relationship with fellow board members and superintendent, and seek unity through a clear
vision. Superintendents have observed board members working in unison while not crossing
paths with the superintendent. Each board member exhibits a clear understanding of their role as
part of the governance team and shows respect when there is a difference of opinion to move
forward and remain a cohesive unit.
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth?” Although the body of research is limited on the impact of board member training,
specifically MIG, on student achievement and growth, Research Question 3 was developed to
measure its impact. The Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000) pointed out three key
characteristics that were absent in low-performing districts. The first characteristics is the
responsibility of the school to raise achievement by each student. It is the responsibility of the
board to understand this and the seven conditions for change without the board directly making
decisions to impact student achievement.
Research has shown that effective school boards encourage and seek professional
development (CSBA, 2017; EWA, 2003; Land, 2002; Rice et al., 2000). When board members
79
receive training, they understand the education system, their role, and how to work with others.
Of the five MIG training modules of the MIG training, the first two are the only ones that
reference student achievement. By completing all five MIG courses, participants will improve
governance by deepening their knowledge in creating and communicating a vision, maintaining
financial stability, and improving student achievement.
Research Question 3 was developed to understand the impact, if any, of the MIG training
on student achievement. Analysis of the theoretical framework, surveys, and interviews revealed
two themes: (a) an indirect impact on student achievement through the decision-making process
and contributions, and (b) the correlation between MIG training and student achievement.
Indirect Impact: Decision Making Process and Contributions
Waters and Marzano (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of 27 studies to examine the
influence of school district leaders on student achievement. Although the study focused primarily
on the superintendent and district leader staff, Waters and Marzano (2006) found a link between
district leadership and student achievement. They identified responsibilities with a positive
correlation with average student academic achievement. Of these responsibilities, the school
board must be aligned and supportive of district goals. Effective boards are supportive of the
nonnegotiable goals and ensure that those goals remain the primary focus; no other initiatives
must interfere or draw resources from accomplishing these goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Analysis of the survey data indicated that both superintendents and board members
agreed that the MIG training put a focus on student achievement. About 51% of board members
agreed that, because of the MIG training, their focus was primarily on student achievement.
Although the focus was there, neither board members nor superintendents could specify any
correlation to an increase in student achievement. An indirect impact stemmed from the decision-
80
making process, as seen in the results for Research Question 2. Research supports the claim that
school board members must be aligned and supportive of district goals, leaving the school sites
the responsibility of increasing student achievement (Rice et al., 2000; Waters & Marzano,
2006). Table 19 summarizes the responses by school board members regarding a focus on
student achievement.
Table 19
School Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “As a Result of the Masters in
Governance Training, My Focus Is on Achievement”
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 49 27
Agree 91 51
Disagree 39 22
Strongly Disagree 1 1
81
Also, 71% of the superintendents agreed that board members had an increased focus on
student achievement as a result of completing the MIG training. Knowing that decisions are
aligned to the district goals, as seen in Research Question 2, it is important for a superintendent
to know that the focus is also on student achievement. This results in more effective
conversations and better contributions from board members. As shown in Table 20, about 48%
of superintendents and 58% of school board members strongly agreed that MIG training
encourages governance teams to contribute to the effectiveness of school board meetings.
Table 20
Responses to the Survey Item, “The Masters in Governance Training Encourages School
Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of Our School Board Meetings”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 30 48 104 58
Agree 30 48 72 40
Disagree 2 3 4 2
Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0
82
The focus group gave mixed responses when asked about student achievement. Some did
not see any impact at all, some found an impact but could not correlate it to the training, and
some reported that there is an impact. In the Paz School District, two board members stated that
there is no impact on student achievement as a result of attending the MIG training. Board
Member Smiley stated, “It’s hard to say. I would need staff to show us data to compare. I know
our student scores keep going up, but not sure if I could confidently say there’s a direct
connection to Masters in Governance.”
It was difficult for school board members to articulate how the MIG training affected
student achievement. Board Member Sunshine commented,
Once we graduated, we made it the focal point of our meetings, student achievement.
One of the very first things in the meeting after closed session, we would come back and
we would have the kids perform. So, we made that the focal of our meeting. And I think
that that probably is it.
The other two board members responded similarly, stating that student achievement was on the
agenda.
Similarly, superintendents in the focus group found it difficult to answer questions about
the impact of MIG training on student achievement. It was often referred back to board members
understanding their role and responsibilities and having a clear vision. Dr. Frameworks stated,
“It’s that bigger picture view of the overall student achievement and being able to put resources
behind it, instead of just focusing on one or two elements of it.” Dr. Moore stated that their
district outperformed in every subgroup in the county because each member on the governance
team knows their role. Growth in student achievement was attributed to the strong relationship
between the board and the superintendent.
83
If you have those relationships and everyone understands kind of their role. . . . And on
both ends, like that you’re not overstepping or doing things you shouldn’t be doing and
you’re keeping your board apprised of all that and they’re kind of staying in their lane as
well, then you have longevity, and longevity leads to really good, solid things for kids.
Correlation Between MIG Training and Student Achievement
Land (2002) and Goodman et al. (1997) noted that there is limited research to
substantiate a link between school boards and student achievement. Training and professional
development have a positive impact on overall effective governance, as shown in the results for
Research Questions 1 and 2, but further analysis of the data did not reveal a direct correlation to
positive growth in student achievement.
Data from the surveys revealed that 74% of superintendents and 49% of school board
members agreed that MIG training has a positive impact on student achievement. To substantiate
this claim, decisions must align with the district vision, with a focus on student achievement,
while incorporating data. Using data to make informed decision is a common practice to make
significant impacts on instruction. Of the 62 superintendents who were interviewed, 50%
strongly agreed that data are used to make informed decisions related to student achievement,
while 49% of the board members agreed. Table 21 summarizes the responses by superintendents
and board members about using data to make informed decisions regarding student achievement.
84
Table 21
Responses to the Survey Item, “As a Result of the Masters in Governance Training, I Encourage
Governance Team Members to Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions Regarding
Student Achievement”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 31 50 69 59
Agree 28 45 88 49
Disagree 3 5 21 12
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1
Analysis of the focus group interviews indicated that school board members attributed
growth in student academic achievement to understanding their roles and responsibilities and a
focus on student achievement. Board members agreed that, by working together, they had an
impact on their students. Board Member Sunshine stated, “I would say that I learned that our
focus is student achievement and that our decisions should be data driven. I wouldn’t have
known that if I hadn’t have gone.” Board Member Cooks stated that the board hires an
exceptional instructional leader who will produce growth in student academic achievement:
The best way you can say that is after taking this program, you will hire an exceptional
leader . . . . We don’t do the work; we just bless all the work. We make good policies and
have good goals and strategic plans, but if you don’t have the person at the top for student
achievement, I have my own way of thinking about student achievement. This is a person
85
dedicated to student learning. . . . If you get the right person, and you’ve had this training,
. . . you get what you’re looking for.
This ties back to understanding one’s role as a board member to hire and evaluate the
superintendent. According to the survey responses and the interviews, board members agreed
that any growth in student achievement was a result of understanding their roles and
responsibilities.
Similarly, two of the superintendents attributed the growth to a solid focus on student
achievement that aligns with the district vision. Dr. Forevermore stated, “I think the
improvements of achieving growth are totally attributed to the solid principles that are correlates
or whatever you want to call it that research has shown is drive and make it happen.” As noted
with the school board members, the superintendents did not cite anything visible growth because
of the MIG training. Dr. Frameworks stated,
So as a district and having come out of the ed services realm, I don’t know that we can
point specific data to show how it’s [MIG training] affected student achievement outside
of setting a vision and setting a strategic plan, as part as the gap part of the governance
process.
When compared to the larger group of board members and superintendents, responses
from the focus group very similar. Having the decision-making process aligned to the district’s
vision contributes to growth in student academic achievement.
Summary of Results from Research Question 3
A review of the literature and theoretical frameworks and data collected via surveys and
interviews suggest that there is no clear correlation between MIG training and positive growth in
student academic achievement. The data suggest that school board members have a focus on
86
student achievement and use data to make informed decisions, but no direct impact was cited.
Board members stated that a focus on academic achievement included students performing at
board meetings or placing the focus on the agenda. No research was cited to support this claim.
As one board member contended, it is the job of the instructional leader to lead the effort and the
job of the board members to bless it. The separation of roles and responsibilities has an indirect
impact on student achievement.
Superintendents stated that, although there is a focus on academic achievement, there are
no data to support a direct correlation. Superintendents understood that it is through the vision
that they are able to have an impact on student achievement. Decisions, allocation of resources,
and conversations must all be in direct correlation with the vision. Board members and
superintendents stated that, because they know their roles with a focus on student achievement,
meetings are more meaningful.
Chapter Summary
This chapter reported the analysis of the findings related to the three research questions.
Data from the survey, interviews, and theoretical frameworks were used to present the findings
related to the MIG training. Several themes emerged from each of the questions and were
supported by the frameworks from the literature review.
School board members are self-motivated to seek professional development, such as
MIG, to understand their roles and to become effective members of a governance team. They are
encouraged by fellow board members and the superintendent. Most board members reported that
ongoing training has become part of the board culture. Board members are also more motivated
when they have easy access to training. Board members contended that, due to the pandemic,
87
training could be moved online to achieve more participation. Cost was not considered to be a
factor for board members to participate in training.
MIG training resulted in more effective behaviors because participants understood their
role and responsibilities. Superintendents and board members were able to have more effective
meetings that were focused on student achievement. MIG training provided board members the
foundational knowledge to function not as individuals but as a governance team. Completing the
training together had a positive impact on board members in unifying their efforts. Having the
decision-making process aligned to the district vision contributed to the overall effectiveness of
the governing board. The governance team functioned as a unit to move past differences, leading
to more effective conversations.
A direct correlation between MIG training and academic achievement was limited in this
study. Superintendents stated that any positive growth in student academic achievement was a
result of board members knowing their role and having a vision. The superintendents did not cite
any data that would attribute the MIG training to student academic growth. Board members
stated that the training had a positive impact on student achievement by having students perform
at board meetings but there were no data to support that claim. Board members understood the
importance of a focus on student achievement. Only as board members and superintendents
understood and fulfilled their roles could any growth in student achievement be attributed.
The results indicated that ongoing professional development is important for board
members to become effective members of a governance team. MIG training supports board
members in understanding their role as individuals and part of team. Both superintendents and
board members recommended MIG training; some contended that it should be mandated
88
Chapter Five: Discussion
The K–12 public education system has been under reform with implementation of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and
accountability to stakeholders. These reforms place pressure on the school boards to provide
credibility, stewardship, and direction to local education (Resnick, 1999). The Tenth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution gives each state authority over education, so policies vary from state to
state; however, accountability is public and transparent.
School boards date back to colonial times with the Massachusetts Education Laws
(Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). In 1837, the first state board of education was established in
Massachusetts, giving states a greater role in education. The greatest transformation came in the
reduction of local control by school boards because of an increase in federal and state
involvement in education (Kirst, 1994; Land 2002). The governance system for today’s public
schools is complex because of the multiple players and decision makers, including federal and
state courts, the U.S. Congress, state governors and legislatures, and more (Danzberger, 1994).
School boards have seen an increase in responsibility to ensure equitable access to
education for all students. Governing bodies such as the NSBA and CSBA advocate for equity
and excellence through effective school board governance (CSBA, 2007; NSBA 2006).
Previously, school boards perceived their role to be supportive in nature by approving budgets
and legal documents, making connections with the community, reviewing reports, advocating for
bond measures, and providing protection on political issues (Resnick, 1999). While this is still
true, school boards now have the added responsibility of ensuring student academic success,
assessment, standards, and policy (Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999).
89
Professional development and ongoing training, such as MIG, make for more effective
governance teams (Gemberling et al., 2000; Hanover Research, 2014; Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002;
NSBA, 2006; Resnick, 1999; Rice et al., 2000). Training and certification are not mandatory in
California and there is no requirement for seeking a school board position. This causes a problem
for newly elected member who may be unaware of the complex job at hand. To be an effective
member of a governance team, one must understand the role and able to fulfill responsibilities.
The CSBA seeks to solve this problem through the MIG program to strengthen and promote
school board governance. CSBA contends that strong school boards are an essential element of
high-quality education for every student in every community (CSBA, 2018b). The goal is to
create effective governance team members and build a strong governance team.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects performance indicators for
school districts. The researchers examined the benefit of the MIG training and its implications
for school board members’ ability to exhibit characteristics of effective governance. Moreover,
the purpose of the study was to examine perceptions of school board members and
superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school governance and student
achievement.
Each researcher identified three school districts that met the criterion of a majority of the
school board having completed MIG training. Researchers compiled all survey and interview
data into one bank. The sample consisted of 62 school districts with 100% participation in both
surveys and interviews by superintendents and 97% participation in surveys and 95% in
interviews by board members. The research team, with the assistance of the dissertation chair,
developed the purpose of the study and three research questions:
90
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?
Research theories and frameworks and data from the surveys and interviews were used to
triangulate the findings related to each research question.
Summary of Findings
Each researcher was responsible to conduct interviews and surveys for each of three
districts. Some interviews were conducted in pairs, but the majority were done individually.
Participants completed the surveys online. Participants gave their names voluntarily or could
remain anonymous. Using the leadership theories and framework and survey and interview data
for each research question, themes emerged related to each question. Related to Research
Question 1, it was found that board members attended training voluntarily based on external and
intrinsic motivation. Training was part of the board culture, encouraging board members to
attend MIG training. To encourage more members to attend, location and frequency of training
should be considered, as members found these to be a barrier. Related to Research Question 2, it
was determined that MIG helps board members to exhibit effective behaviors by establishing
roles and responsibilities, establishing a professional relationship with the superintendent and
fellow board members, and unifying the board. Related to Research Question 3, it was
determined that MIG has an indirect impact on student achievement, but no direct correlation
could be determined.
91
Research Question 1
School board members are elected officials representing their local areas and often have
minimal training or experience (Delagardelle, 2008; Land, 2002). Without experience and
knowledge of the educational system, school board members could make decisions that could
result in a negative impact on schools and the district. School boards that actively seek
professional development and are committed to learning behaviors of effective governance teams
have better results than those that do not do so (Delagardelle, 2008). California does not mandate
any training nor are there any prerequisites for election; therefore, it is important to know what
will motivate board members to pursue training after being elected.
Data collected from the literature, surveys, and interviews with superintendents and
school board members revealed that participation in the MIG training is driven mostly by school
board members’ own desire to learn. They are self-motivated, seeking knowledge and skills to
represent their community while being part of an effective governance team. Board members are
also part of school board culture where it is expected to participate in MIG training. Influence
from other board members and the superintendent contributed to their participation in MIG
training. This culture of learning created by motivated board members and influence from the
board and superintendent are especially nurtured when training is local.
Research Question 2
The MIG training consists of five courses that offer knowledge and skills that are
necessary to be an effective member of a governance team: Foundations of Effective
Governance, Policy and Judicial Review, School Finance, Human Resources, and Community
Relations and Advocacy. The CSBA’s goal is to strengthen and promote school board
governance, based on the belief that strong school boards are an essential element to high-quality
92
education for every student in every community (CSBA, 2018b). Through the CSBA’s MIG
training, they seek to create effective governance team members and build a strong governance
team.
Data from the literature review, surveys, and interviews suggest that school board
members who attend the MIG training are equipped with behaviors to make them part of an
effective governance team. School board members who attend training exhibit such behaviors as
understanding their role and responsibilities, developing a professional and collegial relationship
with fellow board members and superintendent, and seeking unity in a board through a clear
vision. Superintendents have observed board members working in unison, focused on student
achievement and able to remain in their role as board members. Each board member has
exhibited a clear understanding of the role as part of the governance team and has shown respect
for differences of opinion. Therefore, the governance team can move forward as a cohesive unit.
Research Question 3
Although the body of research is limited on the impact of training, specifically MIG on
student achievement and growth, Research Question 3 was developed to measure that impact.
The Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000) identified three key characteristics that were absent in
low-performing districts. The first of the three characteristics was responsibility of the school to
raise achievement by each student. It is the responsibility of the board to understand this and the
seven conditions for change, but it is not the board’s responsibility to make direct decisions to
improve student achievement.
Research has shown that a key characteristic of effective school boards is to encourage
and seek professional development (CSBA, 2017; EWA, 2003; Land, 2002; Rice et al., 2000).
By receiving training, board members will understand the education system, their role, and how
93
to work with others. Of the five modules of the MIG training, the Foundations of Effective
Governance and Setting Direction is the only one that explicitly mentions student achievement.
Participants who complete all five MIG modules will improve governance by deepening their
knowledge about creating and communicating a vision, maintaining financial stability, and
improving student achievement.
Data collected from the literature, surveys, and interviews with superintendents and
school board members suggest that there is no clear correlation between MIG training and
growth in student academic achievement. The data suggest that school board members have a
focus on student achievement and use data to make informed decisions, but no direct impact was
cited. Board members stated that a focus on academic achievement was attributed to students
performing at board meetings or placing the focus on the agenda. No research was cited to
support this claim. MIG training encourages board members to support academic achievement
but, as one board member commented, it is the job of the instructional leader to lead the effort
and the job of the board to bless it. The separation of roles and responsibilities has an indirect
impact on student achievement.
The superintendents stated that, although the focus on academic achievement is stated
and reviewed, there are no data that can point to a direct correlation. The Superintendents
understood that they have an impact on student achievement through their vision. Decisions,
allocation of resources, and conversations must all be in direct correlation with the vision. Board
members and superintendents agreed that, because they know their roles with a focus on student
achievement, meetings are meaningful, and the contributions of the members have more effect.
This claim was supported by previous research and data from the surveys and interviews.
94
Implications
The results of this study validate that training and ongoing professional development are
crucial to the success of a governance team. School board members who participated in MIG
training exhibited behaviors that made them part of an effective governance team. School board
members, as elected officials, have a duty to represent their community to ensure the success of
their district. The roles and responsibilities are robust and complex; a lack of knowledge or
expertise can create barriers. The NSBA and CSBA seek to educate governing boards and their
superintendents to create fair and equitable educational systems. Because there is no mandate for
training, each member must be motivated in a culture that promotes participation in MIG.
Upon completion of the MIG training, board members will have the skills, knowledge,
behaviors, and practices necessary for effective leadership to oversee a district. Board members
will contribute effectively to the decision-making process, using data focused on student
achievement, to ensure the success of the district. The findings from this study offer insight and
implications for future research to inform aspiring or current board members, district and county
administrators, professional educational associations, and state legislators.
CSBA is largely responsible for providing education and training through MIG to school
board members and superintendents in California. Participants are self-motivated to serve their
communities by having foundational knowledge, skills, and behaviors to do so. Cost was not a
factor in deciding to participate in MIG. Considerations should be made related to accessibility,
location, and frequency. The locations for training are minimal and expensive. Holding the MIG
training in only two locations, such as San Francisco and San Diego, has limited participation
because of travel costs. Adding opportunities for training would result in a faster completion rate.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, CSBA has shifted classes to an online mode. This had been
95
suggested in a past study and was supported by participants in this study. Currently on the CSBA
website, there are no opportunities to register for classes.
Further adjustments should be made to the relevance of material and certification courses.
Many participants stated that the Human Resources module was not relevant to their position.
Many contended that it was important to understand the process but noted that board members
are not involved in the negotiation process, which is the job of their employee, the
superintendent. They recommended shortening the module or combining it with another module.
Participants recommended an extension or refresher course for veteran or returning board
members. The CSBA annual conference was mentioned but board members and superintendents
agreed that refresher courses should be offered instead. This coincides with the position that
training should be ongoing. Student achievement was not easily identified by board members and
superintendents. The first two courses of MIG speak specifically to student achievement,
encouraging participants to create a vision focused on student achievement and to support
student learning through policy and expectations. Board members could not identify their impact
on influencing student achievement other than their vision and knowing their role and
responsibilities. There should more foundational knowledge on what behaviors and practices are
needed to monitor academic growth.
Although there is no mandate for training in California, many participants in this study
suggested that there should be a mandate. Board members may enter their role with little or no
experience, which makes it difficult to do their job effectively. If California has no mandate,
districts should consider mandated ongoing training for the governance team. MIG training has
been shown to be effective for members who participate and should be considered as a
requirement for new and veteran board members.
96
Recommendations for Future Research
This study adds to the body of research, but more research is warranted. The research
team compiled a large database due to the large size of the team. This study focused only on
school boards on which a majority of members had completed MIG training. A baseline should
be developed to compare the effectiveness of MIG. To establish a baseline, school boards with
minimal training should be compared to those with training. Effective behaviors should be
named so they can be coded in the qualitative data and observed if applicable. This would
determine whether there is a correlation between training and effective behaviors.
Because of the pandemic, future studies should consider the impact of online-only
learning and how training has influenced districts in the decision-making process and student
achievement. Board members have stated that there should be a hybrid program or online-only
program to engage more participants. Board members stated that learning from others in person
and establishing professional networks contributed to a positive overall experience.
Future studies should consider that MIG is not the only training available to school board
members. Other training programs should be considered to measure the overall effectiveness of
the MIG training on school board governance. It would be beneficial to determine which
behaviors are correlated and whether any other behaviors are indicative of effective governance.
All stakeholders should be considered to determine effectiveness. A random sample of teachers,
community members, administrators, and students (if appropriate) could provide insight and a
larger scope that is more representative of the community.
Conclusion
Since the establishment of school boards more than 200 years ago, the level of
accountability and transparency required by the public has constantly increased. Education is
97
evolving to meet the meet the needs of students; it is the responsibility of school boards to
respond to these demands. Stakeholders demand that all students have access to a fair and
equitable rigorous education that draws on students’ strengths to achieve academic success.
Board members must put in place policy that meets these demands of a public that elected them
to do so. Superintendents and board members must work in unison to achieve these goals and
ensure the success of their district.
CSBA’s MIG training offers a five-course program that provides a framework for
participants to be successful in their role. MIG has been shown to be an effective training
program, providing board members the skillset, knowledge, practices, and behaviors that are
necessary to be part of an effective governance team. Although some participants in this study do
not consider some parts of the MIG to be effective, the overall training was strongly
recommended and should be completed with the superintendent. With additional training
opportunities and a revision of MIG courses, CSBA’s contribution to school board training
would have a larger effect. People are highly motivated and seek training to do the rigorous work
that is required of a school board member.
98
References
Alsbury, T. L. (2008). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 7(2), 202–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701748428
American Association of School Administrators. (2019). Superintendent and district data.
https://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=740
Björk, L. G. (1993). Effective schools-effective superintendents: The emerging instructional
leadership role. Journal of School Leadership, 3(3), 246-259.
Björk, L. G., & Gurley, D. K. (2005). Superintendent as educational statesman and political
strategist. In L. G. Björk & T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent:
Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 163-185). Corwin.
Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). The school district superintendent
in the United States of America. In A. E. Nir (Ed.), The educational superintendent:
Between trust and regulation—An international perspective (pp. 17-38). Nova Science.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
California Department of Education. (2020a). About DataQuest.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/dataquest.asp
California Department of Education. (2020b). California Assessment of Student Performance
and Progress (CAASPP) system. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ca/
California Department of Education. (2020c). Local Control Accountability Plan.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
99
California Department of Education. (2020d). Local Control Funding Formula.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards.
https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrdLeadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2017). The school board role in creating the conditions
for student achievement.
California School Boards Association. (2018a). About CSBA.
https://www.csba.org/About/AboutCSBA
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Masters in Governance.
https://www.csba.org.en/TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance
California School Boards Association. (2018c). What it takes to lead: The role and function of
California’s school boards.
https://www.csba.org/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/EffectiveGovernance/20
180613_WhatItTakesToLead_Final.ashx?la=en&rev=b8966813606b4655b362803de02a
37f6
Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that
have shaped the administration of public schools. University of Chicago Press.
Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools: A historical analysis (ED010410). ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED010410
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 391–395.
100
Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan, M.
D. (1986). School boards: Strengthening grass roots leadership. Institute for Educational
Leadership.
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of
triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547.
Collin, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others don’t.
Harper Business.
Cuban, L. (1988). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers
College Record, 99(3), 453–477.
Danzberger, J. P. (1992). School boards: A troubled American institution. In J. P. Danzberger
(Ed.), Facing the challenge: The report of The Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on
School Governance. Twentieth Century Fund.
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local school
boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 367–373.
Danzberger, J., Carol, L., Cunningham, L., Kirst, M., McCloud, B., & Usdan, M. (1987). School
boards: The forgotten players on the education team. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(1), 53–59.
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership
in the improvement of student achievement. In T. L. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school
board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 191–224). Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
Dervarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards: At a
glance. Center for Public Education. https://www.masc.org/images/events/2015/jtc-
15/handouts/11-5_1045_8-Characteristics-of-Effective-School-Boards_Handout.pdf
101
Dillon, N. (2010). The importance of school board training. American School Board Journal,
197(7), 1–7.
Education Writers Association. (2003). Effective superintendents, effective boards: Finding the
right fit. Special report. ERIC Clearinghouse.
Eicher, J. P. (2005). Leader-manager profile: Self-assessment (2nd ed.). Organization Design
and Development, Inc.
Gemberling, K. W., Smith, C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key work of school boards
guidebook. National School Boards Association.
Glass, T. E. (2003, April). The superintendency: A managerial imperative? Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL,
United States.
Glickman, C. D. (1993). Renewing America’s schools: A guide for school-based action. Jossey-
Bass.
Goodman, R. H., Fulbright, L., & Zimmerman, W. G. (1997). Getting there from here—School
board-superintendent collaboration: Creating a school governance team capable of
raising student achievement. Educational Research Service & New England School
Development Council.
Grissom, J. A. (2007). Who sits on school boards in California? Institute for Research on
Education Policy & Practice.
Hanover Research. (2014). Effective board and superintendent collaboration. https://www
.hanoverresearch.com/media/Effective-Board-and-Superintendent-Collaboration-
Featured.pdf
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Sage.
102
Hess, F. (2002). The dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of district governance.
National School Boards Association.
Kirst, M. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 378–
381.
Kowalski, T. J. (1999). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases. Merrill, Prentice
Hall.
Kowalski, T. J. (2001). The future of local school governance: Implications for board members
and superintendents. In C. Brunner & L. Björk (Eds.), The New Superintendency (pp.
183–201). Elsevier Science.
Kowalski, T. J. (2003, April). The superintendent as communicator. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, USA
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L. G. Björk &
T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and
development (pp. 1–18). Corwin.
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.
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Tenth Amendment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research for the social sciences. Sage.
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/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/GovernanceBriefs/20140
8GoverningToAchieve.ashx?la=en&rev=8e5d8dd4852f4653b19158e4ce2e43a7
103
Maxwell, J. A. (2008). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 214-253). Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform (ED226006). U.S. Department of Education. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED226006.pdf
National School Boards Association. (2006). Becoming a better board member: A guide to
effective school service.
National School Boards Association. (2019). About us. https://www.nsba.org/About
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Sage.
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health
Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1189-1208.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Petersen, G. J., & Barnett, B. G. (2003, April). The superintendent as instructional leader:
History, evolution and future of the role. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, USA.
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and tomorrow’s
promise. Education Commission of the States.
104
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. Iowa
Association of School Boards.
Richter, L. (2013). The impact of the Masters in Governance training program on California
school board governance.
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll3/id/247782
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.
Samkian, A. (2019). Introduction to qualitative research analysis [PowerPoint slides].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3wj7nV0uA8
Schlechty, P. C. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educational reform. Jossey-
Bass.
Spring, J. H. (1994). The American school, 1642–1993 (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Waters, T. J., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for
Education and Learning (McREL).
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan.
105
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails
School Board Member Recruitment Email
Date___________________
Dear School Board Member ______________________,
Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school
governance teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board has completed the
MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in completion of the Ed.D.
program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will
be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training
on effective governance. You will be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom™ interview
at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded with your permission
and will include questions about effective governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time.
Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.
IF you agree to participate in this study, please complete the School Board Member Survey via the
following link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation, you may contact me or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University
of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
106
Superintendent Recruitment Email
Date___________________
Dear Superintendent ______________________,
Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school
governance teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board members have
completed the MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in completion
of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this
study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact
of MIG training on effective governance. You will be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual
Zoom™ interview at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded
with your permission and will include questions about effective governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time.
Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.
Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the Superintendent Survey via the following
link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation, you may contact myself or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the
University of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance
for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
107
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your chances of participation?
(check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced my
participation in the MIG training was . . . (check
all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Unable to determine
❏ Other
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
As a result of MIG training, my focus is on
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
108
8
As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek
community input through a variety of methods
(email, town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
As a result of the MIG training, I understand the
importance of aligning the decision-making
process with the district’s vision and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
The MIG training clarified the differences
between my roles and responsibilities as a school
board member and those of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
109
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data
consistently to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
As a result of the MIG training, my ability to
accept the majority decision constructively, even
if I hold the minority view, has improved.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board
members could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
Attending MIG training has positively impacted
student achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
110
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your school board members’
chances of participation? (check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced school board
members to participate in MIG training was . . .
(check all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Other
❏ Unable to determine
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
School board members who have earned MIG
certification demonstrate an increased focus on
student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
111
8
School board members who are MIG certified
actively engage the community and utilize a
variety of communication methods (email, town
hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
School board members who are MIG trained
understand the importance of aligning the
decision-making process with the district’s vision
and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
School board members who are MIG trained
exhibit a clearer understanding of the difference
between their roles and responsibilities and those
of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
school board members.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
112
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the school governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data consistently
to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
The MIG training has improved school board
members’ ability to accept the majority decision,
even when they hold the minority view.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members
could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
MIG training has positively impacted student
achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
113
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3
Some people believe that school board training should be mandated in California. How
do you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has the MIG training affected how you govern your school district, if at all?
8
What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if at all?
9 What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a board member, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?
114
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school governance teams to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3 Some people argue that school board training should be mandated in California. How do
you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to your board members and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has MIG training affected how your school board members govern your school
district, if at all?
8 What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if any?
a What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make MIG training more accessible to all superintendents?
11 How does MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a superintendent, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?
115
Appendix F: Informed Consent
Date: _______________
Dear _______________,
My name is _______________ and I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a research study under the guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F.
Escalante. The purpose of the study is to examine school board members’ and superintendents’
perceptions of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training and its impact on school governance
and student achievement. I will interview and survey superintendents and school board
members.
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) MIG training program on school
board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of school districts.
This study may serve as a source of the benefits of MIG training for school governance teams.
Your participation is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw at any time. The information
collected will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher and members of the
dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no individual or
district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
me at _______________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California.
Thank you, in advance, for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
Dr. Michael F. Escalante, Dissertation Chair mescalante@usc.edu (xxx) xxx-xxxx
( ) I have read this form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent to my
participation in the research described above.
Participant’s Signature: _________________________________________________________
Participant’s Printed Name: ______________________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________________________________________
116
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument RQ 1
What factors impact
the decision of school
board members to
participate in the MIG
training program?
RQ 2
How does the MIG
training program
encourage and equip
school board
members to exhibit
the behaviors of
effective school
governance?
RQ 3
Does MIG training
have an impact on
student achievement
and growth?
School Board
Member Survey
1-6 7-16,18-19 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
Superintendent
Survey
1-6 7-14 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
School Board
Member Interview
Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Superintendent
Interview Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Student achievement is at the forefront of the educational system. School reforms have forced school districts to operate under a microscope in the public eye. Accountability is demanded of the school system to provide equitable access to all students. School boards, the governing body of local education agencies, are challenged to create a vision that is reflective of the district’s community, to create and implement policies for high academic achievement, to manage budgets to ensure fiscal solvency, and to work collaboratively with bargaining units. This study examined the perceptions of school board members and superintendents regarding the Masters in Governance (MIG) training and its impact on school governance and student achievement. Data were collected in 62 California school districts, with participation by 62 superintendents and 180 school board members. Participants were interviewed and surveyed by the team of 20 researchers. All data were compiled into one database for coding and analysis. Findings revealed that completion of the MIG training equipped board members to exhibit effective behaviors of school governance by establishing roles and responsibilities, establishing and aligning decisions with the district vision, and collectively functioning as a unit. Implications led to recommendations for future studies, legislation for mandates, and consideration of engagement in MIG training.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
School board governance training and student achievement
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
PDF
Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards
PDF
K−12 school board training in California
PDF
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
PDF
The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
Asset Metadata
Creator
Guerrero, Eric Christopher
(author)
Core Title
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/16/2021
Defense Date
01/29/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
accountability,California School Boards Association,California schools,Masters in governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,Relationships,school board,student achievement,superintendent,Training
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael F. (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy M. (
committee member
), Cherniss, Alex (
committee member
), Franklin, Gregory (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ecguerre@usc.edu,guerreroeric@icloud.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-445345
Unique identifier
UC11667838
Identifier
etd-GuerreroEr-9481.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-445345 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-GuerreroEr-9481.pdf
Dmrecord
445345
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Guerrero, Eric Christopher
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
accountability
California School Boards Association
California schools
Masters in governance
school board
student achievement
Training