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
/
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
(USC Thesis Other)
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
California School Board Member Training: Motivation and Impact on Leadership
And Achievement
by
Gloria Olamendi
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 Gloria Olamendi 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Gloria Olamendi certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Rudy M. Castruita
Alexander Cherniss
Gregory Franklin
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether California superintendents and school board
members agreed that the California School Board Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance
(MIG) training increases effective governance and collaborative leadership and improves student
achievement. The study applied a comprehensive conceptual framework. Bolman and Deal’s
four frames of leadership provided a lens to examine effective leadership in complex
organizations. Iowa’s Lighthouse Inquiry contributed to the literature on effective leadership
practices in high-achieving school districts. The CSBA’s standards outline critical roles,
responsibilities, and expectations for school board members. The qualitative study collected data
via surveys and interviews from 62 California district leadership teams, including surveys of 62
superintendents and 180 school board members and interviews with 3 superintendents and 7
school board members. Three research questions guided the study: (a) what factors impacted the
decision of school board members to participate in the MIG training program, (b) how the MIG
training program encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective school governance, and (c) whether MIG training had an impact on student
achievement and growth. The findings supported school board member and superintendent
participation in MIG, with the conclusion that MIG enhances a school board member’s ability to
govern effectively and collaboratively, contributes to board members’ knowledge of roles and
responsibilities, and indirectly affects student achievement by reinforcing critical knowledge and
enhancing collaborative leadership skills.
v
Dedication
To my grandmother, mother, father, husband, and son.
vi
Acknowledgements
I thank my family, who encourage me, support me, and love me unconditionally. John
Haney and Brody Haney are amazing wonders. My parents, Jorge and Maria, gave me the world
and taught me to dream and persevere.
Remarkable leaders paved the way and served as lighthouses and mentors through my
journey: Sela Longacre, Doreen Lohnes, Dr. Amy Lambert, and Dr. Greg Franklin. They opened
doors, provided direction, and cheered me on. I will forever be grateful for their impact on me
and their trust in me. My colleagues, turned family, have supported and encouraged me over the
years: Rae Rice, Bianca Guillen, Bianca Barquin, Gail Minnich, Diane Lappi, Nata Shin, Diane
Nicholas, Dr. Rena Fairchild, Dr. Beth Rabel Blackman, and Dr. Kerri Braun.
I could not have achieved this without Dr. Michael Escalante’s mentorship and guidance.
I would like to thank my dissertation committee for their guidance and expertise: Dr. Rudy
Castruita, Dr. Alex Cherniss, and Dr. Greg Franklin. I appreciate all of my USC professors for
their passion for education and dedication to our field.
I thank my USC doctoral family for motivation, support, and laughter: Maricela Ramirez,
Hedieh Khajavi, and Linda De La Torre. We have been on this journey together since first
meeting at the new student orientation. Our little family grew to include Elias Miles and Eric
Guerrero. There is no team I would rather have been a part of on this journey.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication .................................................................................................................................. v
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
Masters in Governance ................................................................................................... 2
Background of the Problem ............................................................................................ 3
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 5
Importance of the Study .................................................................................................. 5
Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 7
Delimitations .................................................................................................................. 7
Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 8
Definitions of Term ........................................................................................................ 8
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature...............................................................................13
Historical Background of the School Board ...................................................................13
Accountability and Evaluation .......................................................................................27
School Board Collective Vision .....................................................................................29
Hiring the Superintendent ..............................................................................................30
The Superintendent and Student Achievement ...............................................................32
viii
School Board-Superintendent Relationship ....................................................................33
School Board Member Training and Student Achievement ............................................36
School Board Member Training .....................................................................................37
Conceptual Frameworks ................................................................................................40
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................46
Chapter Three: Methodology .....................................................................................................48
Research Questions .......................................................................................................48
Research Team ..............................................................................................................48
Research Methods .........................................................................................................49
Research Design ............................................................................................................51
Participants and Sampling Strategies .............................................................................53
Instrumentation..............................................................................................................54
Data Collection and Analysis .........................................................................................55
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................56
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................59
Research Questions Restated .........................................................................................59
Participants ....................................................................................................................61
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................63
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................77
Research Results for Question 3 ....................................................................................94
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................ 110
Chapter Five: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations .................................................. 112
Purpose of the Study Restated...................................................................................... 112
ix
Findings Related to the Research Questions ................................................................. 113
Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................. 118
Implications for Practice .............................................................................................. 118
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................ 119
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 120
References .............................................................................................................................. 122
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails .................................................................. 132
School Board Member Recruitment Email ................................................................... 132
Superintendent Recruitment Email............................................................................... 133
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey ............................................................................ 134
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey ........................................................................................ 137
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol .......................................................... 140
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ..................................................................... 141
Appendix F: Informed Consent ............................................................................................... 142
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix ................................................................................ 143
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participation From 62 Districts 61
Table 2: Responses to the Survey Item, “Our School Board Culture
Encourages Participation in the Masters in Governance Training”
64
Table 3: Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to
Participate in Masters in Governance Training
65
Table 4: Responses to the Survey Item “Our School Board Culture
Encourages Participation in the Masters in Governance Training”
66
Table 5: Responses to the Survey Item, “The Current Cost of the Masters in
Governance Training Program Impedes School Board Members
From Participating”
74
Table 6: Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “School Board
Members Who Are Trained in Masters in Governance Exhibit a
Clearer Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and
Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent”
79
Table 7: 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”
80
Table 8: Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “As a Result of
the MIG Training, I Understand the Importance of Aligning the
Decision-Making Process With the District’s Vision and Goals”
84
Table 9: 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”
85
Table 10: 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”
86
Table 11: Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “As a Result of
the MIG Training, My Ability to Constructively Accept the
Majority Decision, Even If I Hold the Minority View, Has
Improved”
87
xi
Table 12: Superintendents’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance
Modules in Order of Importance to Their Role as a Member of the
Governance Team (N = 62)
91
Table 13: 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)
93
Table 14: Responses to the Survey Item, “Attending Masters in Governance
Training Has Positively Impacted Student Achievement in My
District”
96
Table 15: Responses to the Survey Item, “Masters in Governance Training
Impacts My Ability to Govern Effectively”
99
Table 16: Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “As a Result of
the Masters in Governance Training, I Actively Seek Community
Input Through a Variety of Methods”
104
Table 17: 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”
105
1
Chapter One: Introduction
The school board and the superintendent are the most influential leaders in a school
system. The collaborative leadership between superintendents and their boards is a critical
component of a district’s success. Trust, communication, and mutual respect for roles and
responsibilities shape a district leadership team’s ability to set goals and drive student
achievement. Developing school board members’ knowledge and leadership has become a matter
of great urgency due to the rapidly changing public demands on the American education system.
Accountability to various stakeholders—specifically, students, parents, staff, community
members, community organizations, and governmental agencies—requires that school board
members understand how leadership principles and standards play a role in informed decision
making, with a goal to increase the quality of public education in the communities that they
serve. In order to improve student achievement, superintendents and school boards must engage
in a collaborative partnership built on trust, with an intended outcome of student achievement.
The National School Boards Association (NSBA; 2012) delineated eight requisite
abilities to be a successful school board leader. Successful school board members (a) define the
goals needed to increase student achievement, (b) hold high standards for students, (c) focus on
policies that increase student achievement, (d) collaborate with the staff and community in
shared goal setting, (e) use data-driven approaches, (f) align resources with the district
improvement plan, (g) work collaboratively, and (h) engage in regular professional development
(NSBA, 2012). In order to fulfill these dynamic and critical responsibilities, it is imperative to
research superintendents’ and school board members’ perceptions of the importance of
professional development for collaborative leadership that aims to improve student achievement.
Research indicates that professional development is a positive approach to enhance board
2
members’ understanding of their responsibilities, which supports collaborative decisions and
improved student achievement.
Masters in Governance
This study looked specifically at the Masters in Governance (MIG) training provided by
the California School Board Association (CSBA). MIG is a five-module training program
offered to superintendents and school board members; it includes foundations for effective
governance, policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community
relations and advocacy. The objective of CSBA in delivering the MIG training is to provide
board members and superintendents with the requisite knowledge to build and enhance effective
governance structures in their districts. CSBA reported that, to date, 2,000 board members and
superintendents had attended MIG training and that 90% of graduates strongly recommended this
program and 80% reported that it had given them the knowledge to govern effectively (CSBA,
2019).
This study reveals the perceptions that superintendents and school board members have
regarding MIG training, exploring the motivation to attend and the impact, if any, on
collaborative leadership and student achievement. This study was an extension of similar studies
that have explored school leaders’ perceptions of training in leadership. Previous studies have
been done to understand board members’ and superintendent’s perceptions of their leadership
and their impact, as directly related to professional development. Studies have been done to
explore MIG; however, those studies were done when MIG training was different in both content
and delivery of training. In previous studies, student achievement was measured by different
metrics, specifically the California State Achievement Test (CST), which used proficiency bands
to report achievement. Today, student achievement is assessed and evaluated through the
3
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), which reports achievement through bands,
being descriptive of growth process to indicate increased achievement. Therefore, this was the
first study of its kind to investigate school board members’ and superintendents’ perceptions of
MIG, their motivation for attending, and how, if it all, it influences collaborative effective
leadership and student achievement.
Background of the Problem
Effective school district governance requires that school board members and the
superintendent collectively set a shared vision, rooted in student achievement, and engage in a
process to move toward that vision as a unit (Carol et al., 1986; Danzberger, 1994; Grissom,
2010). Knowledge and adherence to roles and responsibilities support successful school board
leadership (Allen et al., 2009; Brewer & Smith, 2007). Campbell and Green (1994) posited that
loose definition of roles and responsibilities can create gaps in school board member leadership.
Today’s school boards are facing many challenges. These challenges are exacerbated by
negative themes among school board members, such as individual visions on the part of school
board members and influence of special interest groups to promote individual careers (Anderson,
1992; Land, 2002; Merz, 1986; The Twentieth Century Fund/Danforth Foundation, 1992). Public
distrust in school board leadership occurs when stakeholders perceive that the trustees cannot
work together as one leadership unit (Carol et al., 1986; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002;
McCloud & McKenzie, 1994; McGonagill, 1987; Rallis & Criscoe, 1993; Schlechty & Cole,
1993; The Twentieth Century Fund/Danforth Foundation, 1992; Wagner, 1992).
Urban school districts are plagued with additional issues of a pervasive trend in
achievements gap among vulnerable student groups compared to White students. Such leadership
issues result in lack of trust and a perceived failure to support students. In such situations where
4
community members and stakeholders have lost faith in school board leadership, alternate forms
of governance are emerging nationwide. Examples include governance types that shift the power
of the board, limit the power of the board, and in some cases remove the board entirely. School
board members are local individuals who are elected to represent their community in the
governance of the schools. They do not always have formal training in education or leadership.
However, in order for school board members to carry out the herculean responsibilities to their
students, training is imperative (Hess, 2002). The CSBA MIG training is voluntary; there are no
requirements for board members to attend MIG or any other professional development. For those
school districts whose board members attend MIG training, information is missing regarding the
motivation to attend and whether superintendents and board members concludes it has any effect
on governance and student achievement.
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 committed to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
5
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
The University of Southern California (USC) dissertation cohort researchers developed
three guiding questions. The questions were designed to understand whether school board
members and superintendents believe that the MIG equips school board members with necessary
training to engage in collaborative leadership that improves student achievement. The research
questions were as follows:
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
Most school board members are lay civil servants, elected to create a shared vision and
implement policies aligned with the goals of the organization. Often, school board members have
limited school leadership experience and time required to set priorities, develop strategic plans,
allocate resources and ensure accountability (Delagardelle, 2008; Rhim, 2013). Plecki et al.
(2006) wrote that the complex responsibilities within dynamic organizations can pose problems
in school board governance, such as difficulties in defining the roles and responsibilities of the
6
school board. The authors further noted that the roles and responsibilities of the school board are
made difficult because of differences in state laws, funding, and governance structures. Campbell
and Green (1994) asserted that successful school board members hold the following attributes:
(a) They engage in a collaborative development of a shared long term vision; (b) they initiate and
maintain a collaborative structure, where process facilitates the adoption of annual budgets,
policies, and recruitment and oversight of the superintendent; (c) they initiate systems that
facilitate community accountability in fiscal transparency, staffing, and collective bargaining;
and (d) they provide community, state, and national level advocacy for all public school students.
Training for school board members is necessary to support the necessary skills and
abilities of school board members (Brewer & Smith, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008; Plecki et al.,
2006). Research indicates that training is a promising strategy to prepare school board members
for the challenges that leaders face in today’s schools and equip them with the tools to lead
districts to successful outcomes for students.
School board members and superintendents are challenged to create an environment that
is rich in systems that support and promote achievement by all students. In successful districts,
the school board demonstrates that goals for achievement are the highest priority and therefore
strategically ensures that resources are aligned to support those goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Contemporary school board members must demonstrate leadership that focuses on student
achievement and engages in ongoing critical evaluation toward student achievement goals (Lee
& Eadens, 2014; Resnick, 1999). This requires a shared vision and an ability to collaborate and
lead as one central leadership unit. Effective governance is facilitated when school board
members understand and adherence to their roles and responsibilities. In successful districts,
7
there is a visible governance structure in which school board members and superintendents
collectively set a vision and work within their roles to support successful outcomes for students.
The research is laden with the challenges and problems facing public education. Issues
related to pervasive achievement gaps between student groups, rapidly evolving accountability
systems, and lack of faith in traditional governance models have resulted in alternate forms of
governance. Alternate governance forms are emerging and limiting the strength and impact of
traditional governance models. One solution to maximize leadership in traditional governance
forms and support the achievement of all students is to support board members and
superintendent teams by preparing them to lead school districts through governance training.
MIG training is a possible solution to support collaborative leadership and improve achievement
by all students.
Limitations
The following limitations applied to this study. Only MIG training was considered. It was
difficult to control for covariables such as whether board members attended training in addition
to MIG; it was difficult to tease out learning from other training. The study was conducted over a
4-month period (May to August 2020). The interviews were conducted via Zoom, due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, which may have impacted the interaction between the researcher and the
participant.
Delimitations
Diverse samples of districts in 12 counties were selected as participants: San Diego,
Ventura, Alameda, Marin, Nevada, Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Monterey,
Santa Clara, and Ventura. Participation was delimited by student population and demographics.
8
Participating districts had a majority of the board members (commonly three fifths) attend at
least one module of CSBA’s MIG training.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made. The qualitative approach was appropriate to
address the research questions. Survey instruments were reliable. Interview instruments were
reliable. Superintendent and school board participants answered honestly during surveys and
interviews as the questions specifically explored how they perceived MIG. School board
members and superintendents attended and engaged in the MIG to a level to produce meaningful
learning. MIG training affects effective governance.
Definitions of Term
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; CAASPP, 2020).
California School Boards Association (CSBA):
An organization entrusted with the responsibility to provide guidance, resources, and
training for school board members throughout California. A membership-driven
9
association, the CSBA provides policy resources and training to members and represents
the statewide interests of public education through legal, political, legislative,
community, and media advocacy. (CSBA, 2018, para. 1)
California State Test (CST): The standardized state assessment previously used to
measure student proficiency in California.
Four frames: Bolman and Deal’s (2016) theoretical framework that draws on research in
anthropology, sociology, political science, and organizational leadership to provide leaders with
four leadership approaches: structural, human resources, symbolic, and political.
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through
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 humans who are 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 local education agencies (LEAs) to share their stories of how, what, and
why programs and services are selected to meet their local needs. (CDE, 2020, 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, 2020b).
10
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
other political subdivision of a state, or for a combination of school districts or counties
as are recognized in a state as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools
or secondary schools. (Legal Information Institute, Electronic Code of Federal
Regulations, n.d., para. 1)
Mandate: An official order or commission to do something.
Masters in Governance (MIG): A training program sponsored by the CSBA consisting of
five modules designed to define roles and responsibilities, improve governance and leadership
through increased knowledge and skills to support an effective governance structure, and
maintain a focus on student learning.
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Module: A five-course training program offered
by the CSBA to support the development of school board members.
National School Board Association (NSBA): A federation of associations in 49 states and
the U.S. territory of the Virgin Islands, representing more than 90,000 school board officials.
Public school: A free tax-supported school controlled by a local governmental authority.
Professional development: Continuing education to support requisite knowledge and the
increased skill to support the improvement of the organization.
School board member or trustee: Locally elected public official who is entrusted with
governing a community’s public schools (CSBA, 2018).
11
School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding over public
meetings of school boards.
School district: Synonym for LEA; a public organization charged 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.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC): A standardized test consortium that
creates technology-based Common Core State Standards-aligned tests.
Student achievement: Performance by students on the annual summative assessment
given by the state of California.
Superintendent: The sole employee of the school board; a member of an LEA’s
governance team, charged with operating the school district and carrying out the policies of the
school board.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One, the introduction to the
study, is an overview of the entire process: the background of the problem, the statement of the
problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions, the importance of the study, the
limitations and delimitations of the study, the assumptions, and the key definitions of terms used
throughout the paper. Chapter Two provides a literature review underlying the study’s purpose
and rationale for the research design. Chapter Three outlines the methodology used to develop
and implement the research design, including participant sampling, instrumentation, data
collection and analysis procedures, and ethical considerations. Chapter Four presents the study’s
12
findings based on the analysis of data. Chapter Five presents a summary of the overall study that
includes conclusions, considerations, implications, and recommendations for further research.
13
Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature
As discussed in Chapter One, the rapidly changing global demands on the American
educational school system require school board members to understand that their leadership
plays a role in the complexities of informed decision making and influences the quality of public
education. In order to improve the public perception of school districts and leverage external
resources, superintendents and boards of education should be allied and committed to ongoing
training to enhance shared responsibilities to students. Superintendents and school board
members must empower, serve, and inspire through collaboration and deliberate design and, to
that end, must understand their roles and have a trusting and collaborative relationship. The
commitment to professional learning and training for school board members and superintendents
is vital.
Chapter Two explores the historical background of the school board, the evolving role of
the superintendent, the roles and responsibilities of the school board and the superintendent,
board members and accountability, effective school board leadership, and school board member
training and its impact on the effectiveness of school board governance and student achievement.
Historical Background of the School Board
The role of the school board is historically dynamic, representing evolution responding to
a fast-changing American school system and policy. The American public school system began
with the Plymouth Colony Law in 1677, as publicly funded schools were mandated (Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). Through this legislation, Massachusetts funded the first public school district, using
funds from the state’s fishing revenues. In adoption of the law and inception of public schools,
leadership of the new educational system was undertaken by selectmen, a group of townsmen
14
who directed both school operations and finances while also serving as the primary governance
of the local town.
In 1727, an effort to separate school and town governance, along with an increased focus
on educational needs, propelled Massachusetts to order that each town in the state create its own
organization of governance to supervise its public schools. Local control and oversight of
schools shifted to committees that were specifically designated to govern and oversee the
operations and finances of schools. In 1791, under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution,
states were granted authority over their public schools (Campbell & Green, 1994). This shifted
responsibility for school governance to a board of elected trustees (Land, 2002; Hopkins et al.,
2007). The practice of electing community members remained in practice and was formalized in
1837, when the first state board of education and the first office of state superintendent were
created (Danzberger, 1994). The role of the superintendent was created specifically to provide
oversight of school operations (Korelich & Maxwell, 2015). Unlike the elected school board, the
position of superintendent was created as an appointed role, an appointment that is fulfilled by
the board (Brewer & Smith, 2007).
During the initial years, the power and scope of the board were vague and due to the high
educational demands, the school board exercised a significant locus of control. In contrast,
leadership by the superintendent was limited, extending specifically to clerical duties (Campbell
& Green, 1990). As the public school system grew and demands of public education increased,
the superintendent’s role evolved to balance managerial and educational leadership of the
schools (Schmitz, 2007).
Throughout the 1800s, immigration and population growth required that schools be
organized within separate school districts while remaining under the control of the State Board of
15
Education (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Legislation passed in 1891 allowed individual communities to
elect school board members to govern independently. This was initiated in Massachusetts and
spread quickly as states nationwide responded to the demands for local oversight and
accountability to the community.
The 1900s brought rapid change and significant school board restructuring, which
resulted in centralized school governance, restructuring of the election process, and changes to
roles of school board members, limiting their involvement in the daily administration and
redirecting their oversight solely to educational policy (Land, 2002). The shift placed value on
efficiency and hierarchy, resulting in the board’s focus to be one of policy and removing them
from daily administration (Plecki et al., 2006). Policy remained a central need and responsibility
for board members as a response to the many federal advancements that affected schools in the
1900s.
Federal Policy and School Governance
Before the 1900s, school board members had a significant level of autonomy in local
governance and school policies. The 1900s brought federal involvement to local communities,
which would evoke accountability to an outside agency. The very first federal policy to impact
school board governance was the 1917 National Vocation Education Act, also known as the
Smith-Hughes Act. The Act mandated that schools provide vocational training and provided
funding to school districts contingent on implementation of such programs. This was the first
example of school board accountability to the federal government. The next impactful federal
policy to enforce federal accountability was the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision,
outlawing statutory school segregation and providing a court order for all public-school districts
to ban race-based segregation. This landmark case tied funding to outcomes, increasing school
16
board accountability to the federal government. The case also highlighted the nation’s attention
to the systemic failure of educating Black children in American public schools (Wirt & Kirst,
2005). Public concerns about educational failures were increased in the 1950s by two public
forces: the publishing of Why Johnny Can’t Read (Flesch, 1955), coupled with the media
coverage of Sputnik. Why Johnny Can’t Read exposed the limitations in schools’ literacy
instruction and engendered distrust in local school governance. On a national scale, Sputnik, the
Russian victory over the United States into space, drew significant attention and elicited public
fear that American schools were failing students, with the assumption that the American school
system was lagging behind that of other countries. These social pressures paved the road for the
1957 National Defense Act, with the goal of increasing students’ knowledge in mathematics,
science, and foreign affairs (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
The many changes in both social and political spheres, specifically court-ordered
desegregation and a focus on equality during what is known as the reconstruction of civil rights,
prompted President Lyndon B. Johnson to execute the 1965 Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. This act, the first directly from any president, transformed Washington’s role in
education. President Johnson tied federal funds to allocation of resources to support the
educational needs of students with disabilities, socially economically disadvantaged students,
language minority students, and women (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). On a societal level, this legislation
exacerbated the negative public perception that schools were not properly addressing the needs
of culturally and linguistically diverse students, students with disabilities, and at-risk students
(Curry et al., 2018; Jennings, 2015).
The focus on addressing the educational access gap persisted until the Reagan era of the
1980s. The 1980s and 1990s brought about a short-lived shifting of control to local governance.
17
Federal government’s lack of legislative involvement ended in 2001 with implementation of the
No Child Left Behind Act, which required state accountability to the federal government through
standards, instructional curriculum, and graduation requirements (Curry et al., 2018). National
involvement in school affairs has continued to increase with implementation of Obama’s $5
million Race to the Top (U.S. Department of Education, 2016), in which states are held
accountable for testing and standards; a layer was added as schools were to compete for funding
(Curry et al., 2018).
Through political legislation, such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the 1957
National Defense Act, the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (2002), Race for the Top (U.S. Department of Education, 2016), and high-
stakes reformations, accountability to the federal government for educational outcomes has
evolved. In addition to the legislative advancements, public media outlets critically evaluated the
leadership and performance of schools. Examples of this evaluation are A Nation at Risk
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) and Why Johnny Can’t Read (Flesch,
1955) publications that outlined the system inequities and failures of American schools. While
the demands on schools have changed, school board leadership abides by the same overarching
systems and processes of governance of almost 200 years ago. The landscape for education has
changed dramatically and research indicates that the traditional governance model, often lacking
uniform and clear roles and responsibilities, must also evolve.
In a successful leadership model, there is a distinct separation of roles between the school
board members and staff, where each individual knows that what is expected, which facilitates
collaborative leadership in school districts (Brewer & Smith, 2007). Allen et al. (2009) posited
that the school board’s role is to govern the district through a shared vision that results in
18
policies. In this traditional model, the elected school board establishes school district policy,
adopts an annual budget, appoints and evaluates the superintendent, and is relatively autonomous
in shared leadership. Under the leadership of the board, the superintendent is the top
administrator of the district and is responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the schools
(Allen et al., 2009).
Roles and Responsibilities of the School Board
School board governance is unique in that it continues to operate under the same political
process as originally mandated in the 1800s, regardless of the significant changes and challenges
that have emerged in public education in the past 200 years. Similar to when the original trustees
were designated under a traditional governance model, school board members continue to be
elected community members who are charged with the responsibility of operating schools and
creating conditions for schools to operate successfully (Rhim, 2013). Over the years, national
school board associations and state school board associations have developed guidelines to
support the successful leadership by school boards in public schools (Delagardelle, 2008).
Research indicates that, when school board members know their roles and
responsibilities, successful collaborative leadership is facilitated. School boards appear chaotic
when there is visible discord in the leadership group, which inadvertently results in an unclear
direction and fragmented vision (Danzberger, 1994). This occurs when school boards do not
understand their roles and responsibilities. National associations and state associations provide
guidance for school board leadership. According to the CSBA, the role of the school board is to
ensure that school districts are responsive to the principles and priorities of the communities that
they represent. CSBA (2017) delineated that school boards have five major responsibilities: (a)
setting direction, (b) establishing an effective and efficient structure, (c) providing support, (d)
19
ensuring accountability, and (e) providing community leadership as advocates for children, the
school district and public schools.
The roles and responsibilities of school board members vary greatly among districts,
depending on factors such as the size of district, demographics of students, and type of
community (e.g., rural vs. urban; Rhim, 2013). Research indicates that school board members’
roles are responsibilities are loosely defined, which is problematic because research supports
that, when board members understand their roles and responsibilities, they are more effective in
leading through the challenges that schools face (Campbell & Green, 1994; Danzberger, 1994;
Land, 2002). The school board is experiencing intense criticism regarding results and poorly
defined roles and, as a result, is facing various forms of reforms nationwide (Brewer & Smith,
2007). School boards are not typically made up of professional educators—nor do they need to
be—however, research indicates that board members need to develop pertinent knowledge,
beliefs, and behaviors that will generate expertise and change for the communities that they
represent (Delagardelle, 2008).
According to Brewer and Smith (2007), when board members have an unclear
understanding of the scope and boundaries of their leadership, three possible leadership problems
can ensue. In the first scenario, an overly strong superintendent will dominate in both policy and
administration, inadvertently removing the board from its important role of creating policy and
limiting the power of collaborative leadership. In the second scenario, a strong board, driven by
distrust of the superintendent, will dominate both policy and administration, significantly
limiting the leadership and administrative role of the superintendent. The third scenario results in
a nebulous leadership relationship in which both the superintendent and board members cross the
20
lines of policy and administration, not respecting the other’s distinct purposes in leadership,
resulting in unclear dynamics. In this scenario, there is confusion for all in the organization.
Research is replete with examples of conflict that arises when school board members
supersede their responsibilities as policy creators and assume the roles and responsibilities
reserved for the superintendent and the superintendent’s administration. Although the view that
board members should not cross the policy lines or delve into the part that belongs to
administration is widely held, boundaries for school board leadership remain inconsistent and are
often unclear (Brewer & Smith, 2007). One reason is that the roles and responsibilities within
school board membership are undefined by a larger governing authority. While research notes
best practices and recommendations, there is no nationwide governing authority to provide a
global direction. As a result, there are marked differences in school board leadership within the
traditional governance model, which allows districts to operate differently among districts, states,
and communities.
The traditional school board governance model is under scrutiny and legislators and
communities are actively seeking alternate solutions for styles of school governance. Wirt and
Kirst (2009) noted political messaging through the media that glorifies problems in public
schools, leading to a lack of confidence and belief that the American school system is failing
students. The authors predicted that the lack of general uniformity regarding the roles and
responsibilities of school board members will continue to be problematic to leadership structures.
This crisis of governance is causing communities to search for alternate governance
arrangements, especially in urban school districts (Plecki et al., 2006). Lee and Eadens (2014)
explained that public perception of ineffectiveness has resulted in a policy that can place
requirements on board members and/or constrain their jurisdiction. Alternate governance models
21
arise when there are dissatisfaction and extreme organizational pressures in school districts, such
as lack of accountability, pervasive poor student performance, and ongoing poor fiscal position
(Allen et al., 2009; Plecki et al., 2006). Poor relational issues, such as lack of trust, perceived
failure to focus on students, failure to address the priorities of the community, and visible lack of
collaboration further propel a district toward alternate forms (Plecki et al., 2006).
In response to public dissatisfaction, various types of alternate governance reforms are
emerging nationwide. Alternate governance forms are shifting the power of board governance
efforts and, in some cases, significantly altering the scope and power of school boards. Plecki et
al. (2006) described various examples of alternate governance forms and listed school districts
that had adopted these new forms of governance.
Among the emergent alternate governance forms that alter the power of the board, the
most common is mayoral governance. State and mayoral governance models are being
established frequently, especially in urban school districts (Land, 2002). In mayoral governance,
a mayor is placed as the head policy member of a school district. In the United States today, two
million students are educated in mayoral-controlled districts. Major American cities that employ
a mayoral governance model are Cleveland, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Washington, Oakland, and Harrisburg. Within a mayoral control model, the
legislature grants the mayor power to create and implement policies of school districts. The
ultimate objective is to produce improvement and return to local control of the school district;
however, in some cases, such as in New York, legislation has been amended to extend the
mayoral control term. Public support of mayoral takeovers has increased dramatically in the past
decade, with 39% of Americans stating that they would support this governance model in
districts where poor student achievement persists (Lee & Eadens, 2014; Rose & Gallup, 2007).
22
State takeovers imitate in the state legislature. The state board of education or federal court
transfers leadership responsibilities to the state department of education (Land, 2002; Ziebarth,
1999). By the early 2000s, 24 states had passed legislation allowing for state takeover and 15
states had granted authority to take over individual schools, in cases of academic bankruptcy
(Land, 2002).
Plecki et al. (2006) described a second form of alternate governance, one that alters the
roles, functions, and expertise of the trustees. There are many venues in which to alter the board.
The most common, and the focus of this paper, is through mandated training for board members.
In this reform, the expertise of board members is altered, or improved, as they enhance their
knowledge of their roles and functions. Within mandated training, the goal is for school board
members to learn how to engage in collaborative leadership with each other and with their
superintendent. This training most commonly includes governance, team building, and conflict
resolution. Resnick (1999) supported this model, arguing that, while not all school boards are
governing effectively, disenfranchisement should not be the solution. Resnick (1999) posited that
training through legislation is a practice that will support positive district leadership. Alsbury
(2008) reported that 24 states currently have a form of mandated school board training. One
example of mandated training through legislation is in the state of Kentucky. In an effort to
increase achievement rates and improve schools in Kentucky, the state required training for
board members. Board members elected after 2015 are required to attend training before
becoming board members and must engage in 12 hours of training during the first year of
service.
The final alternate governance form that Plecki et al. (2006) described, and the most
extreme, is a complete shift in authority. A common example is charter school governance,
23
which is actively present in 34 states. The charter school movement has seen the most rapid
growth of all alternate governance forms. Drawing from bipartisan support and supported by a
U.S. grant-administered program, it has grown from 0.4 million to 3 million students since 2002.
In this case, non-district schools operate entirely independently of the school board. If relational
and organizational problems of school board leadership continue, so will the continued increase
in alternative governance models nationwide. Research confirms that providing board members
with training to carry out collaborative leadership with the goal of student achievement is a
promising practice. Traditional models have recently faced mandated training, limited scope of
power, and in very serious situations, complete loss of governance. There is an urgency for
school board members to be trained in board governance that results in stable and achieving
districts. National and state school board organizations should focus on proactively supporting
school board member knowledge to support effective leadership.
In California, there is a growing trend of alternative governance models. CSBA provides
leadership, guidelines, and expectations for school board members and provides the MIG
training to support the standards that they set forth as best practices in school board leadership
with the goal of increasing student achievement. The professional governance standards are
divided into two distinct strands: (a) individual school board member traits, and (b) collective
school board team traits. CSBA provides training in five topics that address a school board
member’s roles and responsibilities: (a) foundations of effective governance; (b) policy and
judicial review: student learning and achievement; (c) school finance; (d) human resources:
collective bargaining; and (e) community relations and advocacy: governance integration. The
MIG training is offered to support school board members and superintendents to gain required
24
knowledge and skills to support effective and collaborative leadership to carry out duties to
support all students.
Budget
Adopting and overseeing the school district’s budget remains one of the school board’s
main responsibilities (Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999). There are many financial responsibilities in
the budget, including planning and approving the budget; labor negotiations; and oversight of
contracts for nutrition, transportation, technology, and facilities; and revenue generation through
taxes, bonds, and campaigns (Land, 2002). The challenge for school boards is not engagement in
budget practices: rather, the success of the school board is seen in its ability to identify
collectively and fund policies and programs that will maximize student achievement, while
identifying budget cuts as a way to ensure fiscal solvency and mitigate overspending (Land,
2002; Picus, 2000).
Public Interest
School board citizen control over the educational governance ensures that the school
board reflects the values and priorities for the communities that the board serves. Within this
process, the objective is that the demands of the community directly influence the priorities of
the board. The values of American democracy are fortified in the process of electing school
board members to ensure community voice and local control. Recent literature has challenged
the position that school board members primarily serve the interest and values of the community
that they represent. Research indicates that school board elections elicit voting by only 10% to
15% of the electorate on average nationwide (Land, 2002). School board critics claim that
limited school board candidates, low voter percentages in school board elections, and ignorance
about the role of the school board constitute evidence that the traditional governance model is
25
failing (Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000). In a national school board satisfaction survey focused
on urban school districts, only 37% of urban responders reported that their school board was
performing at an excellent level. In the same survey, 70% of school board members assessed
their work as excellent (Land, 2002). This stark difference in the opinion of the community
versus the perception of the school board members raises questions regarding who school boards
represent if there is a shortage of interest on the part of the community constituents.
Literature reveals that school boards represent varied and diverse groups that extend
beyond the community members in their voting area. Plecki et al. (2006) wrote that school board
members are supported by a cluster of interest groups and vested stakeholders, not the majority
of the community. This suggests that school board members are not solely community servants
but are rather collaborators with special interest groups who have very specific educational
agendas (Hill, 2003; Howell, 2005). A surge of government and nongovernment groups is taking
an active role in education through this collaboration. Bodies such as the federal government,
state legislatures, state governors, state school boards, unions, and courts are active in shaping
policy that affects schools (Plecki et al., 2006).
One example of this is the role of the union in local school board politics. Since the
1970s, unions have established themselves as very influential in local politics and have certainly
made their mark on local school board elections. Teachers’ unions can be the most influential
participants in school board campaigns, as they supply both money and campaign workers to
their candidates of choice. Moe (2005) found that, in large urban school districts, teachers unions
were the single most influential group in the results of school board elections. Wirt and Kirst
(2005) asserted that, with the turnout for board elections often falling below 15%, one can
conclude that special interest groups such as unions are able to influence the election of school
26
board members and may be duly represented at the bargaining table. Board experts have
recommended examination of the role of stakeholders, specifically unions, in local politics in the
forging of policy (Grissom, 2010; Hess & Leal, 2005). This is one example of how the
complexities of various interest groups and local agencies cloud the roles of school board
members and take their focus away from a shared vision. External interest groups are strong
predictors of conflict in local governing boards (Grissom, 2010). Understanding the role of
advocacy for the community supports collaborative leadership and representation of all students.
Policy
One of the central responsibilities of the school board in a traditional governance model
is to develop policy that is responsive to student needs and in line with the district’s shared
vision. Shaping policy remains the school board’s primary function (Danzberger, 1994; Land,
2002). In the early 1900s, school boards were mediators of policy, leaving the most important
decisions to the district, legitimizing the staff, and making few, if any, changes (Wirt & Kirst,
2005). After the creation of the superintendent position in the early 1900s, the central role of the
board members shifted to encompass policy (Land, 2002). The role of the trustees has expanded
in policy, as legislation has increased accountability after events such as state and federal
categorical aid, desegregation, accountability systems, and unions (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
While many major board policies are aligned with federal policies and mandates, the
primary function of the board remains to create local policies in their districts. A school district’s
primary policymakers are the school board members. If the superintendents recommend a policy
that aids student achievement, boards have the power to approve it. If the superintendents do not
recommend policies that result in student achievement, then the boards should demand it.
Ineffective boards rarely spend the needed time on policy development. (Lee & Eadens, 2014).
27
The role of creating policy is important and recognized by school board member groups
on national, state, and local levels. These groups offer ongoing training, materials, and
mentorship in policymaking to board members (Land, 2002; Nelson & Crum, 1983). Within the
focus and targeted support to school board members, policymaking remains an area of needed
improvement, according to survey data (Carol et al., 1986; Land, 2002). Surveys of school board
members indicate that lack of time, confusion between roles in administration versus
policymaking, and external accountability pressures such as those from government agencies
contribute to this hardship (Carol et al., 1986; Land, 2002). Delagardelle (2008) found that only
3% of board meetings was spent on actual policy, while 56% was spent on administrative
matters—an area that is reserved specifically for the superintendent. Research recommends
elements to consider increasing the success of policy making by boards. Educational leadership
experts suggest that successful policies should reflect the school board’s vision for the entire
institution, should be harmonious with other district policies, should be inclusionary of specific
goals and objectives, and should be in line with state and federal mandates (Danzberger, 1994;
Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999). It is also recommended that school boards create written procedures
for creating policy that clearly define the roles and responsibilities of those who are to carry out
the policy, provide specific metrics to gauge policy goal attainment, and delineate ongoing
monitoring and evaluation of progress toward the policy goal (Carol et al., 1986; Land, 2002).
Accountability and Evaluation
Researchers have recommended that effective school board members regularly engage in
ongoing evaluation. Within this evaluation cycle, school board members and superintendents
review progress and promote accountability. School board member accountability should be
evaluated to inform decisions, to hold schools and school personnel accountable, and to hold
28
board members themselves accountable for achievement of district goals (Amundson &
Richardson, 1991; Carol et al., 1986; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002).
Accountability to governmental agencies had added a layer of evaluation and
responsibility to the role of the board member. Accountability has become so ingrained that the
NSBA has listed accountability as one of the major prongs of the work of the school board,
although critics are concerned that school board members view accountability as an outward
focus, holding others, not necessarily themselves, accountable (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Land,
2002; Resnick, 1999; Shannon, 1994). At present, states do not require school boards to undergo
effectiveness evaluations. In a study by Glass (2007), only 24% of superintendents reported that
their trustees participated in self-evaluation, while approximately 66% indicated that their school
board members never participated in self-evaluation. Experts recommend that, in addition to
ongoing self-evaluation, school boards elicit evaluation by an outside agency or auditor to inform
practice (Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000; Land, 2002).
Research indicates that accountability and responsibility for student achievement are the
areas that school board experts assert require attention and focus for school board member
growth. The board member of today must lead beyond the budget and constituent interests to
adopt leadership roles that directly affect achievement by students (Lee & Eadens, 2014).
School boards have traditionally focused on financial, legal, and constituent issues, and
have left responsibility for students’ achievement to their administrators and educators.
Today, however, school boards risk being judged ineffective if they do not develop
policies and support programs explicitly designed to improve students’ academic
achievement, oversee and evaluate the implementation and performance of these policies
29
and programs, and demonstrate improved and/or high academic achievement. (Resnick,
1999, p. 23)
Since the late 1990s, the NBSA has identified expectations of school board members,
including academic achievement as a core responsibility. Although school board research has
been laden with student achievement growth expectations, there is limited research that
quantifies student achievement growth as a result of board member actions.
School Board Collective Vision
In a successful school board leadership model, there is evidence of school board members
and their superintendent collectively setting a shared vision and moving toward that vision as a
unit.
School board members do not have the authority to govern local education as individuals;
states only authorize school boards to govern as a singular body. Thus, the ability of
school board members to work together and reach consensus is essential for boards to
exercise their authority. (Land, 2002, p. 30)
School board experts emphasize that individuals sharing a common vision is important in school
board collective relations (Carol et al., 1986; Danzberger, 1994; Grissom, 2010).
Lee and Eadens (2014) explained that underdeveloped school board leadership teams can
hinder progress and become barriers to progress in a district. The authors attributed this to
individual members putting their individual agendas before team vision and governance.
Individual vision and influence of special interest groups cause public distrust (Anderson, 1992;
Land, 2002; Merz, 1986; The Twentieth Century Fund/Danforth Foundation, 1992). Critics of
traditional school boards warn that school board members concentrate on building individual
relationships with special groups in order to advance individual political careers (Land, 2002). A
30
common example of this is seen when teachers’ unions gain influence with individual board
members and leverage resources in the form of campaign contributions and member
mobilization. In turn, the individual board member supports the union and can direct resources in
various ways, such as collective bargaining (Grissom, 2010; Moe, 2005, 2009). Additional ire
toward school board leadership is due to the inability of trustees to work together as a cohesive
unit (Carol et al., 1986; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002; McCloud & McKenzie, 1994;
McGonagill, 1987; Rallis & Criscoe, 1993; Schlechty & Cole, 1993; The Twentieth Century
Fund/Danforth Foundation, 1992; Wagner, 1992). School board researchers have posited that
positive change is required for school boards to survive (Danzberger, 1994; Kirst, 1994; Land,
2002; The Twentieth Century Fund/Danforth Foundation, 1992). Research consistently reports
that an area that requires additional attention is intergroup conflict, in an effort to understand
problems in school teams. School boards that experience significant conflict via external and
internal stressors are negatively affected in their team performance and produce tension that
takes members away from their group goals (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Grissom, 2010). In
surveying board members, Carol et al. (1986) found that factionalism and an inability to
overcome differences created conflict that led to negative outcomes. Grissom (2010) wrote that
“high-performing groups tend to have lower degrees of both task and relationship conflict” (p.
604). Hill et al. (1989) found that overcoming conflict among members of the team is an
important condition to propel positive change. Supporting school board member and
superintendent collaborative leadership is a necessary component of governance training.
Hiring the Superintendent
The original responsibility of leadership of the school was the sole responsibility of the
school board. As the demands of the nation’s education systems grew, so did the role of the
31
superintendent. The role of the superintendent was created specifically to provide day-to-day
administration and oversight of school operations (Korelich & Maxwell, 2015). Appointing the
superintendent is the most important role of the board (Brewer & Smith, 2007). The
superintendent is the one employee whom the school board evaluates and supervises. Given that
the average school board has five to seven members, the unique supervision of a group over one
individual can be uniquely complicated, if not orchestrated appropriately. School board experts
have concluded that successful boards steer clear of micromanaging the superintendent. Effective
school boards allow the superintendent to focus on the day-to-day administration, while the
board concerns itself with broad policy (Grissom, 2010).
Often, school boards hire an outside consultant firm to conduct the search for a
superintendent. The search firm, as it is traditionally called, works with the school board and
supports the process of finding a superintendent who meets qualifications and criteria for the
most important and most visible position in a school district. During this process, board members
have the opportunity to provide input regarding the qualities that they desire in a leader. Glenn et
al. (2009) studied consultants’ perceptions, shedding light on the skills in a superintendent that
are most sought by school board members. The survey results indicated that school board
members perceive that, for a superintendent to lead successfully as a chief executive officer of
the school district, that person must have requisite conceptual, technical, and human relational
abilities. The conceptual skills support the ability to plan, solve problems, and make decisions.
The technical skills allow the superintendent to lead appropriately in the many functions of the
school district. Finally, human relation skills support the ability to engage with all stakeholders.
The authors noted that, while the technical components that are desired in a superintendent by
32
the school board may change, strong interpersonal skills are always desired for successful
superintendent leadership.
The Superintendent and Student Achievement
Research indicates that selection of and collaboration with the superintendent are perhaps
the most important roles of the school board. The superintendent is the primary leader of the
school district, overseeing operation, instruction, and implementation of the vision and policies
of the board, while propelling the organization toward student achievement. A meta-analysis that
involved 2,817 school districts and achievement scores for 3.4 million students over 3 decades
found a direct link between superintendent qualities and student achievement. Waters and
Marzano (2006) reported, in what is believed to be the largest quantitative examination of
research on superintendent effectiveness, a significant direct statistical relationship between
district leadership and student achievement. The second finding was that effective
superintendents are skilled in navigating intricate goals setting. The goals-setting process begins
with development of collaborative goals, involving board members and central office staff. The
superintendent guides the collaboration to ensure that high standards for student achievement are
adopted by all as nonnegotiable. In high-achieving school districts, there is a visible board
alignment with the goals, as well as ongoing monitoring of progress toward goals. District
resources are allocated in support of the goals that support student achievement. Waters and
Marzano (2006) reported a direct correlation between superintendent length of tenure and student
achievement, indicating that the longer the superintendent is in the position, the higher the
student outcomes. The findings supported the concept of defined autonomy, or autonomy given
by the superintendent to school administrators to choose their methods for carrying out the vision
of the goals. Research indicates a strong correlation between superintendent effectiveness and
33
student achievement. Effective superintendents are most impactful when they navigate
collaborative goal setting and goal attainment and provide their leaders with a level of autonomy.
School Board-Superintendent Relationship
A strong superintendent-board relationship is paramount to the success of school board
governance. Research supports that school district superintendents and school boards must work
collectively and intimately (Hess, 2002; Lee & Eadens, 2014).
The three most critical factors in evaluating superintendent performance are the board-
superintendent relationship, the morale of the school system employees, and the safety of
the district students. The emphasis placed on the board-superintendent relationship
reflects the importance of a well-functioning leadership team to effective governance and
administration. (Hess, 2002, p. 4)
Many studies highlight the importance of board-and-superintendent positive
relationships. Danzberger et al. (1992) recommended that school board members engage in
training that specifically targets managing relationships with superintendents. In stable districts,
this positive collaboration between the superintendent and the school board is highly visible. In
fact, alternate forms of governance have been initiated in districts marked by a lack of
collaborative leadership. Goodman et al. (1997) stated that poor collaboration between the
superintendent and board members is representative of unsuccessful governance. Brewer and
Smith (2007) explained that negative interactions between the board and the superintendent are a
catalyst for board reform.
The Wallace Foundation conducted a survey of superintendents and school board
members regarding board-superintendent collaboration. The 175 superintendents who were
polled were rated as outstanding superintendents by their peers. Of those, 71% agreed that the
34
superintendency is in a state of crisis, 93% reported having a positive relationship with their
board, but only 88% described their board was effective. Only 30% agreed that the traditional
governance model should continue; 52% recommended restructuring of the system. In contrast,
75% stated that the present system needed no changes.
The CSBA (2020) published “Superintendent Governance Standards” in collaboration
with the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) Superintendents Committee
and the CSBA Superintendents Council. The 11 standards address the need for superintendents
to demonstrate accountability, collaborative leadership, communication, and ethics.
Decision making is a hallmark of the superintendent’s responsibilities. Decision making
takes two forms in the role of the superintendent. First, decisions made by the board are highly
influenced by the choices, research, recommendations, and agenda that are provided by the
superintendent (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Second, board members give superintendents significant
leverage in decision making through board discretion, allowing the superintendent to act outside
of the board’s approval (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). While this description could lead one to conclude
that a superintendent works with a level of decisive autonomy, a strategic superintendent must
always anticipate the reactions of board members to their decisions and actions (Wirt & Kirst,
2005).
Waters and Marzano (2006) found that, on a national scale, superintendents in high-
achieving districts had a strong and visible focus on goal orientation. Within this overarching
goal, successful superintendents in successful districts demonstrated distinct characteristics.
Superintendents included all stakeholders in collaborative goal setting. The goals set were
nonnegotiable and targeted two areas: instruction and achievement. The superintendents ensured
that research-based assessment systems were used regularly to inform progress toward goals.
35
Successful superintendents aligned all resources necessary to meet the goals. The researchers
found that in high achieving districts one of the most impactful superintendent characteristics
was the ability to gain board alignment and goals involving achievement and instruction. The
elements necessary for this, according to the researchers, were the superintendent’s collaboration
and influence with the board, requiring the following: (a) establishing consensus with the board
president regarding district goals, (b) establishing an agreement with the board president about
the conflict in the district, (c) with the board president, sharing a consensus about the political
climate of the district, (d) implementing professional development for the trustees, and (e)
gaining agreement with the board president on the effectiveness of the training.
The above findings suggest that the superintendent should engage at significant levels of
collaboration with followers. The elements require a strong relationship with the board president
and board members. A 2007 national poll found that 93% of responding superintendents rated
their relationship with their board as good or very good (Brewer & Smith, 2007). A study in
Minnesota showed that most superintendents viewed their relationship with their school board as
very good, attributing the positive relationship to high job satisfaction, perceived fairness in the
evaluation of the superintendent, and overall support of the superintendent’s leadership. Two
important practices were paramount in positive relationships: ensuring a partition between the
superintendent’s administration and the board’s policy making, and making collaborative
decisions based on student achievement (Korelich & Maxwell, 2015).
Student achievement is positively affected by positive superintendent-school board
relationships (Tripses et al., 2015). Support of the superintendent by the board is important to
this endeavor, although there are also important actions by the superintendent to support the
collaborative leadership relationship. Rice (2014) stated that superintendents who facilitate
36
public recognition of board members, demonstrate respectful behavior toward them at all times
(especially in public), share written communications with all board members equally, and ensure
votes ahead of time to support collaborative voices will support a trusting and collaborative
relationship. Respect and adherence to roles and responsibilities by board members and symbolic
efforts to ensure trust on the part of the superintendent are promising to support positive board
relationships, or the risk is mistrust and a lack of leadership cohesion (Johnson, 2011).
School Board Member Training and Student Achievement
Existing research is limited regarding a direct link between school board member training
and increased student achievement. Roberts and Sampson (2011) explored whether school board
member training had an effect on student achievement. In the mixed-methods study, the
researchers developed and administered a questionnaire to 50 directors of state school board
associations, exploring whether they agreed that school board member training had a positive
effect on student achievement. In the 26 responses that were received, most states did not
mandate training for school board service, although the state board directors agreed that school
board member training has a positive impact on achievement by students. Their responses were
then compared with Education Week’s 2009 rating of state education systems. The state rating
scores indicated that the states that required school board professional development received an
overall rating of B or C, whereas the states that did not mandate professional development
received a rating of C or D. The study showed possible evidence that school board member
training has a positive impact on student achievement, although it was noted that more credible
and correlational studies are needed. The literature in this area is limited.
Similarly, Plough (2014) explored how perceptions, behaviors, and beliefs of school
board members in higher-performing districts versus lower-performing districts differed. The
37
researcher applied the Lighthouse Inquiry framework as a theoretical foundation and surveyed
105 board members in 22 low-performing California school districts and 82 school board
members in 17 high-performing school districts with similar demographic and economic profiles.
Although there were many areas of similarities, there were critical areas of distinction. The
results indicated two important findings. First, governance training, as opposed to sessions
dedicated to specific information or topics, might have the greatest impact on student
achievement. Second, there is a need for more research about school board preparation and
training, specifically exploring the most beneficial type of training to improve student
achievement.
Additional studies emerged that indirectly linked school board effectiveness and student
achievement. Waters and Marzano (2006) argued that an effective school board recruits and hires
an effective superintendent who can orchestrate collaboration and unity with the board and the
district. They concluded that measurable student achievement will increase through this action.
Weiss, Thompson, and Tremon (2014) reported that the collaborative relationship between the
board and the superintendent builds cohesion, communication, and consensus building, which
has a positive impact on student achievement. However, few studies have directly linked
professional development and student achievement in a mixed-methods format. More research is
needed to gauge the perceptions of school leaders and validate student achievement data.
School Board Member Training
School board members are elected local community officials who are responsible for the
governance of a district, although they receive minimal training to prepare them for the role (Lee
& Eadens, 2014). Board members and superintendents have agreed that professional
development and evaluation of the training efficacy is important (P. L. Rice, 2010). Rhim (2013)
38
advocated for training school board members to be supported at all levels of government:
national, regional, state, and local. At the national level, the federal government should be
allocating funding to support training related to superintendent relations, roles and
responsibilities, and governance. At the regional level, support for training can come as
encouragement for fully funded technical assistance centers to advocate for training in addition
to incorporating school board training in state plans. At the state level, Rhim (2013)
recommended that states foster relationships with local colleges and universities to secure
leadership training for new and veteran board members alike. At the local level, training can be
supported through mentorship opportunities. Professional development targeting effective
leadership skills, high expectations for staff efficacy, and goal setting promises to support
achievement by students (Lee & Eadens, 2014). Danzberger (1994) recommended that school
districts include policies that include regular training and development centered on results of
periodic self-assessments.
The NSBA (2012) delineated eight habits for a successful school board leader. Successful
school board members define goals to increase student achievement, hold high standards for
students, focus on policies that increase student achievement, collaborate with the staff and
community in shared goal setting, use data-driven approaches, align resources with the district
improvement plan, work collaboratively, and engage in regular professional development
(NSBA, 2012). In order to fulfill the dynamic and critical responsibilities, it is imperative to
research school board members’ perceptions of the importance of professional development.
Research indicates that professional development facilitates board members’ understanding of
their responsibilities, which supports sound decisions regarding the district and leads to increased
student achievement (Korelich & Maxwell, 2015). Adversely, when school board members do
39
not understand their roles, poor board leadership can result (Zion, 2008). Research shows that
board members see training as a promising strategy to prepare them to act in the best interest of
students (Korelich & Maxwell, 2015).
Critics argue that professional development opportunities for school board members are
limited. One argument is that professional development focuses too strongly on dispensing
information and lacks development of one cohesive group, thus missing opportunities to build
necessary skills that target collaborative leadership (Land, 2002). A focus on knowledge, policy,
and accountability overshadows the importance of collective relationships among school board
members and their relationship with the superintendent. A common characteristics of
unsuccessful school boards is failure to function collectively and collaboratively with each other
and with the superintendent. Research shows that collaborative leadership and effective teams
should be included in professional development of school board members (Carol et al., 1986;
Danzberger et al., 1987; Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000; Land, 2002; Schmidt, 1992). At
present, there is limited research about board member, community, or district staff perceptions of
effectiveness of specific components of training, specifically those related to collaborative
leadership. The research broadly refers to “roles and responsibilities.”
Research indicates that positive school board behaviors and student achievement scores
are positively correlated (Lee & Eadens, 2014; Lorentzen, 2013). Training that includes roles,
responsibilities, and team dynamics will benefit collaborative relationships and raise student
achievement. There is a nationwide need to train school board members. Hess (2002) found that
“approximately one in five board members would like to receive training in the following
substantive or strategic areas: student achievement issues, planning and budget/resource
allocation, community collaboration/partnerships, and community engagement” (p. 4). School
40
board member training that targets student achievement and collective relationships is especially
critical in low-performing school districts.
Conceptual Frameworks
In this dynamic educational landscape, multifaceted challenges and pressures require that
school board members actively seek insight and adopt practices from leadership frameworks that
have demonstrated efficacy. The varied responsibilities to a diverse group—community,
families, students, staff, governmental agencies, advocacy groups, and so on—require school
board members to apply dynamic leadership theories. Bensimon (1989) suggested that, when
there are differences in a subsystem of an organization, leaders should draw on different
leadership tools. The following frameworks guided the research and questions in the study:
Bolman and Deal’s (2016) four frame model of leadership, CSBA’s MIG training, and the
Lighthouse Inquiry Study (Rice et al., 2000).
Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model of Leadership
Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations (2016) provides leaders with a dynamic
approach to lead in complex organizations. The authors encouraged leaders to look at and
approach issues drawing on four perspectives or “frames.” The authors explained that problems
in organizations cannot be solved simply by employing one static leadership style. They stated
that effective leaders must use a range of tools (in this case, lenses or frames) in their approach to
issues, depending on the problem. An effective leader will learn how to analyze a problem to
determine which frame is most appropriate in the quest of a successful outcome for the
organization. Bolman and Deal proposed four frames: structural, human resource, political, and
symbolic.
41
The structural frame delineates the organization’s systems and logistics for production.
Bolman and Deal (2016) asserted that structures are naturally occurring and that every
organization will create a structure; therefore, they urged leaders to ensure that theirs is one of
effectiveness. The structural frame involves strategy, communication, goal-setting roles,
responsibilities, hierarchy, and procedures. They noted that the important component of the
structural frame is cohesion among policy, procedures, and leadership.
The human resources frame is rooted in psychology and involves the social-emotional
component of leading individuals. Bolman and Deal (2016) wrote that effective leaders
acknowledge that their followers have a need to add value to the organization and be valued by
the organization. They noted that individuals within an organization have strengths and
weaknesses and that a leader can build on the strengths and give immediate corrective feedback
within a supportive environment to help individuals improve in needed areas. The human
resources frame flourishes when the leader enhances communication and collaborative
commitment. This results in individual motivation and organizational success.
Bolman and Deal (2016) developed the political frame by drawing on theories of political
science. The authors asserted that organizations have complex relationships built into the overall
organizational system. Elements such as competition, divergent agendas, and desires to access
resources create environments that are difficult to navigate. The most important decisions in
organizations involve allocating resources and goals and decisions emerge when stakeholders
have involvement; the authors warned that individual interests will ultimately drive negotiations.
They suggested that a skillful leader oversees allocation of resources, facilitates communication,
and leverages influence among staff by applying the political frame to enhance the outcomes for
the organization.
42
The fourth and final frame is the symbolic frame. The symbolic frame draws on
sociology research. It addresses people’s intrinsic needs for community, purpose, and meaning.
A strong symbolic leader inspires people. A symbolic leader’s abilities include creating a
motivating environment, establishing a strong vision, and maintaining morale and connectedness
through traditions and celebrations. Bolman and Deal (2016) explained that a leader who uses
this frame effectively can capture attention, frame experience, create a strong vision, and tell
stories to inspire. An effective symbolic leader skillfully creates morale and builds a cohesive
identity for the organization.
Bolman and Deal (2016) encouraged leaders to adopt this four-frame model of
leadership. The four frames allow school board members and superintendents to lead followers
in complex organizations by addressing unique individual and team needs within a supportive
environment that has clear goals for high achievement.
CSBA’s Standards and MIG Training
CSBA (2018) is a nonprofit organization and is the state’s chapter of the NSBA. CSBA
governs approximately 1,000 public school districts and county offices of education,
representing 99.9% of K–12 public school enrollment. CSBA is the only organization in
California that advocates for local governing boards. The mission is to strengthen and promote
school board governance. One vehicle through which the organization supports school member
governance is by providing school board members with standards. The standards target the
essential responsibilities of school board members, including the following:
• Setting direction
• Establishing an effective and efficient structure
• Providing support
43
• Ensuring accountability
• Providing community leadership as advocates for children, the school district, and
public schools (CSBA, 2019)
CSBA (2019) aims to support and leadership to develop school board members for the
important work in leading school districts. To that end, CSBA provides MIG training for school
board members and superintendents through which they can learn their roles and responsibilities
to govern collaboratively and effectively. MIG is a promising training to increasing positive,
collaborative, and successful leadership. MIG training is a voluntary, five-part training program
offered to all California school board members. MIG teaches school board members essential
components for effective school district leadership through effective governance structure in the
following areas: foundations of effective governance, policy and judicial review, school finance,
human resources, and community relations and advocacy. CSBA standards provide school board
members and superintendents with the requisite skills and knowledge to build effective
governance structures in their districts.
Lighthouse Inquiry Study
The Lighthouse Inquiry study provides valuable insight on conditions that are commonly
associated with high-performing districts. In the Iowa study, facilitated by the Iowa School
Boards Association (D. Rice et al., 2000), researchers found similarities and differences in
governance and environment in high-achieving “moving” and low-achieving “stuck” districts.
Similarities included board members having peaceable relationships, board members having
positive opinions of their superintendent, some confusion about navigating the lack of clarity
between global versus site-based policy responsibilities, general concerns about closing the
achievement gap for significant subgroups, and a significant number of board members growing
44
up near or in their community of service. Although there were some commonalities between
“moving” and “stuck” districts, there were some significant distinctions.
The Lighthouse study (D. Rice et al., 2000) illustrates seven critical conditions found in
high-achieving districts that were underdeveloped or critically absent in the “stuck” districts. The
researchers reported critical gaps in leadership evident in the “behavior of the policymaking team
and central office personnel” (p. 39). These gaps were evident to the staff and reported in staff
interviews. The study highlighted the conditions as recommendations of positive characteristics
that support effective governance in high-achieving districts. Delagardelle explained that the first
common trait in high-achieving districts was that board members demonstrated knowledge about
school conditions, program improvement initiates, and service to the community. Proximity on
behalf of the school board members elicits trust on behalf of the community.
Delagardelle described the second condition: use of data. In “moving” districts, school
board members regarded data as diagnostic, informing goals for growth, whereas “stuck” district
trustees tended to blame the superintendent for low achievement data. As a result of the positive
approach to data as a tool for improvement, “moving” district personnel “felt they were members
of a large team trying to make education better” (as cited in Rice et al., 2000, p. 41).
The third, fourth, and fifth conditions that distinguished high-achieving boards from low-
achieving boards were related to staff support and development and relationships. In “moving”
districts, board members understood how to support staff in their roles and knew how to facilitate
their development of further knowledge and skill. In successful districts, board members
considered themselves equals to staff in the charge to educate students. They communicated that
student achievement was a global goal of their obligation to their community. Therefore, they
wanted staff to build on strengths as a means to support student achievement. This occurred
45
through regular staff development. The positive staff dynamics resulted in confidence and
honesty in facing problems collaboratively. The staff reports reflected feeling supported and
trusting the policy makers based on their leadership actions.
The sixth condition found in “moving” districts was that board members understood how
to produce community involvement. In less successful school districts, the policy makers did not
reflect an appreciation for what the community could do to support students. In the “moving”
districts, board members involved the community in shared decision making and, equally
important, they communicated that the community members were a part of the larger team (D.
Rice et al., 2000).
The seventh and final condition of successful school leadership was referred to as
“integrative leadership.” Individuals who demonstrate an “integrative leadership” are able to
develop direction within a realistic lens, providing strong and sensitive conditions. The
Lighthouse Inquiry Project highlighted conditions in effective school board governance. The
conditions required that school board members develop both leadership skills and foundational
knowledge in order to increase achievement and produce successful leadership. Enhancing
leadership and knowledge supports deliberate vision creation and propels the district toward a
high standard of achievement. The Lighthouse Inquiry Project facilitated board members to be
“dynamic leaders in the school renewal process without ‘micromanaging’ the system”
(Delagardelle, 2000, p. 58). Incorporating the Lighthouse Inquiry recommendations in board
member training could be promising in supporting shared leadership, building a positive district
environment, and increasing student achievement.
46
Conclusion
School board members and superintendents are the most influential leaders in a school
district. Their collaborative leadership has become a matter of great urgency due to the rapidly
changing demands on the American educational system. Accountability to various stakeholders
(specifically, students, parents, staff, community members, community organizations, and
governmental agencies) requires that school board members understand how application of
leadership principles, theories, and standards plays a role in informed decision making with a
goal to increase the quality of public education in the communities that they serve. In order to
create a shared vision with the goal of improving student achievement, superintendents and
school boards must engage in a collaborative partnership built on trust, transparency, and respect
for one another’s responsibilities. A board that works in harmony with the superintendent is a
foundation for effective leadership. Goodman and Zimmerman (2000) stated that shared vision,
structure, union, accountability, and student advocacy should underline ongoing goal setting and
self-evaluation. At present, there are limited research studies that explore school board members’
perceptions of their leadership. Although there are published editorials regarding the subject, the
literature lacks empirically based studies. French et al. (2008) found that board members tend to
believe that their governance is successful. Delagardelle (2008) found that superintendents and
school board members are not in alignment regarding the role of the school board; board
members perceived that they were spending adequate time on their designated responsibilities,
while superintendents reported that they were spending less time. Accountability systems,
pervasive lack of growth in achievement, and resource pressures have added complexities to
educational leadership for both superintendents and board members. The traditional school board
model of 200 years is being challenged in light of the circumstances, and alternative governance
47
forms are rapidly emerging. Training for school board members and superintendents is necessary
to ensure that school board members know their roles and responsibilities and carry out their
shared vision to improve student achievement.
48
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
The USC dissertation cohort researchers developed three guiding questions. The
questions were designed to understand whether school board members and superintendents agree
that the MIG equips school board members with necessary training to engage in collaborative
leadership that affects student achievement.
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 Team
The USC research team consisted of 20 doctoral students. A total of 62 California school
districts were represented in the study. The research team worked together in development of the
research questions, interview questions, and survey questions, question alignment survey,
collaboratively planning and creating the instruments. The team collected data together and
49
shared results to maximize the findings. For those reasons, the project and the reviewed data are
similar, although each dissertation is unique.
Research Methods
In order to investigate how school board member training affects collaborative leadership
with the goal of student achievement, the key concepts from leadership research, achievement
research, and professional methodologies were applied. The research questions, interview
questions, and survey questions were designed and were applied to understand the participants’
perceptions about how training impacts their collaborative leadership, effective governance, and,
ultimately, student achievement.
For the purpose of this study, Bolman and Deal’s four frames of leadership (2016) were
applied. The four frames of leadership are an effective tool to help leaders to navigate the critical
challenges facing public schools. Drawing from organizational theory, sociology, psychology,
anthropology, and political science, Bolman and Deal consolidated leading theories into four
frames of leadership. The authors asserted that effective results are yielded when leaders learn
how to apply dynamic leadership approaches in specific situations. Leadership effectiveness lies
in a leader’s ability to understand the problem and know which frame to apply. Bolman and Deal
(2016) provided the structural frame, human resource frame, political frame, and symbolic frame
to support leaders in achieving successful outcomes in complex organizations. This is an
applicable theory for school board members, given the many stakeholders, specific interests,
climate, and challenges in public school education.
The CSBA standards for school board members were applied. According to CSBA, the
role of the school board is to ensure that school districts are responsive to the principles and
priorities of the communities that they represent. CSBA (2019) delineated that school boards
50
have five major responsibilities: (a) setting direction, (b) establishing an effective and efficient
structure, (c) providing support, (d) ensuring accountability, and (e) providing community
leadership as advocates for children, the school district and public schools.
School boards are comprised of officials selected by community voters; there is no
requirement that they have experience in education or governance. Research supports that board
members must develop pertinent knowledge, beliefs and behaviors to propel student
achievement. CSBA demonstrates a commitment to this by providing standards for school board
members and offering MIG training to support leadership that improves outcomes for students.
The CSBA standards guided in developing the interview and survey questions.
The Iowa Lighthouse Inquiry Project in 1994 highlighted effective school boards and
their role in advancing student achievement. The study distinguished characteristics of school
boards that demonstrated increased student achievement. The study identified characteristics and
leadership conditions in school boards in lower-achieving school districts. The researchers
concluded that school boards can create environments that have a positive impact on student
achievement and provided recommendations to that end. The study is one of the largest studies,
over the longest period of time, that has been conducted regarding school board member
leadership and its impact on student achievement; it is remarkably pertinent and valuable to
school board member training research. Bolman and Deal’s four frames, CSBA Standards for
School Board Members, and the Lighthouse Inquiry Project were applied to frame the study and
develop questions to understand participants’ perceptions about how training impacts their
collaborative leadership and effective governance and improves student achievement (D. Rice et
al., 2000).
51
Research Design
This was a qualitative research study, designed to discover the perceptions and
experiences that school leaders have with training and their impact on collaborative leadership
and student achievement. In a qualitative study, research questions help to increase
understanding of the experiences and perceptions of a group of people (Agee, 2009). This study
investigated school board members’ experiences in training, as well as the perceptions that
school board members and superintendents had regarding effective government and student
achievement. The research questions were prescriptive of how data were collected and reported
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013) explained that research questions are designed to
explain what the study is designed to learn about a particular topic. Maxwell stated that a critical
element of qualitative research is variance theory, specifically identifying the processes that
intersect between people, situations, and events. This research in this study was driven by
process theory, investigating the experiences and perspectives that board members and
superintendents had regarding CSBA’s MIG training, specifically understanding how they
perceived it to influence collaborative leadership to increase student achievement.
Qualitative methods were used. The research questions that framed the study were not
linear to result in cause and effect; rather, the questions elicited a dynamic that lent itself to an
iterative and recursive process of discovery. This dynamic allows for reflection and ethical
guidance that drives credible and trustworthy results. Qualitative methods are appropriate in
understanding how superintendents and school board members interpret their experiences and
perceive the role that MIG training plays in their leadership and student achievement. To this
end, interviews and surveys were used to address the research questions.
52
The first point of contact was a recruitment and information letter (Appendix A) sent via
email, delineating the study. This study utilized the following methods of data collection: school
board member survey (Appendix B), a superintendent survey (Appendix C), a school board
member interview guide (Appendix D), and a superintendent interview guide (Appendix E).
Research participants received information about the study, purpose, and logistics of
participation through Informed Consent (Appendix F).
Patton (2002) explained that interviews allow researchers to understand things that are
not otherwise observable. Weiss (1994) noted that interviews are crucial to understanding
perceptions and how those perceptions can be interpreted. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) asserted
that interviews achieve depth and further development toward exploring research questions.
Semi-structured interviews were created for both superintendents and school board members to
understand their perspectives regarding training, leadership, and student achievement. The
interviews provided an account of their views, experiences, and beliefs and informed formulation
of new ideas and concepts that emerged from the dialogue.
Superintendents and board members were surveyed to determine whether there were
trends in the way in which participants perceived their experiences. Surveys are valuable to a
research study because they allow the researcher to “assign a numeric description of trends,
attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population” (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018, p. 249). The school board member survey (Appendix B) and the superintendent
survey (Appendix C) were sent to participants via a Qualmetrics™ online survey link for
facilitated data analysis.
53
Participants and Sampling Strategies
Access and Entry
Access and entry were gained through the superintendent of each school district. The first
point of contact was a recruitment and information letter (Appendix A) sent via email,
delineating the study. Once the superintendent agreed to participate, the consent document
(Appendix F) was sent, along with an email survey link and an invitation to participate in
individual virtual meeting interviews through Google Meets™ and/or Zoom.™
Purposeful Sampling
Purposeful sampling was used to explore how training impacts school board leadership
and student achievement. Patton (2002) noted that the most common form of sampling in
qualitative methods is purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling is used when a researcher
wants to gain insight, information, or understanding through selection of a sample that would be
most supportive of this learning. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) claimed that the goals of purposeful
selection include achieving representativeness of setting, individuals, or activities; selecting
individuals who are critical in understanding the question; and capturing similarities and/or
differences in experiences and perceptions.
The purpose of the study was to understand how superintendents and school board
members perceived the impact of MIG training. Therefore, a purposeful sample consisted of
superintendents and board members who had been involved in MIG training. Participants were
recruited in 12 California counties: Alameda, Marin, Nevada, Monterey, Santa Clara, Los
Angeles, Riverside, Orange, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Ventura. Purposeful sampling in
this study required that board members had attended any portion of the five MIG training
modules by CSBA. Selecting superintendents and board members who had attended MIG
54
supported understanding of how, if at all, MIG impacts collaborative leadership and student
achievement. The superintendents and board members were from representative diverse districts,
including suburban and urban and large and small districts across California. Purposeful
sampling from diverse districts allowed for selection of participants who could provide the most
information about the topic. Selecting board members from a range of districts allowed for
capture of commonalities and heterogeneity in the population of superintendents and board
members. The large sampling from a diverse mix of district types, as well as purposeful
sampling of participants, provided rich data from diversely sized, elementary, high school, K–12,
urban, suburban, and rural districts with diverse populations.
Instrumentation
Surveys
Creswell and Creswell (2018) explained that a survey communicates a numerical
description of a population’s opinions and beliefs about an occurrence or phenomenon. This
study included a survey for both superintendents and board members to understand how, if at all,
MIG training is valued, supports leadership, and enhances student achievement and growth. The
board member survey (Appendix B) and superintendent survey (Appendix C) included 20 items.
Most items (17) were opinion statements that asked participants to provide a response using a 5-
point Likert-type scale where they could select among the following responses: Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree. The remaining survey questions asked for rankings of
elements and checking elements that applied. The survey questions revealed school board
members’ and superintendents’ opinions regarding MIG training, including the motivation
behind training and its perceived impact on collaborative governance and student achievement.
55
Interviews
Merriam and Tisdale (2016) explained that interviews gather a special kind of
information that is not otherwise attainable. Interviews are necessary in understanding how
people interpret past events that cannot be replicated. Superintendents and school board members
provided information about CSBA’s MIG training and whether it had impacted their leadership
and student achievement. Understanding participants’ experiences with MIG and how they
perceived those experiences determined whether there was a relationship between training and
positive collaborative leadership and ultimate student outcomes. The superintendent interview
(Appendix E) and school board member interview (Appendix D) were standardized open-ended
interviews, consisting of carefully worded questions that took all interviewees through the same
sequence (Patton, 2002). Using this approach minimized response variations by using the same
instrument for both groups of participants. Efficiency was enhanced through highly focused
interview sessions. Subsequent data analysis was facilitated because the responses were easy to
compare within this structured response format. The creation of the questions required revision
after collaborative input in the research group and with the dissertation chair. All surveys and
interviews were aligned to the research questions, as reflected in the Question Alignment Matrix
(Appendix G).
Data Collection and Analysis
Data were collected in two forms: (a) online school board member interviews (Appendix
D) and superintendent interviews (Appendix E), and (b) school board member survey (Appendix
B), and superintendent survey (Appendix C) via email survey link. Bogdan and Biklen (2007)
defined data analysis as “the process of systematically searching and arranging the interview
transcripts, field notes and other materials that you accumulate to enable you to come up with
56
findings” (p. 159). The authors suggested approaches that researchers can take to fortify ongoing
data analysis. One approach is to narrow the study. Harding (2013) explained that coding is a
process of separating and sorting data into categories and identifying possible relationships.
Harding asserted that there is no right or wrong way to code data. Before coding the data
formally, a priori codes were applied. The a priori codes were derived from the literature and
initial assumptions. The research group coded the interview data for both participant groups,
using computer-assisted data analysis, specifically Atlas coding software. The survey data
collection and analysis were facilitated by a Qualmetrics survey including a 5-point Likert-type
scale response system, ranking, and checking responses that applied.
Another analytic tool was to stay up to date with the literature related to the three
research questions. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) wrote that familiarity with research and literature
of the topic supports a requisite base knowledge for researchers. To this end, I regularly engaged
with literature in the area of school board member governance training and student achievement.
This was done to reveal new concepts and identify concepts that are underrepresented in the
literature.
Ethical Considerations
According to Glesne (2011), “You must assure confidentiality to participants and also
prevent readers from recognizing their respondents” (p. 237). The steps taken to ensure that the
study was ethical included confidentiality of participants. Prior to conducting interviews and
observations, all participants received an overview of the study, which allowed for transparency
so that they could make an informed decision about participation. To maintain ethics, the
recommendation by Rubin and Rubin (2012) to do no harm to participants was applied.
According to the authors, participants should not be worse off after participating in the study.
57
Maintaining confidentiality supported the ethics of this study. School district leadership is very
political. Thus, I ensured that confidentiality of both the superintendents and the board members
was maintained to support the honesty and professional safety of the participants.
To ensure ethical application throughout the study, the research team engaged in the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) process. By attending the CITI training and receiving
researcher certification, the researchers upheld the ethical requirements of research with human
subjects.
When research is credible and trustworthy, it communicates that the findings accurately
address the research questions. During this study, various tools to ensure trustworthiness and
credibility were applied. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described the concept of reflexivity and
explained that a researcher should know their biases. Maxwell (2013) noted that reflexivity is,
the single most important way of ruling out the possibility of misinterpreting the meaning
of what participants say and do and the perspective they have on what is going on as well
as being an important way of identifying your own biased and misunderstanding of what
you observed. (pp. 126–127)
I explored my own reflexivity to become aware of any biases that I might have regarding school
board members and whether they should attend governance training. This understanding allowed
me to discipline my subjectivity when collecting and analyzing the data.
Corbin and Strauss (2008) wrote that credibility and trustworthiness should be ensured
throughout the data collection process by using analytic tools that promote validity and
reliability. One analytic tool is questioning. I disciplined my subjectivity by continuously
questioning, “Why do I think this?” Questioning during data analysis, specifically coding of the
58
data, allowed for probing the data to go below the surface of what was explicitly being said or
observed and to develop possible answers to the research questions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), triangulation is a “powerful strategy for
increasing the credibility or internal validity of your research” (p. 245). Triangulation uses
multiple methods of data collection and multiple sources of data to reaffirm emergent findings.
The type of triangulation applied in this study was that of multiple sources of the same group.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) wrote that using different data sources is a promising strategy to
enhance triangulation. This study used both surveys and interviews to establish different data;
converging data supported coherence and credibility of the research. The superintendents and
school board members were surveyed and interviewed to determine whether triangulation among
the sets of data existed.
Maximum variation refers to seeking diverse participants for a study. Maximum variation
was applied as the research team selected participants from 12 California counties representing
diversity in size, population, demographics, and district type to produce data for a range of
applications and findings. To ensure credibility and trustworthiness, I explored my reflexivity,
questioned my data, applied triangulation, and applied maximum variation in the sample of
participants.
59
Chapter Four: Results
The LEA is governed through a specific democratic process. The community elects or
appoints private citizens to govern and establish policies for school district leaders to implement.
The implementation of policies occurs through the leadership of the superintendent. A school
district’s success is dependent on the effectiveness of the school board and its ability to exercise
its roles and responsibilities properly. School board members have a variety of experiences and
are not required to have experience in education. There are voluntary training opportunities for
board members nationwide and some mandatory training through legislation in some states.
California does not mandate training for board members; however, the CSBA offers a five-
course training program called MIG that covers effective governance, policy, finance, human
resources, and community relations. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of MIG
training on school boards’ ability to practice and demonstrate effective governance. The study
was also designed to identify school leaders’ motivation to attend MIG training and to determine
whether there is a link between MIG training and student achievement.
Research Questions Restated
This study explored 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?
This research study rests on a comprehensive conceptual framework of Bolman and
Deal’s four frames of leadership, the Lighthouse Inquiry seminal study that delineated the habits
60
of effective governance teams, and CSBA professional standards for school board members.
Bolman and Deal’s (2016) four frames of leadership holds that effective leaders draw from four
frames, or lenses, to view organizational needs and to apply specific strategies to solve issues,
navigate situations, and increase organizational outcomes. Those frames are political, symbolic,
human resource, and structural frames.
According to CSBA (2019), the role of the school board is to uphold the Constitution,
protect the public interest in schools, and ensure that a high-quality education is provided to each
student. CSBA (2018) delineated five major responsibilities of school boards: (a) setting
direction, (b) establishing an effective and efficient structure, (c) providing support, (d) ensuring
accountability, and (e) providing community leadership as advocates for children, the school
district, and public schools. School boards are composed of officials selected by community
voters; there is no requirement that they have experience in education or governance. Research
supports that school board members must develop pertinent knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors to
propel student achievement. To that end, CSBA demonstrates a commitment to education
leadership by providing standards for school board members and offering MIG training.
The Iowa Lighthouse Inquiry Project (Rice et al., 2000) is a seminal study that explored
school board/superintendent teams in districts where schools had exhibited notably high student
achievement. The researchers posited seven conditions that, when present, result in effective
governance, enhanced public trust, and increased student achievement. The Lighthouse Inquiry
project is remarkably valuable in research on school board member training, effective
governance, and the impact on student achievement.
61
Participants
A team of 20 researchers interviewed and surveyed participants from 62 school districts
in 12 California counties. The participants were district leaders—superintendents or trustees—
from the following counties: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Nevada, Orange, San Diego, San
Bernardino, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Monterey, Santa Clara, and Ventura. School board
members who had attended any component of MIG training were recommended by their
superintendent and invited by the researcher to participate. The researcher followed up by
sending the Qualtrics survey via email. All 62 superintendents who were invited to participate
completed surveys and participated in individual interviews. Of the 186 board members, 180
submitted survey responses and 177 participated in interviews. Table 1 delineates the number of
superintendents and school board members who participated in the survey and/or the interviews.
Table 1
Summary of Participation From 62 Districts
Participants
f
%
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses
62
100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses
180
97
Interviews 177 95
62
For this research, a focus group of three specific school districts from the 62 school
districts was selected for in-depth interviews. Descriptions of the focus group are provided with
pseudonyms for the districts and the participants to ensure confidentiality. The researcher
administered the survey through Qualtrics and conducted individual interviews via Zoom with
each district’s superintendent and two or three board members. The three California school
districts for this researcher’s focus group were (a) San Tomas Union High School District in San
Diego County, (b) San Rosario Unified School District in Orange County, and (c) Copper Valley
Unified School District in Alameda County.
San Tomas Union High School District is a small suburban secondary school district in
San Diego County in southern California. San Tomas is located in an affluent area and serves
13,000 middle and high school students who are high achieving in both Mathematics and English
Language Arts, according to state achievement scores. Of the student population, 11.6% are
considered socioeconomically disadvantaged and 4.2% are designated as English Learners. The
San Tomas superintendent participated in the survey and interview; three board members
participated in the survey and two board members participated in the interview.
Copper Valley is located in Alameda County in northern California. It is a small
suburban unified school district with a total enrollment of 9,269, of whom 24.6% are considered
socioeconomically disadvantaged and 11.0% are classified as English Learners. According to
state achievement scores, the students in Copper Valley are considered high achieving in both
English Language Arts and Mathematics. For the research for Copper Valley, the superintendent
and two board members participated in the surveys and interviews.
Distinct from the previous districts is San Rosario Unified School District. This is a large
urban school district in Orange County (southern California). The total enrollment of students is
63
46,597, of whom 87.8% are considered socioeconomically disadvantaged and 34.8% are
classified as English Learners. For the research for San Rosario, the superintendent participated
in the survey and interview and three board members participated in the survey and interview.
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? The data indicate that opportunities for school board
members to attend training are limited. Participants noted that the professional development that
is offered focuses too strongly on presenting information and misses opportunities to teach board
members how to target cohesive leadership (Land, 2002). The focus on knowledge, policy, and
accountability overshadows the importance of collective relationships among school board
members and their relationship with the superintendent. Previous research suggests that
including training that supports collaborative leadership and effective teams is paramount in
school board member training (Carol et al., 1986; Danzberger et al., 1987; Goodman &
Zimmerman, 2000; Land, 2002; Schmidt, 1992). It is important to study the motivation and
perceptions that superintendents and board members hold regarding MIG participation to
encourage best practices in governance.
Results of the surveys completed by 62 superintendents and 180 board members, as well
as individual interviews with three superintendents and eight school board members, identified
three emerging themes. First, superintendents and school board members are motivated to attend
MIG training because it is a cultural norm in the district. Second, school board members reported
that they attend MIG training because they believe that they will learn important information that
will help them to govern effectively. Third, school board members and superintendents reported
that structural changes to MIG would increase attendance and results in deeper learning.
64
Culture as Motivation
Bolman and Deal (2016) asserted that symbolic leaders create a highly motivating
environment where strong vision, morale, and connectedness are realized. Symbolic leaders
support development of a strong sense of culture over time through use of customs. The authors
posited that leaders who employ symbolic leadership understand that engaging in customs is
symbolic and can result in cohesive and collaborative environments. In the current study, survey
data indicated that superintendents and school board members clearly agreed that participation in
MIG was a result of district culture. All superintendents and 82% of board members agreed or
strongly agreed that their board culture encourages MIG participation. Table 2 shows the results
of the survey question. The focus group survey results demonstrated similar outcomes. All three
superintendents and all eight board members agreed or strongly agreed that their school board
encourages participation in MIG training.
Table 2
Responses to the Survey Item, “Our School Board Culture Encourages Participation in the
Masters in Governance Training”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 34 55 107 59
Agree 28 45 60 33
Disagree 0 0 12 7
Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 1
65
In a follow-up survey item, board members and superintendents were asked to rank the
primary influence for attending MIG. Board members ranked the top three primary influences as
(a) self-motivation, (b) increased effective governance, and (c) school board expectations. Table
3 presents the survey responses. The focus groups survey results were consistent with the general
responses, in that all board members agreed that the school board expectation was the primary
reason for their attendance attended.
Table 3
Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in Masters in
Governance Training
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f f
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.
66
The survey asked both superintendents and board members whether MIG training is
encouraged by their school district culture. All superintendents and 92% of the school board
members responded that their school board culture encourages participation in MIG.
Table 4 summarizes these responses. The focus group responded similarly to the survey item, as
all superintendents and board members agreed or strongly agreed that the school board culture
encourages participation in MIG.
Table 4
Responses to the Survey Item “Our School Board Culture Encourages Participation in the
Masters in Governance Training”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 34 55 107 59
Agree 28 45 60 33
Disagree 0 0 12 7
Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 1
67
The interviews supported the survey responses and provided information and context to
the motivation for attending MIG. Interviewees indicated that school board training is a cultural
element in the organization. San Tomas superintendent, Ronald Harvey, shared that,
the current board that I have is very focused on the CSBA model. My board president has
been very involved in CSBA over the years, she has had various leadership positions. So,
I would say there’s a culture here of understanding and following the practices outlined in
masters in governance and the CSBA training materials. Doesn’t mean that they deviate,
it doesn’t mean that I have some that go their own way. But I would say in general,
they’re pretty well-grounded on the overall philosophy of CSBA.
San Tomas school board member Brittany Hankinson was asked by her former superintendent to
attend and recalled the experience:
It was a lovely experience because we came on the team, elected in November, went to
CSBA the conference together. And so, we had a little bit of again, I think they even had
a day dedicated to new board members. So, I got bits and pieces of that.
San Rosario superintendent John Anguiano shared, “Attending these meetings allowed me to
develop relationships with board members in a very informal setting, but also allowed me to
understand and learn the role of the board as well as the role of the superintendent.”
Each research participant from San Rosario shared that the school district had had three
superintendents in the past 4 years. Even with the leadership changes, all indicated that they had
been encouraged to attend MIG. This demonstrates, that even with the leadership changes, the
culture of San Rosario maintained the value of MIG principles and training. In San Rosario, all
three school board members indicated that their attendance was at least in part due to the culture
68
of the district. San Rosario board member, Veronica Armendariz, shared that the superintendent
at the time she was newly elected recommended attending MIG:
When I was elected, at that time, the superintendent shared with me that he felt that
CSBA was an organization that was useful to board members and that he highly
recommended that I take it, only because, as new board members, he felt all board
members should take it. New, veteran. So basically, I went because the superintendent
and I chatted about it, and he said, I see your passion. I see what you want to do for your
community, and this will make you a better board member.
San Rosario board member and president Federico Fernandez was encouraged by a
superintendent who had just been hired when Fernandez was elected to the board:
In terms of the Masters in Governance, it was that the superintendent at that point was
also new. She pretty much informed me about the program and that she was also going to
go through the actual program herself. So it was that. Just, I guess, I didn’t know.
Otherwise, I was a new board member, so I just said, Okay, it’s an opportunity to learn.
Board member Jack Castillo had attended after many years serving on the board.
I’ve been on the school board for 22 years. I did it, believe it or not, about 2, 3 years ago.
Actually, what really changed it was we had three new board members, and so all of us
took it, all five of us at that particular time. So, it’s like, “Well, everybody else is taking
it, I might as well take it.”
Copper Valley Superintendent Ghanouni stated that, as a superintendent, she values MIG
and encourages her board members to attend:
69
I think it’s important for them. I almost feel like it’s more of a precursor and the rest of it
really has to be other training and other workshops and things like that. And really the
superintendent guiding some of that conversation or helping really localize it.
Copper Valley board member Ms. Lakes shared that,
it was part of the culture of my board when I joined. And that was the Masters of
Governance, I mean the Masters of Boardmanship, not the Masters in Governance. So,
this was 25 years ago, but it was part of what was expected for new board members, and
board members took advantage of the training as a group.
In the case of Copper Valley, MIG was so ingrained in the culture that a board policy was
adopted mandating that any member who wanted to be president of the board had to complete
MIG training before serving in that capacity. Board member Sage Wheatley, who was new to
Copper Valley Unified School District, stated that she had attended because it was the “culture of
my board when I joined.” Of the board policy mandating that any board president attend MIG
before appointment to the presidency, she stated, “That requirement that was voted in prior to me
becoming a board member within the district.” Superintendent Ghanouni explained, “Board
policy actually requires that our board members take it and finish before they actually become a
president. So, I feel it’s really important to require people to take it.”
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the MIG training was halted during the time that a new
board member was assuming the presidency of the board. Due to the cancellation of training, she
was unable to complete MIG training before the transition. A fellow Copper Valley board
member, Joan Lakes, whose service spanned 25 years, shared her disappointment in this change
to the policy:
70
This is the first year in probably 20 years that the board voided that policy. And I was
devastated because I felt that both of the people that they were voiding it for had been on
the board over three years and hadn’t succeeded in completing the class.
Superintendent Ghanouni expressed her support in this reversal of policy as she understood the
barriers to attend and believed in the skills of the board president who was selected:
In December when we were switching over the president, the president had not finished
it. And because the rest of the board really wanted, just don’t believe as much in having
taken it, even though it was our board policy, they actually made an amendment to our
board policy for this time. And the excuse was that because of COVID, she couldn’t
finish and it’s true. She couldn’t finish. And she’s amazing. Our board president is
wonderful. I think even though she hadn’t finished. Now she’s finished it and she made a
commitment to do it.
Bolman and Deal (2016) asserted that use of the symbolic frame supports leaders to
shape the culture that impacts organizational performance. In the case of MIG training, all
interviewees shared that, at some level, attendance had been a direct result of expectation and
encouragement from their district. The survey results support the idea that motivation for school
board training is rooted in the culture of the district.
Learning as Motivation
The primary function of CSBA is to provide support to enhance governance in schools.
One significant form of support is the professional development series MIG. CSBA (2019)
identified three prongs to effective governance: (a) the effectiveness of the individual board
member, (b) the qualities of the collective board, and (c) the execution of the board’s roles and
71
responsibilities. To that end, CSBA provides MIG training to enhance critical knowledge to
govern effectively as a school board member unit.
The survey and interview results indicated that learning was a motivator for school board
members to MIG training. School board members reported that they had attended MIG to learn
foundational knowledge for effective governance. The superintendents and board members were
asked to check all influences of attending MIG training; 74% of board members responded that
self-motivation had influenced their participation in MIG, and 71% listed increasing effective
governance as the reason for participating in MIG. Table 3 summarizes those responses. The
focus group survey produced similar responses, 75% of the board members reported that they
had participated in MIG due to self-motivation and 63% listed increasing effective governance as
their motivation.
The interview results indicated that board members were influenced to attend MIG
because they were motivated to learn and to govern effectively. San Rosario board member
Veronica Armendariz stated, “I’m big on learning, right? So, I never stop learning. I believe the
moment we stop learning, we stop living. So, I said, ‘Sure thing. Sign me up.’ So, I went to all
five sessions.” The desire to attend with the purpose of learning was echoed by her colleague,
board member Fernandez, who had been encouraged by the superintendent, who had said,
“Okay, it’s an opportunity to learn.”
The board members in San Tomas Union High School District indicated that learning
was their motivation for attending MIG training. Board member Brittany Hankinson stated,
They paid for it, and I was interested. Keep it that brief if you want. My background is in
human resources, and my degree, in small business management. And, I had a clue about
administrative items, but I really didn’t know what I didn’t know. So, lifelong learner.
72
The interview results indicated that board members and superintendents reported that
gaining knowledge was a motivation for attending MIG. However, many interview participants
elaborated that the application of knowledge is critical. Superintendents and board members
noted cases in which board members attended but did not apply the resulting knowledge.
San Rosario superintendent John Anguiano stated, “The outcome depends on the board
members’ ability to retain what they learn and to actually model those practices within their
district.” This was echoed by Board President Fernandez, who explained that not all board
members exhibit the behaviors learned in MIG: “My thing is I didn’t see it. I didn’t see a lot of
the core concepts taught in masters in governance really being used when the five of us were
there.” San Rosario board member Jack Castillo, who called himself a “free thinker,” shared that
it is not as easy to apply because governance is situational:
It’s interesting because there were some board members who really bit onto it pretty well.
They got it and they understood it, but they also don’t understand what the strategy is
either. I’m more of a free thinker, and you work as a team. If you work together as a
team, it works. But sometimes the team isn’t working and what you learn doesn’t
necessarily apply the way they’re trying to teach you. Remember, it’s former
superintendents, former educators are teaching them. What they’re trying to do is, this is
the best way to do it. Well, not really, there are other ways. It just depends on what you’re
working with and who you’re working with. I don’t know if I’m making any sense.
San Tomas participants noted that, in many cases, board members do not apply the
governance knowledge that they learn at MIG. Board member Gibson stated, “I think that there
are individuals who could go through that and hear selectively what they want to hear and have
their personality override what they learned.” Fellow San Tomas board member Hankinson
73
shared an anecdote about a fellow board member who was not applying the governance
procedures: “I know she took the course, but before she was on our board. And it was almost a
frustration. It’s like, ‘Wait a minute, did we go through the same course? Did you hear what I
heard?’”
San Tomas superintendent Ronald Harvey echoed this when he stated that MIG
attendance does not always result in visible governance skills:
That’s a good one. I’m not sure it’s always effective, I think there’s maybe something
missing in there. I do think it’s helpful to get board members educated, but once you have
that education, display it, like really effectively change behavior. And maybe I’m asking
for too much, but I’ve worked with many board members who’ve gone to masters in
governance and done the exact opposite.
The surveys and interview results indicated that superintendents and board members
agreed that learning is a motivational factor for MIG attendance. However, it was noted that
learning content does not always translate into practice.
Structural Barriers to Professional Development
The literature, surveys, and interviews exposed the theme that professional development
barriers may be a factor in precluding attendance at MIG training. In surveys and interviews,
participants recommended ways to increase attendance at MIG. Bolman and Deal (2016)
asserted that structural leadership includes details that require dividing pertinent work and then
coordinating efforts. Effective leaders employ a structural design that is dependent on the “goals,
strategy technology, and environment” (Bolman & Deal, 2016, p. 44). The authors explained
that, when an organization experiences tension, leaders should “explore alternatives to consider
when new circumstances require revisions and discuss challenges of the restructuring process”
74
(p. 44). The survey and interview results indicated that school board members and
superintendents perceived barriers to MIG participation and made recommendations to improve
delivery of MIG training to increase attendance and effectiveness.
During the time that the surveys and interviews were conducted, the COVID-19
pandemic had resulted in closures across the state; MIG training modules were canceled until
further notice. Before the closures, when these participants had attended MIG training, sessions
were offered in specific locations, on Friday and Saturday, over multiple weekends. Survey
results from the board members in the three focus districts indicated that participation would
increase if the following options were offered: locally hosted, online, and hybrid options.
Regarding these recommendations 75% of board member participants recommended locally
hosted MIG training. When the focus group was surveyed about the impact of cost on
attendance, 25% of board members noted that cost was a deterrent to attending and 42% of all
board members surveyed noted cost as a barrier. Table 5 summarizes the responses regarding
whether cost impedes participation in MIG.
Table 5
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
75
In interviews, the school board members and superintendents provided suggestions for
facilitated participation and improved training to support board member governance. The time,
cost, and location proximity of the training were frequently noted. While the survey results
indicated that 25% of the board members agreed that the financial cost of the training is a barrier
to MIG attendance, the interview responses echoed that cost was a concern for a majority of the
board members. San Rosario board members spoke about the financial limitations that can be
posed for districts and for board members who may need to take time from work. San Rosario
board member Castillo said, “It is not like they’re not getting paid extra and you’re going to have
to take days off from work.” San Rosario school board member Armendariz supported having
the district pay for MIG:
I do think it helps if a district will or our overarching government or someone funds it,
pays for it. It’s a time commitment on top of a commitment you’ve already made, that
school board members, not all their boards even give them any stipend or anything. I
would say, bringing them closer to different areas. And if they can’t afford it, they should
have scholarships for these school districts that are small, and do not have the financial
ability to pay for that, because it’s an investment. It’s an investment for CSBA, and it’s an
investment for our children.
Trustee Fernandez commented, “They’re not getting paid extra and you’re going to have to take
maybe days off from work.”
Copper Valley board member Wheatley expressed that it is a limitation to offer the
training only on Friday and Saturday. She recommended additional offerings: “It could be said
the same for the weekends, but it could be a night course. Right now, the only options are
Fridays and Saturdays, which can be limiting.” Board member Wheatley from Copper Valley
76
shared ideas on efficiency, meanwhile maintaining a commitment to ensuring that attendees have
pertinent knowledge:
So, what I would think for effective, given people’s time, understanding, because you’re
putting in people, a room that has been board members for 20 years and been board
members never. So, it would be great to have a test to see what you test out of, prior to
attending a course. So that you only focus on modules that you need further guidance in.
And that way it reduces the amount of time you take, whether that’s in person, not in
person. And that there’s a combination of classroom versus online work. So, what can be
done efficiently online versus the important things you need for someone and need to
have a conversation to learn about what’s happening in other districts. Part of that to
increase benchmarking piece.
Castro Valley superintendent Ghanouni added shared that location offerings could be
problematic:
It needs to be offered locally for sure. Because it is like, some of them would have to
drive like 5 hours to go take the course. And at first, I think at some point it was like, they
have to take them in order and stuff. That’s not okay. It’s just too much of a commitment
and it’s on the weekend and these people have work they’re doing all week long and they
have children, they have activities. So, I think if anything online would be great, although
nothing really replaces you sitting around at a table. But I think if it was local, more
superintendents could attend.
The reviewed literature, the survey responses, and the interviews with board members
and superintendents indicated perceived structural barriers to MIG training.
77
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 explored factors that impact superintendents and school board
motivation to attend MIG training. Previous research posited three limitations to board member
attendance: cultural motivation, motivation to learn, and structural factors. Evidence from the
current study suggests that the district’s culture influences a superintendent’s and board
member’s decision to attend training. The study indicated that superintendents and board
members were encouraged to attend, seeking foundational learning about their role. However, in
many cases, both board members and superintendents noted that the culture and learning alone
did not always result in practice. The research identified barriers to MIG training, as well as
preferences for delivery and recommendations for training.
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? School board
members are responsible for governance of a school district and often receive minimal training to
prepare them for the role (Land, 2002; Lee & Eadens, 2014). The MIG training provides school
board members the knowledge to govern effectively, with the aim of student achievement.
Results of the survey completed by 62 superintendents and 180 board members and
individual interviews with three board members and eight school board members from three
focus districts identified three emerging themes. First, superintendents and school board
members agreed that MIG training increases school board member knowledge of the distinct
roles and responsibilities reserved for board members versus superintendents. Second,
superintendents and school board members agreed that MIG increases a board member’s ability
to engage in collective governance. Third, school board members and superintendents agreed
78
that MIG equips school board members with critical fiscal knowledge that is required to allocate
resources to support students.
Roles and Responsibilities
In successful school leadership, there is a clear understanding of the roles and
responsibilities between the school board members and the superintendent. Where there is a
distinct separation of the board and superintendent roles, there is collaborative and effective
leadership (Allen et al., 2009; Brewer & Smith, 2007). Danzberger (1994) warned that, when
school board members do not know or follow the roles and responsibilities that are entrusted to
them, the result is unclear direction and fragmented vision.
Given the important function of the school board, national and state associations provide
support, recommendations, and training to equip board members to lead effectively, with the
goal of student achievement. CSBA (2019) posited three critical components in governance: (a)
school board member’s capacity, (b) ability to engage in shared leadership, and (c) ability to
perform specific governance roles. CSBA provides standards for school board members to help
them to govern effectively with each other and with the superintendent. This supports board
members’ understanding of their distinct roles from that of the superintendent, which include
establishing district policy, adopting the annual budget, and appointing and evaluating their one
and only employee—the superintendent. The operations of the district and the means to carry out
board policies are reserved specifically and uniquely for the superintendent.
Survey data indicated that 97% of the superintendents agreed or strongly agreed that
MIG-trained school board members exhibit clear understanding of roles and responsibilities;
Table 6 summarizes the results. Similarly, in the focus group, all three superintendents agreed or
strongly agreed that MIG clarifies roles and responsibilities for superintendents.
79
Table 6
Superintendents’ Responses to the Survey Item, “School Board Members Who Are Trained in
Masters in Governance 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
Table 7 shows that board members agreed that MIG training helps to clarify their roles
and responsibilities versus the roles and responsibilities of the superintendent. Of the board
members surveyed, 95% agreed or strongly agreed that MIG clarifies roles and responsibilities.
The focus group school board member survey results were consistent with those for the greater
school board member group, as all board members agreed or strongly agreed that attending MIG
had increased their understanding of the roles and governance responsibilities of school board
members versus those of superintendents.
80
Table 7
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
The interviews with superintendents and school board members supported the theme that
board members and superintendents agreed that MIG clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the
board members and superintendents. Copper Valley Superintendent Ghanouni stressed the
importance of distinct roles and responsibilities between the superintendent and board members
and explained the issues:
This is my 11th year as a superintendent. And I just keep thinking that almost the same
kind of issues you see in different districts and it all kind of relates to where is that
boundary? Where does the board’s responsibility and where do the superintendent and
staff start? And it’s not a clear cut and it shouldn’t be kind of like a puzzle like they show
it in the Masters in Governance, but there’s just so much to be said about that. And I
think that’s why district protocols that you’ve set up based on ward policy are really
important. I mean, it’s one thing to go to the Masters in Governance, but you need to have
81
your own district’s protocol that you all agreed to so that you can kind of hold each other
accountable. All of us, the governance team.
A board member in Copper Valley, Ms. Wheatley, shared how MIG supported the
understanding of roles, specifically for a new board member:
It was good to understand some of the roles a little bit. We do have a tenured board
member who let me know right off the bat, what her feelings were on governance. I think
that for another board member who was also new, it helped them understand their role a
little bit better. So, I think for them, it helped a little bit. Helped them understand the
finance, helped them understand their role. And they would bring things to our attention
after they would attend training. Like, “Hey, did you guys know this?”
Fellow board member Ms. Lakes agreed that MIG supports the knowledge of a school
board member’s roles and responsibilities and shared a scenario of her team effectively
navigating and applying shared knowledge:
I think it affected us a great deal, particularly for the 17 years that we were all together.
The board members really functioned as a team. When we sat at the board table, we
followed the protocols of the training, there were no surprises, there was no negativity.
There were so many parts of being a board member, for example recognizing the role of
the superintendent versus the role of the board member. I mean we could just look at each
other and say, “Are we getting into implementation?” And we’d all just stop and say,
“Oops, that’s a superintendent’s job. We recognize that.” So, I think that’s really
important to stress how much stronger it makes your team.
82
Similar accounts were shared from the San Rosario team of participants. School board
member Ms. Armendariz explained that MIG helped her to understand the roles. She shared her
understanding of setting direction, community relations, and supervision of the superintendent:
We’re trained in, what are our roles, right? How you set the direction of the board,
community relations, and advocacy. An experienced superintendent comes in and says,
“My job is to protect the board, and I work for you. And we’re going to work together as
a team.” That’s a big difference from a new superintendent, who just said, “Well, I’m the
superintendent, so I’m the boss.” “No, you work for us. You’re actually the only person
who works for us.”
Her fellow board member, Mr. Fernandez, found MIG to be very helpful in delineating
roles and responsibilities:
The one thing that really stood out to me is the point about governance and distinguishing
between the role of the superintendent and the role of the board. So that was very, very
helpful. Not that we followed that in [San Rosario], but just knowing that the board is
focused more on policymaking and the superintendent on the administrative realm was
really helpful.
The data from the surveys, literature review, and interviews indicated that board members
and superintendents agreed that MIG training helps school board members to understand their
roles and responsibilities.
Collective Leadership
School leaders of today must demonstrate a collaborative leadership that focuses on
achievement by students and regularly reviews progress toward that aim (Lee & Eadens, 2014;
Resnick, 1999). This shared leadership must include a shared vision and the ability to operate as
83
a leadership unit (Carol et. al., 1986; Danzberger, 1994; Grissom, 2010). The reviewed literature
and the results from the surveys and interviews indicated that MIG training supports the etiquette
of collective leadership and promotes collaboration in leadership teams.
Bolman and Deal (2016) asserted that successful leaders who employ the political frame
can exercise four key skills: setting an agenda, mapping the landscape, networking, and building
coalitions. They invited political leaders to infuse morality and politics in governance. They
posited four principles to support a moral judgment in leadership: mutuality, generality,
openness, and caring. Mutuality refers to agreement that all team members are operating from
the same set of rules. Generality ensures that moral rules are applied across settings. Openness
requires that team members make their decisions public and transparent. Caring ensures that
decisions results in the greater good and directly benefit individuals in the organization.
Organizational change and effectiveness depend on managers’ political skills. In making
such choices, they have to consider the potential for collaboration, the importance of
long-term relationships, and most importantly their own and their organization’s values
and ethical principles. (Bolman & Deal, 2016, p. 216)
The Lighthouse Inquiry study investigated the habits of board members in high-achieving
school districts and found that trustees in successful districts displayed what they referred to as
shared leadership. According to D. Rice et al. (2000), shared leadership includes a focus on
students that is supported with a clear vision and high expectations from all leaders.
Survey data indicated that MIG supports collective leadership. Collective leadership
involves a team’s ability to set a group vision and move toward that vision as a cohesive unit.
Prior research emphasizes that a common vision is critical in collective relations (Carol et al.,
1986; Danzberger, 1994). To determine whether MIG supports collective vision, one survey item
84
asked board members and superintendents whether MIG helps board members to understand the
importance of aligning decisions with the district’s vision and goals. Table 8 summarizes board
members’ responses, 92% agreed that MIG supports decisions that are in line with the district’s
vision. This result is consistent with that from the board members of the three district focus
groups, where 86% board members surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that MIG helps them to
understand the importance of aligning decision-making processes with the district’s vision and
goals.
Table 8
Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “As a Result of the MIG 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
85
Table 9 shows that 98% of all superintendents agreed or strongly agreed that MIG
promotes collective decision making that is in line with the district’s goals. The focus groups
findings were consistent with those for the total group, with all three superintendents agreeing or
strongly agreeing that MIG-trained school board members understand the importance of aligning
the decision-making process to the district’s vision and goals.
Table 9
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
86
One indication that a board employs a shared vision and collective leadership is in the
ability to engage in decision making that peacefully results in a majority vote. The survey asked
superintendents and board members whether MIG had improved board members’ ability to
accept the majority decision when it was not aligned with their position. Table 10 shows that
95% of the superintendents agreed or strongly agreed that MIG had improved their board
members’ ability to accept a majority decision when the decision went against an individual’s
minority view.
Table 10
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 42 68
Disagree 3 5
Strongly Agree 0 0
87
This is consistent with the findings for the focus group of three districts, where all three
superintendents agreed that MIG supports the ability of board members to accept the majority
decisions that are not in line with their vote. When board members were presented the same item
85% agreed or strongly agreed. This was somewhat consistent with results of the survey of the
board members of the three-district focus group, where 75% indicated that MIG supported their
ability to accept majority votes in cases where they held the minority view. Table 11 displays the
survey responses from 180 board members.
Table 11
Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “As a Result of the MIG 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
88
The survey and individual interviews with the board members and superintendents show
that participants agreed that MIG training supports collaborative leadership. Copper Valley board
member Lakes shared that
if you agree to the common understanding that comes through the Masters in
Governance, I think that you build up a level of trust and respect for each other at the
board table. I think it also gives you the opportunity, away from the board table, to have
your personal beliefs and understanding that when you’re at the board table, you’re
focused. And we comport ourselves in a way that we just understand and respect each
other. So, I’d say I think it strengthened us amazingly, and we got a very strong
reputation in the state as being a highly functional board. We did our business and we did
it well, I feel. I think the one other piece I would mention, too, is that we greatly respect
the protocol of engaging the superintendent in the governance team. So, whenever we get
a complaint or hear something, or whatever, the first person we go to is the
superintendent so that they feel like they’re truly the person that’s in charge of the district
versus calling a principal, or something like that. So, I think that’s really important.
San Rosario board members echoed similar positions. Board member Veronica
Armendariz explained:
We used to have a lot of issues on the board. And then, when we were a team of four, we
agreed, “Okay, we’re not going to publicly attack each other.” We have respect for each
other. And we continued to stand that way. Whether we disagreed in a closed session, we
never aired it publicly. So, you can’t get everybody to always agree. MIG does stress
working as a team.
Her colleague, board member Fernandez, reflected:
89
I think the most important thing is for there to be a commitment among the majority of
the board to the principles that are promoted through the Masters in Governance. More
recently, we did start moving in that direction, but that was only after there was a shift in
the majority of the board. I’m board president. Now I’m starting to facilitate in ways that
are more consistent with MIG principles.
Their superintendent, Mr. Anguiano, agreed that MIG increases shared leadership.
Superintendent Anguiano shared that “my first Masters in Governance class with board
members, I think I went through it with three board members. And the way we came out of it
was much stronger and much more collegial than when we went in.” The team from San Tomas
shared positive collective results of attending MIG. Trustee Ms. Gardner explained:
It really transformed what had been going on in that school district. Relationships were
reestablished, trust was built, and all of a sudden there was this ability to focus on things
that weren’t a distraction. The school board is important but plays its very specific role in
how a district operates. And so CSBA just grounds you in a way that the five of you have
each other’s back and mutual trust and respect. And again, it just makes you able to do
amazing things and when that’s not there, it’s really hard work.
Her superintendent, Mr. Harvey, shared that “it’s often a tool to develop better board
relations, board superintendent relations, really that linkage that CSBA talked about, the
governance team. So, a governance team-building opportunity.”
The reviewed literature and results of the surveys and interviews supported the finding
that board members and superintendents agreed that MIG is promising in strengthening board
members’ ability to engage in collective leadership.
90
Finance Knowledge and Resource Allocation
One of the most important responsibilities of a board is to adopt and oversee the LEA
budget. Within this responsibility, school board members have many responsibilities, including
planning and approving the budget, oversight of contracts, and innovations to generate funds,
such as through bonds (Land, 2001; Resnick, 1999). Chapter Two reviewed the threat that
alternate governance models pose to traditional governance models and identified conditions
under which they can evolve. One of the most significant stressors to governance is an ongoing
poor fiscal position for an LEA.
CSBA provides a framework (school board member standards) to support school board
governance by building the capacity of school board members to manage and allocate resources.
According to CSBA (2019), one of the most pertinent responsibilities of a school board unit is to
“adopt a fiscally responsible budget based on the district’s vision and goals, and regularly
monitor the fiscal health of the district” (CSBA, 2019, The Board’s Jobs, para. 6).
In line with CSBA’s framework, survey and interview results indicated that MIG
increases a school board member’s ability to carry out the important task of allocating funds
toward the goal of student achievement. In the survey, participants were asked to rank the MIG
modules in order of importance to them. Table 12 illustrates that the school finance module was
ranked as one of the top two modules by 44% of the superintendents.
91
Table 12
Superintendents’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in Order of Importance to
Their Role as a Member of the Governance Team (N = 62)
Ranking
Module #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Foundation in Governance 54 3 2 1 1
Policy and Judicial Review 2 19 22 9 9
School Finance 2 25 16 16 2
Human Resources 2 6 6 23 24
Community Relations 1 8 15 12 25
Table 13 illustrates that the school finance module was ranked as one of the top two by
44% of the board members surveyed. While the survey data indicated that less than half of the
school board members and superintendents rated them as the top two important modules, the
interview data contained accounts and statements indicating the importance and the value of the
fiscal component of MIG accounts and statements indicating the importance and the value of the
fiscal component of MIG training. Copper Valley school board member Ms. Lakes stated about
board members before attending MIG,
they come on and they don’t understand school finance. There’s a lot of people on this
board that doesn’t understand it. So how can you be an effective governance team when
you’re not getting the training that you need to understand the different pieces?
When asked which was the most important module of MIG, her fellow board member
Ms. Wheatley said,
92
Finance, because school finance, it’s not like normal accounting. It’s very different. We
were lucky enough that our assistant director of business services sat down with me and
went over school finance with me directly. And I have an MBA, so understanding balance
sheets is a little easier. But I think that’s very important for people who have no
background in finance.
The board members in San Rosario expressed similar sentiments. All three board members noted
during the interviews that school finance was the most pertinent module. Ms. Armendariz stated:
I think the school finance, to me, is critical. It is imperative as a board member that you
understand the budget. Currently, we meet every Thursday. We have a budget meeting.
With the new superintendent, he’s going by line item because when he came on board and said,
“What is the biggest issue?” The three of us said, “We don’t trust the budget. We understand it.’
Board president Fernandez shared that
the one that was most helpful was the school finance because it teaches you where the
funds come from, what’s allowable, not allowable in terms of spending and things like
that. So, I think that one was the most helpful one because one of the key decisions we
make is the budget.
Mr. Castillo stated that finance was critical. When asked what module was the most important,
he stated:
I’ll tell you from a policy side, most electeds, it doesn’t matter if you’re a board member,
city council member, state legislator, congressman, most people don’t focus on probably
the most important thing, understanding the budget. A lot of them don’t understand that
or don’t get involved with that. So, you make multimillion-dollar decisions and spend 5
minutes on it. Then you’ll spend an hour on an expenditure that is not as significant. So, I
93
think finance is very important, especially today. Today we live in a society where you’ve
got competing interests, and you got a pandemic combined with a recession that was
coming anyway. Where unemployment is sky high, where mortgage foreclosures are
going left and right. People are unemployed, workers’ comp cases are going up. Sales tax
revenue is going down, the gas tax is going down. Declining enrollment in most school
districts in California due to a multitude of reasons. So, you need to understand the
budget, and you need to understand what’s happening today relative to the budget.
San Tomas, superintendent Harvey elaborated on the importance of the modules.
School finance, critical. I have community members tell me, “Oh, it should be very
simple. I mean, dollars come in and dollars go out.” No, no, it’s not that simple. I think
that’s one that over the years I’ve seen board members take fairly seriously.
Table 13
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
94
The framework of CSBA’s standards for school board members supports them by
outlining critical responsibilities. Among the responsibilities is the ability to adopt a budget and
allocate resources in a manner that is consistent with the vision of the board. The reviewed
literature and interview and survey results indicated that school board members and
superintendents agreed that MIG supports requisite fiscal knowledge to support the important
role of adopting a budget and allocating resources.
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
In Research Question 2, the researchers asked whether school board members and
superintendents agreed that MIG increases a board member’s ability to engage in effective
governance. Surveys and interviews indicated that school board members and superintendents
agreed that MIG improves board member governance as it increases board members’
understanding of their roles and responsibilities, encourages their ability to engage in collective
leadership, and increases fiscal knowledge that is required to govern effectively.
Research Results for Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth? According to prior research, one of the primary functions of the school board is to
create policy. In successful districts, school board members work closely with the superintendent
to align policies and resources with goals that propel student achievement. With a clear
understanding of roles and responsibilities, school board members can ensure accountability,
thereby creating an environment that promotes student achievement (Hess, 2002; Plough, 2014).
Waters and Marzano (2006) asserted that, where there is no focus on achievement, it is the
responsibility of the superintendent to advocate for it.
95
Results of the survey completed by 62 superintendents and 180 board members, as well
as individual interviews with three board members and eight school board members from three
focus districts, revealed three emerging themes. First, some superintendents and school board
members held that there is no direct correlation between MIG participation and student
achievement. Second, some school board members held that, while there is no direct influence,
MIG has an indirect impact on student achievement through application of effective governance.
Third, stakeholders construct their definition of student achievement.
No Direct Connection Between MIG and Student Achievement
Bolman and Deal (2016) asserted that the more complex the organization, the more
necessary the focus on structural leadership. The authors explained that identifying a system that
delineates authority, roles, and networking is a struggle. Problems (e.g., bureaucracy, a loose
application of roles) result from a lack of organizational structure. In organizations, this leads to
a lack of focus, resulting in misdirected energy and often wasted resources. In school districts, it
is the responsibility of the board to set priorities that are aligned with student achievement. The
results of the interviews and surveys indicated that board members and superintendents did not
see a direct connection between MIG participation and student achievement.
Table 4 showed responses to the survey item that asked what influences a board member
to attend MIG. Survey results indicated that superintendents and board members were minimally
motivated to attend MIG to increase achievement in their school district. Table 4 showed that
only 15% of the superintendents and 29% of the board members chose increasing student
achievement as a factor that influenced participation in MIG.
School board members and superintendents in the focus group were not motivated to
attend MIG training to increase student achievement; only one board member reported, via
96
survey, having attended MIG to increase student achievement. Superintendents and board
members were asked specifically on the survey whether MIG impacted student achievement. The
results were mixed, 87% of the superintendents but only 71% of the board members agreed or
strongly agreed with the item. Table 14 summarizes the results.
Table 14
Responses to the Survey Item, “Attending Masters in Governance Training Has Positively
Impacted Student Achievement in My District”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 8 13 39 22
Agree 46 74 89 49
Disagree 8 13 50 28
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1
97
The focus group responses showed less agreement concerning MIG’s impacts on student
achievement. Two of the three superintendents agreed that MIG positively impacts achievement
and five of the eight board members agreed or strongly agreed that MIG positively impacts
achievement. Accounts by the participants reflected their position that MIG does not impact
student achievement. Ms. Armendariz of San Rosario shared that student achievement is based
on the board’s leadership:
I don’t say that’s because of CSBA. That’s because of the leadership. That’s because of
the beliefs of the board. That’s because we are engaging. We have more parent
engagement now than we’ve ever had in the history of the district. Based on my own
personal experiences in my career, I understood student achievement, and how to work
around policies and standards. It was the leadership from the board. Sorry. I’d like to say
it was. I’d be lying.
Superintendent Lambert stated that he did not see a connection. “I’m not sure that I see a
connection necessarily between the Masters in Governance Training and student achievement. I
don’t see a direct line.”
School board member Mr. Fernandez stated,
So, when you say student achievement, the framework for that is what? Right? It’s the
standardized test and comparing how your students did, and the dashboard that was
introduced, the LCAP, and stuff like that. In it, I just didn’t find that kind of real
substantive discussion in those courses.
A superintendent from northern California stated that he could not draw a direct
connection between student achievement and MIG training:
98
I couldn’t make an observation of causality for that at all. That would be a stretch. And
what I would say is it has absolutely focused the board’s attention on student achievement
and raised their interests to the point where we’ve had several board study sessions that
are known as special board meetings in addition to our regular board meetings so they
can get caught up on what’s going on with their special education students, what’s going
on with our alternative education students, what’s going on in mathematics.
When Superintendent Dr. Harvey from San Tomas, a high-achieving school district, was
asked whether MIG training impacts student achievement, he responded, “I’m going to say, I
have no idea.” The experiences and accounts of the participants indicated no connection between
MIG training and student achievement.
Indirect Influence Through Governance
The Lighthouse Inquiry (D. Rice et al., 2000) examined specific actions that school board
members in high-achieving districts demonstrate. The study concluded that successful board
members can influence achievement through connectedness to their schools, strategies to
continue to improve connection, and a commitment to their community. Impactful leaders are
driven by achievement and they create policy and action steps to that end. Board members in
high-achieving districts maintain a shared vision of high standards and expectations, employ
ongoing data analysis, and align support and resources to promote academic achievement.
That framework and the interview and survey results support that participation in MIG
training equips board members with necessary governance skills and thereby indirectly impacts
student achievement. To explore the impact of MIG on effective governance, a survey item
asked school board members and superintendents to indicate whether MIG impacted effective
school governance; 90% of the superintendents and 86% of the board members agreed or
99
strongly agreed that MIG impacts their ability to govern effectively. Table 15 summarizes the
results.
Table 15
Responses to the Survey Item, “Masters in Governance Training Impacts My Ability to Govern
Effectively”
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 20 32 72 40
Agree 36 58 82 46
Disagree 6 10 20 11
Strongly Disagree 0 0 6 3
100
The focus group produced similar results, as all three superintendents and 88% and 7 of
the 8 board members agreed or strongly agreed that MIG increases their ability to govern
effectively.
The interview results supported the position that MIG impacts achievement indirectly by
building the capacity of board members in governance. Superintendent Ghanouni explained that,
in the areas covered in MIG, one learns the necessary structures to improve instruction, thereby
impacting student achievement. To Ms. Ghanouni, the educational services and collective
bargaining portions of the training were critical:
I think the educational services position is huge, which is why I’m very critical of it. I
think another module that’s really important when you talk about student achievement is
human resources. Talking about evaluation, supervision, negotiations. I always tell people
that what you agree to in your bargaining agreement, you have it, but where the rubber
meets the road is where you know based on your framework around what’s best for kids,
you want to do things a certain way because that’s what you should be doing for kids.
And then if your board members are not strong in that idea that, hey, I can’t agree with
the teachers when they come and say, I only want to do 50-minute online instruction.
Board member Lakes shared that it was in adhering to roles and responsibilities that MIG teaches
that impacts student achievement the most:
I think that, in our history, we have had more robust conversations at the board table
about the issues that we need to deal with to impact student achievement, because we
trust each other, and we know that we can say what we think and not be . . . I don’t want
to say may try that, but not to be rebuffed by the other board members and so on. So, I
think that’s really important. I also think the fact that we stay in our lane. Masters in
101
Governance teaches you where you’re supposed to be and where you’re not supposed to
be. So, I believe we’ve made a great impact on student achievement because we’ve set
policy and we’ve set direction, but we stay totally out of the superintendent’s way for
implementation. And I think that has a great deal to do with student achievement because
they’re the educators and they’re the experts. And there’s no way, as laypeople, board
members, that we should be involved in that.
School board member Ms. Armendariz in San Rosario also noted the indirect impact that MIG
on student achievement because of the focus on instruction in MIG:
I would say it impacts student achievement, when they talk about, “How do you
implement standards for classrooms and policies?” For me, that wasn’t the class I got
excited about, not because I’m not excited about student achievement. But for me, I felt
that the board members I was working with, they understood their veteran board
members, and they were teaching me and bringing me along. And based on my own
personal experiences in my career, I understood student achievement, and how to work
around policies and standards.
Her superintendent, Mr. Anguiano, stated that MIG supports achievement through the
effectiveness of the board, public disposition, and recruitment of the leadership:
If you have a good governance team, you will have a good executive cabinet and then
challenging and difficult questions that hopefully will encourage and motivate the
executive cabinet and superintendent to provide a strategic plan, alignment of effort
among the district, which eventually will roll out to the classrooms. I tell my board a
divided board is an unhealthy board and on a united board, you may disagree behind
closed doors. You know, let’s shout at each other and then duke it out. But when we get
102
out in front of the public, in front of our principals and our community, we need to be
united. And so, it helps us have that ability to reflect on if you are really here for the right
reasons, then you are going to reflect on that trying to be an effective, good governance
team. So, everybody else can be effective and good.
From San Tomas, Ms. Hankinson explained MIG impact achievement as they focus on the goal
of achievement and provide ongoing support to board members:
I think it does. Again, part of it’s because it teaches us how to ask the right questions. And
because as an organization, they’re also sending us news releases daily from all over the
state. We get prompts for legislative action that needs us to speak up for it. It’s all, from
my perspective, the whole purpose for us is for our students’ achievement. So, I do think
if you hear what they say about how you can advocate if you hear what they say, what
they’ve taught about goals, and again, the workshops at the conferences.
Her colleague, Ms. Gibson, shared that MIG impacted student achievement through the focus on
the team:
I would absolutely say that in my experience in La Costa, the work that we did again, it
just comes back to this being a properly functioning governance team, where no one
assumes that they know more than anyone else, where they trust staff to bring forward
great ideas, where they ask smart questions.
From San Rosario, Mr. Fernandez stated that MIG indirectly impacts student achievement; he
noted no causal relationship:
I don’t see a causal relationship between one and the other. It’s more the framing of the
importance of tracking outcomes so that we’re clear about the outcomes, we’re clear
about the data, and making sure that our investments are always linked to outcome. The
103
thing about the outcomes is that I think the growth part is what I latch onto more because
that’s more in our control, like tracking the growth of our students versus whether or not
they have end-of-the-year outcomes, performance outcomes.
The results of the reviewed literature, surveys, and interviews indicated no direct
influence of MIG on student achievement. However, if board members apply CSBA standards
that are taught in MIG, they can improve student outcomes through hiring, instruction, and
collaboration.
Student Achievement as Defined by the Community
The operational definition for student achievement in this paper and most traditionally
accepted by education organizations is performance by a student on the annual summative
assessment given by the state of California. In this definition, state assessments are the most
significant metrics by which student achievement is gauged.
However, the shared accounts by participant school board members and superintendents
indicated that they defined student achievement through the lenses of their constituents. Bolman
and Deal (2016) explained that organizations are political arenas. In this environment, school
board members are active agents who must respond to the demands of their constituents. Within
the political frame of leadership, organizational leaders are political actors who “need to master
many of the basic skills of individual managers as politicians” (p. 223). This includes developing
an agenda, charting the environment, and managing relationships with allies and enemies, all of
which results in accords and alliances.
Within this framework and the results of the surveys and interviews, there is the
emerging theme that the community influences and constructs the meaning of achievement for
the board members. When asked whether MIG prompted an increase in them seeking input from
104
the community through diverse means, 70% of board members agreed or strongly agreed that
MIG increases their communication with constituents. Table 16 summarizes the board members’
responses. When superintendents were asked the same question, 79% agreed that MIG had
increased their ability to communicate with stakeholders. Table 17 summarizes the
superintendents’ responses.
Table 16
Board Members’ Responses to the Survey Item, “As a Result of the Masters in Governance
Training, I Actively Seek Community Input Through a Variety of Methods”
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 40 22
Agree 87 48
Disagree 51 28
Strongly Disagree 2 1
105
Table 17
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 Disagree 0 0
The results from the focus group were consistent with those from the general group, as
half of the board members and two of the three superintendents agreed.
The interview results supported the idea that school board members and superintendents
are seeking to define student achievement through the lenses of their stakeholders. The period in
which surveys and interviews were administered was marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and
widespread social unrest. Education was plagued with the reality that access for marginalized
students was limited. Elements of these challenges emerged in the interviews, as school board
members and superintendents in both urban and affluent school districts from the focus group
noted the disparities and the need for conversations specifically about equity in MIG. The
reviewed literature and the survey and interview results support that the LEA and community
would define achievement in this case.
106
When asked whether MIG impacts student achievement, San Rosario board member Ms.
Armendariz stated that the missing element of equity precluded student achievement discussions
for her district:
It’s about the equity lens, right? I mean, what we deal with in [San Rosario], they don’t
deal with in Irvine or Newport. But they should know who’s in their classes, right?
They’ll put your name on a table and say, “[San Rosario] Unified,” but I would know
what [San Rosario] Unified looks like. I don’t think it has anything to do with MIG. It’s
the leadership of the board. It’s the superintendents, the cabinets, our educational team.
It’s the teachers to classified staff. It’s that janitor that has a great relationship with that
young man that doesn’t have a father at home, and he comes to school every day because
he wants to say hi to the custodian. And the custodian lets him help him every day. That’s
his friend, and that’s why he goes to school, right? Yeah, so it had nothing to do with
MIG.
She explained that she derives her success in student achievement through her community
advocacy. She shared various accounts of her support of student achievement:
I listen to the parents. I meet with kids. I meet with my parents. I meet with educators. I
mean, they’re the boots on the ground, right? So, “Tell me what works in your classroom,
and tell me what doesn’t.” Again, back to, what is education today? It is not sitting in a
row, at a desk, with your hands on the desk, and not talking. It really is engaging and
letting children tell us what they need, not us telling them what they need. I don’t mean
that in a way, like, “Oh, we’re going to just listen to the kids.” I mean, really listen.
Really listen. “I learn better this way. My brother learns this way.” We’re not going to fit
everybody, but how is it that we have a 92% graduation rate now at [San Rosario]
107
Unified? It’s never been that high. How is it that, before COVID hit, we had a 97%
attendance rate? It’s never been that high. Why? Because we hired community
intervention workers, mental health workers, social workers. We do mindfulness. We’re
doing restorative. Perfect? No. But were we heading in the right direction?
Her colleague, Mr. Fernandez, explained that MIG fell short of touching on achievement
because of the narrow definition of achievement and lack of equity discussions:
They don’t really emphasize things like equity. At least I didn’t get much in terms of
equity. That, to me, would have been much more helpful if there was a kind of
perspective associated with it. Unfortunately, those are the kinds of things that we didn’t
learn in MIG. They were so focused on achievement and performance. I remember we
had a pretty big debate on that one in training up north, and Stephanie was with me. They
kept talking about performance, performance. Well, we know that districts like [San
Rosario], because our students start the district so far behind and our families face a lot of
disadvantages, to compare the outcomes of our students and the extent to which . . . when
you use those standardized tests. To think that we’re going to be scoring at levels that are
the same as Irvine or Laguna Beach with disparities in funding, right? It’s like, “Really?
You want us to get involved in an effort to try to catch up and close the gap and all that
stuff when really the issue is equity? Equity of funding, equity of opportunity, et cetera.”
So that’s what was lacking in those trainings, or a space for those discussions. Also
lacking was a broader issue of understanding how structural inequality operates. We see
that today, like with the social unrest, COVID-19. It has revealed for other folks the
importance of understanding how these structural forms of inequality play themselves out
in the everyday lives of students in these districts, et cetera. But for someone like me, I
108
didn’t find a space in MIG for those kinds of discussions. But I brought that in because of
my background in ethnic studies, my background in terms of my own doctorate work
around how urban spaces are structured, the difference between suburban areas and inner
cities. So, I brought into my own work the structural analysis, whereas at MIG, there was
no space in those trainings for those kinds of discussions.
The board members in the large urban San Rosario school district were descriptive in
noting that connection to MIG was problematic due to MIG’s failure to include equity
discussions in the delivery. This was also revealed by the participating superintendents from
affluent Copper Valley and San Tomas. Ms. Ghanouni said, “Ed services modules, I think could
be strengthened around equity and anti-racist components.” Dr. Harvey explained that his
definition of achievement has changed and is ultimately focused on the goals that his students
grow and become good people and experience a connectedness to school:
I’m not sure any of us understand what student achievement really is. I know I thought I
did at one point, and I don’t anymore. I don’t know what it is. And if I don’t know, I
really doubt five board members do. I think we need to raise and teach good humans, and
how do you measure good humans? I don’t think the SAT [Scholastic Aptitude Test]
does, I’m not sure CAASPP ever did. So, I’m not against student achievement, and I
don’t want to sound like I don’t care that kids learn. I want them to learn and they need to
understand math and they need to understand the English language and different things.
But looking at scores, I think boards that spend a lot of time looking at scores are boards
that are probably also micromanaging, and never really making improvements anyway.
Like I said, in [San Tomas], our students are going to come out of this crazy pandemic,
for the most part, without a lot of learning loss. But man, I really worry about students in
109
other districts that are getting very little to no instruction. My entire career we’ve talked
about the achievement gap, and again, I’m not sure how we measure it, but this is
certainly going to make it worse. We’re blowing it up. That’s probably enough
editorializing about achievement. I think boards should be looking at the overall health of
the district, the overall strategic direction of the district, and yeah, student achievement as
a component of it, but not necessarily just looking at CAASPP scores or whatever. How
engaged are your kids? Do they want to come to school every day? And when they do, do
they enjoy it? Let’s measure that.
Ms. Hankinson explained that her construct of achievement rests in the vision of her
community’s request to expand options for students:
I know under our watch; we’ve done some things like making our honors and advanced
placement class accessible to all of our students and picked up the cost of doing the PSAT
for all of our students. We have looked into things like International Baccalaureate and
AP Capstone Courses. We’ve tried to expand career technical education; we’ve passed a
bond and we’ve got some new facilities that I think have benefited them in things like we
have some culinary arts now that we couldn’t have done before. And I think that that
came from us setting the direction. Just choosing to make the effort to pass the bond,
having found out from our community what it is that they value most, what would
provide equity, what would provide something they haven’t had.
Summary of Results for Research Question 3
In addressing Research Question 3, the researchers asked whether school board members
and superintendents agreed that MIG impacts student achievement. The reviewed literature and
survey and interview results indicated that MIG does not directly impact student achievement but
110
does so indirectly, specifically through application of effective governance. The results showed
that school board members and superintendents constructed the meaning of student achievement
through advocacy of their constituents.
Chapter Summary
The study explored three important questions in order to understand the perspectives that
school board members have about the motivation to attend MIG training and whether or not MIG
increases effective governance and positively impacts student achievement. These questions are
important to address because of the critical responsibility that board members and
superintendents have in governing schools in a way that results in robust leadership and student
achievement.
School board members and superintendents are accountable collectively to establish a
vision, set high standards, allocate resources to support students, and increase organizational
outcomes. While the superintendent is an educational leader, there are no requirements that
board members have education experience. As elected officials and lay civil servants, they must
engage in training opportunities that focus on their critical roles and responsibilities.
A close look at the perspectives of school board members and superintendents generated
critical information about the perceptions that school board members and superintendents hold
regarding MIG training and its impact on school leadership. The study results indicate that
superintendents are motivated to attend for a variety of reasons, although most strongly because
it is the culture of their district and that they are often encouraged to attend. Learning is a very
strong motivator for MIG training. The participants identified structural barriers that can limit
attendance MIG and provided ideas and solutions for improvement.
111
The study shed light on perspectives about MIG training’s impact on governance. The
participants agreed that MIG impact effective governance through teaching roles and
responsibilities, increasing collective leadership, and providing board members with requisite
fiscal knowledge to effectively allocate resources. Study results showed that that superintendents
and board members did not identify a direct link between MIG training and student achievement
but acknowledged an indirect impact on student achievement as leadership teams increase
governance skills. Finally, it was shown that the definition of student achievement is constructed
by constituents.
112
Chapter Five: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The purpose of the study was to understand the perspectives that school board members
and superintendents have related to MIG and its impact on effective school governance. School
board members are elected public officials, charged to establish policies in a school district and
work closely with superintendents, their sole employee, as the superintendent orchestrates the
conditions necessary for implementation of policies. Previous research reports examples of the
effectiveness of training for school board members, noting increases in governance and student
achievement. However, in California, this training is not mandatory; motivation and accessibility
play a role in participation in MIG training. The challenges for school districts are diverse;
limited resources, significant student needs, equity disparities, significant internal and external
pressures have led to changes in governance structures throughout the county. School board
member training is a promising venue to increase governance and promote student achievement.
Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
The researchers explored this through three research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
113
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 questions are critical to explore to further equip school leadership teams in the important
work of offering education that meets the needs of a diverse community.
The research questions were addressed through a comprehensive literature review,
surveys, and individual interviews with school leaders. The research team was comprised of 20
researchers. Together, the team studied 62 California school districts spanning 12 counties.
Findings Related to the Research Questions
Data were gathered from participating superintendents and school board members. Data
from interviews and surveys indicated perspectives from school board members and
superintendents related to MIG training. Concerning Research Question 1, the research indicated
that these school board members and superintendents were motivated to attend MIG training
because it was a cultural norm in their districts, they were motivated to learn, and they perceived
barriers that precluded school leaders from participating in MIG. For Research Question 2, the
data indicated that these school board members and superintendents agreed that MIG training
influenced governance as it increased knowledge about roles and responsibilities, increased
effective governance, and equipped school board members with requisite fiscal knowledge to
lead effectively in school districts. Results for Research Question 3 indicated that these school
board members and superintendents did not agree that MIG has a direct influence on student
achievement but agree that MIG has an indirect impact on student achievement through building
capacity in governance; it was also agreed that the community frames the definition of student
achievement that school leaders employ.
114
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What factors impact the decision of school board members to
participate in the MIG training program? This question was asked to understand the motivation
for attending MIG. Through surveys and interviews, the researchers identified three themes: (a)
School board members are motivated to attend MIG training because it is a culture of the district,
(b) they are motivated to learn, and (c) there are structural barriers to MIG participation.
The surveys and interviews showed that school board members and superintendents
attended school MIG training because it was a cultural expectation of the district. The
participating districts have a tradition of attending and the value for MIG is widely recognized.
This is facilitated through encouragement by the superintendent and other board members.
Bolman and Deal (2016) noted that establishment of traditions and symbols over time is a critical
component for symbolic leaders. This helps to build the culture and establish the values of the
organization.
The research results indicated that school board members attended MIG because they
were motivated to learn. The responses from school board members indicated that self-
motivation and motivation to increase effective governance had inspired their participation in
MIG training. However, the participants described cases in which the learning alone did not
always translate into behaviors of effective governance. While professional development, such as
MIG training, is not mandated in California, some districts consider MIG participation to be a
prerequisite to the board presidency, via board policy. CSBA aims to empower school board
members to execute effective governance in support of public schools. Through MIG, CSBA can
build the capacity of school leaders and support effective and successful governance of schools.
115
The research results identified structural barriers that may limit attendance in MIG
training. The survey and interview results showed that location, time, delivery, and cost play
roles in access to training. In the interviews, participants shared ideas and suggestions to reduce
those barriers. Some are reported in the implications section of this chapter. Structural barriers
are an extension of organizational problems that occur when there is a lack of organization and
coordinating efforts, which can result in fragmented systems. This calls for leaders to explore
options and employ revisions to increase success.
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 board governance? NSBA
(2012) suggested eight necessary habits for effective school boards: define goals, maintain high
standards for all students, focus on student-centered policies, collaborate with multiple
stakeholders, employ metrics, allocate resources to goals, govern collaboratively, and take part in
regular training. The research results of this study indicate that MIG encourages and equips
school board members to exhibit effective school governance as it provides school board
members with knowledge about roles and responsibilities, encourages collective leadership, and
provides board members necessary fiscal knowledge to carry out the vision of the board.
The results of the interviews and surveys indicated that MIG provides school board
members knowledge about roles and responsibilities. The participants demonstrated knowledge
and appreciation for the distinct roles and responsibilities that are reserved for the superintendent
versus those that are reserved for school board members. Often, it was described as creating the
“what” and the “how” is the responsibility of the board. Many shared that MIG training provided
understanding of roles and responsibilities and reflection on whether their practices were in
116
alignment. CSBA (2019) provides a framework for increasing governance through specific
standards delineating the roles and responsibilities of school board members. This supports
effective governance by board members and their sole employee, the superintendent.
The results of the surveys and interviews supported that MIG training increases collective
leadership. As a result of MIG training, participants in the study reported an alignment in
decision making and the ability to support group decisions through majority votes. The
Lighthouse Inquiry (D. Rice et al., 2000) asserted that shared leadership is a requisite value in
high-achieving districts. Bolman and Deal (2016) contributed that the political frame is applied
to increase organizational success. One important component of the political frame is that leaders
must consider and increase collaboration and relationships. This results in individual and
organizational benefits.
Survey and interview results indicated that MIG exerts an impact on board members’
governance by building capacity in fiscal knowledge. School board members have significant
fiscal responsibilities as they oversee the budget and expenditures. In a successful model, they
align fiscal resources with goals and priorities responsibly. CSBA (2019) standards lay a
foundation for the critical roles of superintendents, noting that fiscal responsibility and fiscal
alignment to goals support effective leadership.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth? Prior research is limited in exploring the direct correlation between training and
student achievement; however, some studies have found that governance training may have the
strongest impact on student achievement (Plough, 2014). The interview and survey results
indicated that MIG does not directly impact student achievement, although it may have an
117
indirect impact through implementation of effective governance practices. It was noted that
student achievement is defined by the stakeholders in a school district.
The research results were mixed in that the surveys of the global participants indicated
that some members noted a correlation between MIG and student achievement. However, in the
focus group, those results were less strong. During the interviews, superintendents and board
members from all districts in the focus group and from the entire study held that MIG did not
have a direct impact on student achievement. Given the mixed results, it is not reasonable to
conclude that MIG has a direct impact on student achievement. This directly ties to the Bolman
and Deal (2016) structural frame of leadership. School boards must focus on structural systems,
encouraging delineation of authority and strong adherence to roles. Following Bolman and
Deal’s structural framework, leaders will create structures that align the members of the
organization, creating a clear goal and charting a direct path toward that goal.
The results of the interviews and surveys indicated that MIG had an indirect impact on
student achievement through building capacity in school board members for effective
governance. Through building capacity in instruction, collaborative vision, goal alignment, and
effective hiring, school board members can create policies that increase achievement. the
Lighthouse Inquiry (D. Rice et al., 2000) is a framework that guides specific governance
behaviors that have an indirect impact on student achievement.
The interview and survey results indicated that student achievement is defined
dynamically, and that the definition is constructed by stakeholders. School board members are
civil servants with constituents and their policy is framed through that space. The focus group
suggested various meanings of achievement, all framed from the priorities established by their
community. Student achievement was represented in various ways, such as graduation rates,
118
attendance rates, Advanced Placement course offerings, access to college entrance examinations,
students enjoying school, and curriculum adoption. Explicit in the interviews was that
conversations about equity were missing and that addressing issues of equity would support
achievement efforts. This phenomenon is explained through Bolman and Deal’s (2016) political
frame. The role of the school board member is political, and the school district is a complex
organization. School board members, by design, assume the responsibility to represent the needs
of the community. In this capacity, school board members create policies that reflect the
priorities of the communities that they serve.
Limitations of the Study
Limitations to the study are acknowledged. The study was conducted only in California,
in school districts where a majority of the board members had attended some portions of MIG
training. It is difficult to control for covariables such as whether board members attended
training in addition to MIG that might have influenced their performance. During the study, the
COVID-19 pandemic resulted in school closures throughout the state. The research team was
limited by time and geographical constraints, communicating with participants only through
Zoom interviews and email.
Implications for Practice
This study was conducted in 62 districts in 12 counties in California. The interviews and
surveys were conducted over 4 months during a pandemic that resulted in school closures
statewide. The data gathered by the team of 20 researchers consisted of input by 186 board
members and 62 superintendents. The research led to two implications for practice: (a) changing
the professional development structure, and (b) including content related to education equity.
119
Changing the Structure
Superintendents and school board members noted barriers to participation in MIG
training, including time, location, cost, and delivery of the content. Improvement can be made in
all areas, based on the recommendations of the survey respondents. Pretests could assist in
determining areas of training needed for participants. This suggestion could reduce cost and
time. Follow-up training and support to gauge the implementation of content knowledge would
help school board members and participants to remain motivated in implementing governance
techniques.
Education Equity
Superintendents and school board members, through interviews, expressed that equity
conversations were not included in the MIG training. Opportunities to discuss themes such as
closing the achievement gap, addressing poverty, and improving instruction for vulnerable
subgroups could increase the impact of MIG training, as these issues are pertinent and critical for
school leaders.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was conducted in California. A broad conceptual framework, survey data, and
interview data that spanned 12 counties and 62 districts provided rich information regarding the
impact of MIG training on effective governance and student achievement, as well as motivation
factor for participation. Some areas of future research are indicated. Additional research should
be conducted to include mixed-methods studies that incorporate quantitative data collection and
analysis. This could provide information regarding a possible correlational relationship between
MIG training and student achievement. Collecting observational data could provide input as to
whether the school board members are generalizing governance learning.
120
Research could include investigating high-performing and highly effective school
districts where the leadership teams have not attended MIG training to understand whether there
are covariables that have yet to be considered. It is recommended that a similar study be
conducted that includes a state where governance training is mandated through legislation.
Providing data from such as state could allow for comparative analysis of the impact of
mandated governance training versus voluntary training. An investigation of the theme of equity
as it relates to student achievement is needed. This study identified a lack of discussion of
themes related to closing the achievement gap for vulnerable student groups.
Conclusion
Public schools face major challenges. Limited resources and a widening achievement gap
have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. School board members are elected to
provide leadership and create policies that result in student achievement. Unfortunately, in many
cases, persisting problems and loss of faith in leadership have led to alternate governance
models.
The results of this research strongly support that training for school board members is
critical to enhancing their ability to carry out their duties effectively and to influence student
achievement. Training is a promising strategy to support leaders who face these challenges. This
study included a comprehensive framework, interviews, and surveys of 186 school board
members and 62 superintendents across California. Results indicated that attendance in MIG
training is motivated by a district’s culture and a motivation to learn governance. While the
participants were MIG trained, they noted structural barriers that impede participation. MIG
training enhances knowledge that is necessary for impactful leadership. The study results
demonstrate that MIG reinforces knowledge of roles and responsibilities, collaborative
121
governance, and school finance. The study addressed the relationship between MIG and student
achievement, concluding that there is no direct correlation between MIG and student
achievement but that there is an indirect impact through governance skills obtained through MIG
participation. This study addressed student achievement, making a case that student achievement
is defined through the values of a community. In conclusion, MIG training is an effective
professional development offering in California that supports governance and exerts an indirect
impact on student achievement.
122
References
Agee, J. (2009). Developing research questions: A reflective process. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431–447.
Allen, V., Henken, R., & Dickman, A. (2009). School district governance reform: The devil is in
the details. Greater Milwaukee Foundation.
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, 72(2), 202-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701748428
Amundson, K. J., & Richardson, C. (1991). Straight A’s: Accountability, assessment,
achievement: A handbook for school board members. National School Boards
Association.
Anderson, C. G. (1992). Behaviors of the most effective and least effective school board
members. ERS Spectrum, 10(3), 15-18.
Bensimon, E. M. (1989). The meaning of “good presidential leadership”: A frame analysis.
Review of Higher Education, 12(2), 107–123.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction
to theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2016). Reframing organizations: Ancestry, choice and leadership (6th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, D. & Smith, J. (2007). Evaluating the “crazy quilt”: Educational governance
in California. Stanford University, Institute for Research on Educational Policy and
Practice.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
123
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. (2020). Welcome to the CAASPP
portal. http://www.caaspp.org//
California Department of Education. (2020). California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress (CAASPP). http://www.caaspp.org/administration/about/testing/index.htm
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards. https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/
California School Boards Association. (2017). The school board role in creating the conditions
for student achievement: A review of the research.
California School Boards Association. (2018). About CSBA. https://www.csba.org/en/About/
About CSBA
California School Boards Association. (2019). CSBA professional governance standards for
school boards. https://www.csba.org/-/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/
ProfessionalGovernanceStandards/CSBA_PGS_Brochure.ashx?la=en&rev=5fc78a303c5
b45c4a6d89d519f991e56
California School Board Association. (2020). Superintendent governance standards.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/Professiona
lGovStandards/ProfessionalGovernanceStandardsForDistrictSuperintendents.aspx
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 391–395.
Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan, M.
D. (1986). School boards: Strengthening grassroots leadership. Institute for Educational
Leadership.
124
Carver, J. (2010). A case for global governance theory: Practitioners avoid it, academics
narrow it, the world needs it. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(2),
149–157.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Curry, K., Kinder, S., Benoiton, T., & Noonan, J. (2018). School board governance in changing
times: A school's transition to policy governance. Administrative Issues Journal:
Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 8(1), 1–17.
Danzberger, J. (1992). School boards: A troubled American institution: Facing the Challenge.
The Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on School Governance. Twentieth
Century Fund.
Danzberger, J. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local school
boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 67–73.
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.
Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (1992). Governing public schools: New times,
new requirements. Institute for Educational Leadership.
De Dreu, C., & Weingart, L. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and
team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–
749.
125
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of the school board
leadership in improvement of student achievement. In T. Alsbury (Ed.), The future
of school board governance: Relevancy and revelations (pp. 191–224). Rowman &
Littlefield Education.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Pub. L. 89-10. https://www2.ed.gov/docume
nts/essa-act-of-1965.pdf
Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can’t read: And what you can do about it. Harper & Brothers.
French, P., Peevely, G., & Stanley, R. (2008). Measuring perceived school board effectiveness in
Tennessee: The latest survey results. International Journal of Public Administration,
31(2), 211–243.
Gemberling, K., Smith, C., & Villiani, J. (2000). The key work of school boards: A guidebook.
National School Boards Association.
Glass, T. (2007). Superintendent evaluation: What AASA’s study discovered. The School
Administrator, 64(6), 24–28.
Glenn, J., Hickey, W., & Sherman, R. (2009). Consultant perceptions of skills that school boards
value in superintendent applicants. International Journal of Educational Leadership
Preparation, 4(4), 1–20.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
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 and New England Staff
Development Council.
126
Goodman, R. H., & Zimmerman, W. G. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for 21
st
-
century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for high
student achievement. Educational Research Service.
Grissom, J. A. (2010). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public
organizations: The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 20(3), 601–627.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Sage.
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges
of district governance. National School Boards Association.
Hess, F. M, & Leal, D. (2005). Schoolhouse politics: Expenditures, interests, and competition in
school board elections. In W. G. Howell (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future of
education politics (pp. 228–253). Brookings Institution.
Hill, P. T. (2003). School boards: Focus on school performance, not money and patronage.
Progressive Policy Institute.
Hill, P. T., Wise, A. E., & Shapiro, L. (1989). Educational progress: Cities mobilize to improve
their schools. RAND.
Hopkins, M., O’Neil, D., & Williams, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence and board governance:
Leadership lessons from the public sector. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(7),
683-700.
Howell, W. (Ed.). (2005). Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics.
Brookings Institution Press.
Jennings, J. (2015). ESEA at 50. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(7), 41–46.
127
Johnson, P. A. (2011). School board governance: The times they are a-changin’. Journal of
Cases in Educational Leadership, 20(10), 1–20. 10.1177/1555458911413887
Kirst, M. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 378–
381.
Korelich, K., & Maxwell, G. (2015). The board of trustees’ professional development and
effects on student achievement. Research in Higher Education Journal, 27(1), 1–15.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation
to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229–278.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543072002229
Legal Information Institute, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. (n.d.). § 34 CFR § 303.23—
Local educational agency. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/303.23
Lee, D. E., & Eadens, D. W. (2014). The problem: Low-achieving districts and low-
performing boards. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 9(3), 113.
Lorentzen, I. J. (2013). The relationship between school board governance behaviors and
student achievement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Montana.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
McGonagill, G. (1987). Board/staff partnership: The key to the effectiveness of state and
local boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(1), 65–68.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.) Jossey-Bass.
McCloud, B., & McKenzie, F. D. (1994). School boards and superintendents in urban districts.
Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 384–385.
128
Merz, C. S. (1986). Conflict and frustration for school board members. Urban Education,
20(4), 397–418.
Moe, T. (2005). Teacher unions and school board elections. In W. Howell (Ed.), Besieged:
School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 254–287). Brookings Institution
Press.
Moe, T. (2009). Collective bargaining and the performance of public schools. American
Journal of Political Science, 53,156–74.
National School Boards Association. (2012). Mandated training for school board members.
http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/MandatedTraining.pdf
Nelson, J. L., & Crum, L. R. (1983). The power and challenges of local school boards.
American Education, 19(5), 10-16.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Picus, L. O. (2000). Setting budget priorities. In school spending 2000 investing in learning.
http://www.asbj.com/schoolspending/resourcespicus.html
Plecki, M. L., McCleery, J., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Redefining and improving school
district governance. University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy.
Plough, B. (2014). School board governance and student achievement: School board members’
perceptions of their behaviors and beliefs (EJ102887). Educational Leadership and
Administration: Teaching and Professional Development, 25, 41–53. ERIC. http://files
.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1028871.pdf
129
Rallis, S. F., & Criscoe, J. (1993, April). School boards and school restructuring: A
contradiction in terms? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and
tomorrow’s promise. Education Commission of the States.
Rhim, L. M. (2013). Moving beyond the killer B’s: The role of school boards in school
accountability and transformation. Academic Development Institute.
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Bruce, J., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2000, April 10–14). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/
superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student
achievement (ED453172). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. ERIC https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED453172.pdf
Rice, P. L. (2010). An analysis of the impact of school board training and evaluation as
perceived by school board members and superintendents [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Rice, P. L. (2014). Vanishing school boards: Where school boards have gone, why we need
them, and how we can bring them back. Rowman and Littlefield.
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. (2011) School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management,
25(7), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
130
Rose, L., & Gallup, A. (2007). The 39th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the
Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Phi Delta Kappa International.
http://www.pdkmembers.org/members_online/publications/e-GALLUP/kpoll_
pdfs/pdkpoll39_2007.pdf (9-1-09)
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd
ed.). Sage.
Schlechty, P. C., & Cole, R. W. (1993). Why not charter school boards? The American
School Board Journal, 180(11), 30–33.
Schmidt, P. (1992). Boards of contention: “Minimal” training may not fit boards’ needs.
Education Week, 11(32), 19.
Schmitz, S. (2007). Qualifications and readiness of school board trustees and implications for
training [Doctoral dissertation, Montana State University].
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1620/5bbb2e6e8948730e811a3c1d0ed40dd6500b.pdf
Shannon, T. A. (1994). The changing local community school board. Phi Delta Kappan,
75(5), 387–390.
Tripses, J., Hunt, J., Kim, J., & Watkins, S. (2015). Leading into the future: Perceptions of
school board presidents on the essential knowledge and skills for superintendent
preparation programs. Education Leadership Review, 16(2), 36–54.
The Twentieth Century Fund/Danforth Foundation. (1992). Facing the challenge: The report of
the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on School Governance. Twentieth Century Fund
Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Race to the Top fund. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/
racetothetop/index.html
131
Wagner, R. F. (1992). The case for local education policy boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(3), 228–
229.
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. McRel.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. Free Press.
Weiss, G., Templeton, N., Thompson, R., & Tremont, J. W. (2014). Superintendent and school
board relations: impacting achievement through collaborative understanding of roles and
responsibilities. School Leadership Review, 9(2), 12–21.
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan.
Ziebarth, T. (1999). The changing landscape of education governance. Education Commission
of the States.
Zion, R. L. (2008). Educating new board members. American School Board Journal, 195(8), 26–
27.
132
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
133
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
134
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
135
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
136
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
137
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
138
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
139
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
140
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?
141
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?
142
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: _______________________________________________________________________
143
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument RQ 1
What factors impact
the decision of school
board members to
participate in the MIG
training program?
RQ 2
How does the MIG
training program
encourage and equip
school board
members to exhibit
the behaviors of
effective school
governance?
RQ 3
Does MIG training
have an impact on
student achievement
and growth?
School Board
Member Survey
1-6 7-16,18-19 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
Superintendent
Survey
1-6 7-14 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
School Board
Member Interview
Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Superintendent
Interview Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether California superintendents and school board members agreed that the California School Board Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training increases effective governance and collaborative leadership and improves student achievement. The study applied a comprehensive conceptual framework. Bolman and Deal’s four frames of leadership provided a lens to examine effective leadership in complex organizations. Iowa’s Lighthouse Inquiry contributed to the literature on effective leadership practices in high-achieving school districts. The CSBA’s standards outline critical roles, responsibilities, and expectations for school board members. The qualitative study collected data via surveys and interviews from 62 California district leadership teams, including surveys of 62 superintendents and 180 school board members and interviews with 3 superintendents and 7 school board members. Three research questions guided the study: (a) what factors impacted the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG training program, (b) how the MIG training program encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance, and (c) whether MIG training had an impact on student achievement and growth. The findings supported school board member and superintendent participation in MIG, with the conclusion that MIG enhances a school board member’s ability to govern effectively and collaboratively, contributes to board members’ knowledge of roles and responsibilities, and indirectly affects student achievement by reinforcing critical knowledge and enhancing collaborative leadership skills.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
School board training and governance in California
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
K−12 school board training in California
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
PDF
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
PDF
School board governance training and student achievement
PDF
Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards
PDF
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
PDF
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
PDF
The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Does school board training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
Asset Metadata
Creator
Olamendi, Gloria Oliva
(author)
Core Title
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/09/2021
Defense Date
01/29/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
achievement,governance,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board,Training
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy (
committee member
), Cherniss, Alexander (
committee member
), Franklin, Gregory (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jgbhaney@yahoo.com,olamendi@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-441223
Unique identifier
UC11667829
Identifier
etd-OlamendiGl-9431.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-441223 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-OlamendiGl-9431.pdf
Dmrecord
441223
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Olamendi, Gloria Oliva
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
achievement
governance
school board
Training