University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Good governance: the role and impact of school boards in setting student outcome goals

(USC Thesis Other)

Good governance: the role and impact of school boards in setting student outcome goals

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

GOOD GOVERNANCE: THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF SCHOOL BOARDS IN SETTING
STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS
by
Jessica Barr

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2020

Copyright 2020 Jessica Barr

ii
DEDICATION
To my father for being my first teacher and my forever hero. To my mother for showing
me a woman can do it all. To my children for being my constant inspiration to be a better me. To
my husband for believing everything was possible and for making everything possible.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to my family and friends for always being my cheerleaders, especially when I
didn’t even know I needed it. Thank you to my dad, Dan Orraj, who has always valued
education, inspired his daughters to seek knowledge and truth, and taught us how to tell a great
story. Dad, you are still the smartest person I know. Thank you to my mom, Peggy Orraj, who
taught me how to be a strong, independent woman who always wears a smile and delivers a
splash of sass. I’ve come to realize I am just like you and that is exactly who I want to be. Thank
you to my grandpa Frank, who caught me playing “secretary” in his office when I was a little girl
and corrected me, “Sugar, you’re not a secretary…you’re the boss.”
Thank you to my children, Izzy, Jake, Keegan, and Ryleigh, for supporting me always in
accomplishing my goals – even when that meant less time with you. I hope I made you proud
and inspire you to never stop dreaming.
Thank you to Cohort 11 and my USC tribe – this would not have been possible without
you. When I look back on this experience, I have come to realize that the degree is the
destination but you all were the journey, thank you for being an integral part of one of my
greatest adventures. Thank you to Dr. Seli, Dr. Rayburn, and Dr. Phillips for your commitment
to my reaching this milestone. You have all contributed to my betterment as a writer, an
educator, and as a leader. Thank you to AJ Crabill, Dr. Brune, and the Guinn team for sharing
my affinity for governance… “Student outcomes don’t change until adult behaviors change.”
Finally, thank you to my husband Steve for taking my dreams and making them our
dreams. You have been there to encourage, support, push, and love me through all of this. Thank
you for seeing the best parts of me when I couldn’t – I promise to spend forever repaying the
favor.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication
Acknowledgments
List of Tables
List of Figures
Abstract
Chapter One: Introduction
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Organizational Context and Mission
Related Literature
Importance of the Evaluation
Organizational Performance Status
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Purpose of the Project and Questions
Methodological Framework
Definitions
Organization of the Project

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
School Board Governance Training & Goal Setting
School Board Governance and Student Outcomes
Clark and Estes (2008) Framework
Board Members’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Conceptual Framework
Conclusion

Chapter Three: Methods
Participating Stakeholders
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Validity and Reliability
Ethics
Limitations and Delimitations

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
Participating Stakeholders
Knowledge Findings
ii
iii
vi
vii
viii
1
1
2
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13
13
14
19
20
36
39

41
42
44
46
48
50
50
51

53
53
56

v
Motivation Findings
Organizational Findings
Synthesis of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Findings

Chapter Five: Solutions and Recommendations
Recommendation for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Limitations and Delimitations
Recommendations for Future Research
Conclusion

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

65
72
80

84
85
96
108
108
109
110
112
118
123
124

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 2. Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis
Table 3. Motivational Influences and Assessments for Analysis
Table 4. Organizational Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis
Table 5. Sampling Strategy and Timeline
Table 6. Stakeholder Participants
Table 7. Assumed Knowledge Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings
Table 8. Words Used to Describe Key Components of Setting Student Outcome Goals
Table 9. Assumed Motivation Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings
Table 10. Assumed Organizational Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings
Table 11. Validated Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Table 12. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Table 13. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Table 14. Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Table 15. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Table 16. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Table 17. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Table 18. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Table 19. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program

8
27
30
35
44
54
56
60
66
73
81
86
92
94
97
99
100
103
104

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Figure 2. Data Collection Cycle
Figure 3. Interview Question: Board Member Confidence in Setting Student Outcome
Goals
Figure 4. Board Monthly Time Use Evaluation: Meeting 1
Figure 5. Board Monthly Time Use Evaluation: Meeting 2
Figure 6. Board Monthly Time Use Evaluation: Meeting 3
Figure 7. Sample Dashboard Visualization

39
41
70

77
78
78
107

viii
ABSTRACT
Recent data indicates that despite efforts to emphasize high-stakes accountability for student
outcomes, a majority of the nation’s schools are still considered underperforming by our own
standards. In response to laws such as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), school boards
have become increasingly accountable for improved student outcomes in the schools they serve.
The purpose of this study was to explore the current capacity of a school board to set student
outcome goals prior to receiving governance training tailored to the acquisition of this skillset.
The school board utilized for this study serves a moderate-sized school district located in the
western United States. Following a review of the literature, assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences of the school board were evaluated using the Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis framework. Data was collected via qualitative interviews and through
document analysis using an established quantitative metric. Consulting the literature and the
findings which emerged from the data, a comprehensive implementation and evaluation plan
utilizing the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is provided.
Successful implementation of the recommendations discussed in this study could lead to a
potentially promising practice in governance training.

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
According to Education Week’s (2020) Quality Counts report, 70% of the nation’s states
are performing at a rating of a ‘C’ or worse in the area of academic-oriented school outcomes.
This data indicates that despite efforts to emphasize high-stakes accountability for student
outcomes, a majority of the nation’s schools are still considered underperforming by our own
standards. This study explores the role, and potential impact, of the school board in setting and
monitoring rigorous and realistic student outcome goals in low performing schools and districts.
Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), every district and school is required to measure,
report, and demonstrate student progress in a federally mandated report card. Under this law it is
essential that schools are able to demonstrate purposeful and consistent student outcomes. In
response, the National School Board Foundation has called for increased involvement by school
boards, particularly in programs focused on student achievement and accountability for these
outcomes (Alsbury, 2008). According to the National School Board Association (2020), there
are currently 90,000 local school board members who directly influence policy and high stakes
decisions impacting the over 50 million students that they serve. As school boards are assuming
an enhanced role in the delivery of student outcomes, one that directly influences all of the
nation’s children, it is of the utmost urgency that they carry the capacity to set and monitor
rigorous and realistic student outcome goals that influence desired results, particularly in low
performing school districts.
Research shows that there seems to be some positive effect between school board
member professional development and overall state education ranking, making it a crucial
component of effective school board governance and a potential key factor in improving student

2
outcomes (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). This study explores practices focused on training boards
in successfully setting and monitoring student outcome goals and culminates with
recommendations for practice. With not only accountability for school performance but the drive
to improve student achievement in mind, school boards need to fully understand the components
of student performance and the steps needed to ensure the success of all students within the
schools they serve (Hirsh & Foster, 2013).
Organizational Context and Mission
The Western United States District (WUSD; pseudonym) is a multi-site, tuition-free,
public school district in the Western United States that serves approximately 34,000 students
grades kindergarten through 12
th
grade. WUSD is overseen by an entity known as the “central
office” and is governed by a board that sets the vision and goals for WUSD and holds the district
accountable for results. According to its website, the mission of WUSD is to improve and impact
education in their state via schools that adequately prepare WUSD students for college and
career. The schools operating within WUSD adhere to an agreement with the district whereby
they are granted a certain level of autonomy. However, with that autonomy comes high
expectations and accountability for student outcomes. According to WUSD (2019), local and
school-level decision making can influence the establishment of policies and strategies that
maximize their effectiveness, but it is WUSD’s role to hold them accountable to do so.
Related Literature
National expectations are increasingly demanding the rapid reduction of low performing
schools that currently plague the United States (Duke, 2016). The commitment of the nation to
improve its lowest-performing schools was not one that was established on a whim, but rather
has been an evolution of expectations that began with the passage of the Elementary and

3
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Duke, 2016). For over half a century, generations have picked
up the accountability baton and continued to pass legislation, such as the No Child Left Behind
and Every Student Succeeds Acts that have followed, mandating improved outcomes across all
school districts. As Hess (2010) so succinctly reminds us, school boards govern school districts,
and have therefore inherited much of the responsibility for school reform. With 24 states that
have laws which allow them to take over low performing school districts, and an additional 15
states authorized to take over individual schools (Duke, 2016), low performing school districts,
along with their governing boards, are increasingly required to achieve.
As education reform movements demand higher performing schools and higher
performing students, they may inadvertently demand higher performing school boards (Plough,
2014). The impact of school boards on improving outcomes in low performing school districts is
indirect, but crucially connected (California School Boards Association, 2017; Dervarics &
O’Brien, 2011; Johnson, 2012; Land, 2002). In order to successfully turn around many of the
nation’s lowest performing schools and districts, it is essential to explore the board’s critical role
in governing their schools towards improved outcomes (California School Boards Association,
2017; Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011; Johnson, 2012; Land, 2002).
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to explore and evaluate the role, and potential impact, of the school board
in setting and monitoring rigorous and realistic student outcome goals in low performing schools
and districts for a variety of reasons. According to Speer (1998), the National School Board
Association adopted the improvement of student achievement as one of the defining objectives
for school boards in the 1990s. Nearly thirty years later, this objective has yet to come to fruition.
Currently, according to Education Week’s (2020) Quality Counts report, only 15 of 50 states are

4
performing at a rating of a ‘B-’ or better, on an A-F scale, in the category of School Years
performance. This rating includes outcome indicators such as enrollment, academic achievement
and performance, high school graduation rates, and postsecondary preparation (Education Week,
2020). The Casey Foundation’s (2019) annual Kids Count report shared analysis that also
reported a higher population of low-performing students, reporting that 68% of fourth graders in
the United States tested non-proficient in reading and 67% of eight graders tested non-proficient
in math in 2019. These recent statistics demonstrate that there is a substantial number of
underperforming states and students, and therefore a substantial number of underperforming
schools and districts, that need to be addressed with the utmost urgency.
Shifting demographics, enhanced accountability under educational policy and reforms,
and inadequate resources are increasingly influencing the school board’s capacity to generate
conditions conducive to enhanced student achievement (Peterson & Fuscarelli, 2001). According
to Dervarics and O’Brien (2011), a research brief released by the NSBA’s Center for Public
Education clearly identified that school boards in high-performing school districts exhibit habits
and characteristics that are distinctly different from boards in low performing districts. One of
the crucial characteristics discussed was that school boards in high performing school districts
are much more likely to take part in the goal setting process and the monitoring of their progress
(Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011).
In a survey conducted by the National School Board Association in partnership with K-
12 Insight (2018), 81% of the 1,042 board respondents identified their struggle with
implementing their state’s accountability system (which pertains directly to student outcomes) as
the greatest barrier towards impacting student achievement. As the WUSD board seeks to
achieve improved academic achievement in adherence to their state’s accountability system

5
through the goal setting process, they must first seek to understand the many facets that
contribute to academic success. Research supports that the pathway towards understanding and
successful implementation often begins with professional development. In the aforementioned
study, Dervarics and O’Brien (2011), the Center for Public Education and the NSBA have
defined eight characteristics of effective school boards, noting that school boards who take part
in professional development are able “to build shared knowledge, values, and commitments for
their improvement efforts” (p. 6). In an expanded exploration of these characteristics of effective
school boards, Black (2008) supported the conclusion that professional development is a factor
in improving achievement. A review of research completed by the California School Boards
Association (2017) also validates that there is substantial evidence supporting that board
professional learning can be attributed to improving student outcomes within a school district
and that effective governance training is particularly important in facilitating board members in
staying focused on student achievement. As such, the positive correlation between school board
professional development and student outcomes emphasizes the essentialism of adequately
preparing school boards, specifically in setting rigorous and realistic student outcome goals that
will lead to student achievement in low performing schools and districts.
Organizational Performance Status
Western United States District (WUSD) strives to adequately demonstrate that they are
adhering to their mission of preparing students for college and career. More specifically, this
pertains to their responsibility for student outcomes, which derives from the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA). According to the statement of purpose within ESSA, the expectation “is
to provide all children significant opportunity to receive fair, equitable, and high-quality
education, and to close the educational achievement gaps” (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015).

6
Specifically, WUSD seeks to increase the percentage of ‘B’ and ‘A’ rated schools within their
district, and work towards improving all ‘F’ and ‘D’ rated schools to a ‘C’ grade or higher.
Currently, according to their state’s Accountability Portal (2019), 64% of WUSD’s schools hold
a ‘B’ and ‘A’ rating. WUSD recently released a revised strategic plan, which specified that their
updated target for improved performance was to increase to 70% of WUSD schools holding a
‘B’ or ‘A’ rating by the year 2023-2024 school year. This research study focuses specifically on
the achievement of this target as their organizational goal.
To achieve this organizational goal WUSD has identified a number of focus areas,
including an updated performance framework that focuses on academic expectations, financial
health, and organizational structure, as well as scheduled school board governance training as a
potential pathway towards improved outcomes. WUSD has yet to offer formal governance
training to their school board, specifically in the area of setting student outcome goals.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are multiple stakeholder groups who directly contribute to and benefit from the
achievement of WUSD’s goal to have 70% or more of their schools receive a ‘B’ or ‘A’ rating
by 2023. The first of these stakeholder groups includes that of the administrators of the
individual campuses that the board oversees, totaling 66 schools in all, a majority of which are
comprised of combined elementary, middle, and high schools, which, if disaggregated, would
make their school count well over 100. As these schools serve grades Kindergarten through 12
th

grade, the second stakeholder group to be considered is that of the students and, third, the
teachers who serve them. The next accountability layer and stakeholder group to be considered
would be that of the WUSD’s central office, the district’s executive staff whom directly oversees
the schools and serves as a liasion between the board and the state department of education. The

7
final stakeholder group that should be taken into consideration are the nine the board members
themselves.
Each of WUSD’s stakeholder groups has a distinct role in achieving ‘B’ or ‘A’ grade
status. The site administration, teachers, and students directly impact the student learning, and
demonstrating of student learning, on the high-stakes assessments which provide the indicators
for the ratings. WUSD’s board is tasked with establishing the mission, policies, structure, and
goals that will lead to achieving increased high-performing schools, while it is the role of
WUSD’s central office to effectively carry out the parameters set by the board in collaboration
with the WUSD schools.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
While each of the aforementioned stakeholder groups have the potential to be impacted
by WUSD achieving this goal, it is essential to explore the board’s capacity to set rigorous and
realistic student outcome goals that give WUSD schools clear expectations towards providing a
quality, equitable education for all students they serve. Therefore, the stakeholder group for the
focus of this study was the board members of WUSD’s current board. The board as it currently
sits is comprised of nine members, all with diverse professional backgrounds and areas of
expertise. Each board member’s background provides a unique perspective on education, with
four of the board members having experience and professions related to the field of education,
and the other five members having professional ties ranging from that of parent activist to
executive work at a Fortune 200 company. The members’ time served on the board ranges as
well, with four of the nine having started their term less than one year ago, and time served on
the board ranging from three months to eight years.

8
As a contributing factor to the board’s capacity to set rigorous and realistic goals, they
complete two days of training in setting student outcome goals that give WUSD schools clear
expectations towards providing a quality, equitable education for all students they serve. For the
purposes of this study, the board’s “capacity” refers to their ability to do, experience, or
understand the process of setting rigorous and realistic goals. This study explores the board’s
current capacity to set student outcome goals prior to receiving governance training tailored to
the acquisition of this skillset. It should be noted that the board was originally slated to receive
this training in the Spring of 2020; however, the unprecedented circumstances of COVID-19 and
the resulting quarantine and restrictions of public gatherings have postponed this training to an
unknown date. The exploration of their pre-training ability to set and monitor student outcome
goals within the WUSD network is crucial in supporting board improvement. If the WUSD
board does not demonstrate improvement in the setting of rigorous and realistic student outcome
goals, then they may be susceptible to underdeveloped decision-making that can have a
profoundly negative impact on student achievement, specifically in improving achievement in
low performing schools.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 1

Organizational Stakeholder Goal

Organizational Mission
The mission of WUSD is to improve and impact education in their state via public schools that
adequately prepare WUSD students for college and career.
Organizational Goal

9
By 2023, at least 70% of schools in WUSD will be categorized as ‘B’ and ‘A’ rated schools.
Board Members’ Goal
By Spring 2021, the board will set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals that give WUSD
schools clear expectations towards providing a quality, equitable education for all students.

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to explore the board’s current capacity to set student
outcome goals prior to receiving training provided by an established governance training
program. The analysis focuses on the board’s knowledge and motivation as it relates to setting
student outcome goals and the organizational structures currently in place that impact the board
in effectively setting and monitoring these goals. As such, the questions that guide this study are
the following:
1. What is the WUSD board’s knowledge and motivation related to setting rigorous and
realistic student outcome goals?
2. What organizational structures, lines of communication, accountability and evaluation
measures are currently in place between the board and WUSD’s central office and how do
they impact the board’s knowledge and motivation in setting rigorous and realistic student
outcome goals?
3. Do the board’s current meetings reflect the prioritization of the discussing and monitoring
of student outcome goals?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational structure in terms of setting and monitoring rigorous and
realistic student outcome goals?

10
Methodological Framework
This study uses a mixed methods research approach to analyze the board’s current
capacity to set student outcome goals prior to receiving training provided by an established
governance training program. This integration of data provides a stronger understanding of the
problem than a singular approach could offer (Creswell, 2014). From the qualitative aspect, this
study examines data collected from interviews with the current WUSD board members related to
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences on board training,
communication, and goal-setting and monitoring. The quantitative approach examines data
collected from document analysis pre governance training. Document analysis was conducted
utilizing a promising practice that developed a metric for successfully tracking board priorities
by calculating “successful” minutes spent at board meetings discussing topics related to required
governance matters and student outcomes. The document analysis data in this study serves as a
baseline for the board in monitoring progress in their capacity to set and monitor student
outcome goals in a quantifiable manner. After receiving training, school board agendas and
meetings are monitored to calculate time spent on required governance matters (i.e., budget,
policy, etc.) and the monitoring, discussing, and supporting of the student outcome goals they set
for their schools as a result of their governance training. Once training occurs and this data is
collected, WUSD can quantify progress in student outcomes as a priority based on minutes spent
discussing, monitoring, and strategizing about these goals.
In implementing mixed methods, this study utilized the exploratory sequential design,
which consisted of an initial qualitative data collection and then expanded to a quantitative
collection and analysis (Creswell, 2014). The first phase of data collection occurred through
board member interviews which contributed to informed analysis in the quantitative phase.

11
Document analysis was conducted of board meeting agendas and minutes from the three
meetings that occurred prior to board member interviews. It should be noted that the three
meetings utilized for analysis were those that preceded meetings pertaining to emergency
directives related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of agendas not pertaining to the COVID-
19 crisis was crucial as those meetings were not reflective of traditional agendas but rather crisis
response.
This data serves as a baseline for exploring the board’s current capacity to set and
monitor student outcome goals, allowing for a deeper interpretation of the KMO influences on
board training, communication, and goal-setting and monitoring. After the school board
governance training has occurred, a second cycle of data collection is recommended to determine
the potential impact of the training initiative.
Definitions
For the purposes of this study, the following terms are defined.
Every Student Succeeds Act: Federal reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015.
ESSA includes provisions that will help to ensure success for students and schools (U.S.
Department of Education, 2019).
Outcomes: The impact of the program or strategy; usually knowable at the end of a cycle;
a measure of the effect on the intended beneficiary (Silver State Governance, 2020).
School Performance Framework (SPF): The School Performance Framework is a
stakeholder developed roadmap for rating the state’s schools based on multiple measures of
student and school performance. Schools receive an A-F rating (State Department of Education,
2019).

12
School board: A local board or authority responsible for the provision and maintenance
of schools.
Student outcomes: A measure of a school system results that are student results rather
than adult results; outcomes that are a measure of what students know or are able to do (Silver
State Governance, 2020).
Organization of the Project
This dissertation is comprised of five chapters. Chapter 1 identifies the problem of
practice, the organization and stakeholders as well as their goals, the purpose of the project and
the questions used to guide it, an introduction of the methodological framework of the study, and
defined key terms. Chapter 2 presents the current literature in relation to the topic and the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within the organization. Chapter 3
elaborates on the research methodology and data collection process. Chapter 4 presents the
analysis of collected data and findings of the research. Chapter 5 provides a summary of the
study and addresses the implications and recommendations of the research.

13
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this literature review is to provide an overview of school board
governance and accountability for student outcomes. The review starts with research on effective
governance and potential correlations to student outcomes. This section also explores the need
for effective school board governance and training in the setting and monitoring of student
outcome goals due to heightened national expectations and increased accountability for those
outcomes. This is followed by an overview of literature that describes school board professional
development, highlighting this development as an essential component of continuous
improvement, specifically in the context of low performing schools and districts. This section
also includes a discussion about some prior and current school board training practices,
specifically in regard to support and development in establishing rigorous and realistic student
outcome goals. Following the exploration of the literature, the review applies the Clark and
Estes Gap Analysis Framework (2008) in conjunction with the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on implementing effective school board training.
School Board Governance Training & Goal Setting

Educational policy and reforms are increasingly emphasizing school board accountability
for student outcomes. Research shows that this expectation of effective governance supports the
need for school board professional development. In fact, according to Dervarics and O’Brien
(2011), the Center for Public Education and the National School Board Foundation have defined
the eight characteristics of effective school boards, noting that school boards who take part in
professional development are able “to build shared knowledge, values, and commitments for
their improvement efforts” (p. 6). In an expanded exploration of these characteristics of effective
school boards, Black (2008) supported the conclusion that professional development is a factor

14
in improving achievement. A review of research completed by the California School Boards
Association (2017) also validates that there is substantial evidence supporting that board
professional learning can be attributed to improving student outcomes within a school district
and that effective governance training is particularly important in facilitating board members in
staying focused on student achievement. In addition to training, goal setting in the areas of
achievement and instruction have also been determined as board-level actions that positively
correlate with student achievement (Dervarics and O’Brien, 2011; Waters and Marzano, 2006).
As such, the positive correlation between school board professional development, and
participating in the goal setting process, and student outcomes emphasizes the essentialism of
adequately preparing school boards for the role they play in student achievement, specifically in
low-performing school districts.
School Board Governance and Student Outcomes
This review covers three topics that emerged from the review process. These topic areas
are as follows: 1) effective governance and student outcomes, 2) school board professional
development, and 3) school board accountability. Although the literature presented here has been
applied to a variety of problems, this review focuses primarily on the literature’s application to
the influence school boards have on student outcomes and their capacity to set rigorous and
realistic student outcome goals that guide the schools they serve in improving student
performance.
Effective Governance and Student Outcomes
Though school boards do not directly influence student learning, research supports that
the behaviors, decisions, and actions of a school board can directly influence the conditions
which allow schools to succeed or fail (Alsbury, 2008; California School Boards Association,

15
2017; Delagardelle, 2008). Though there are few empirical studies that directly link student
achievement gains to school boards, there is an abundant amount of research supporting the
correlation between the characteristics of effective school boards and high or low performing
schools and districts. Johnson (2012) also acknowledges the lack of empirical research but
emphasizes the increasing volume of studies that signal the school board’s role in creating the
conditions needed to improve student achievement.
Holland et al. (1989) conducted a study, using a combination of qualitative and
quantitative research methodology, which determined that the influence of effective governance
provided resources which led to improved performance. Furthermore, it was determined there
appeared “to be substantial evidence that more effective boards are differentiated from less
effective ones in six distinct areas of competence” (Holland et al., 1989, p. 451). Expanding upon
this notion of characteristics of effective governance, Johnson (2012) conducted a case study
which identified 12 board of education practices associated with higher levels of student
achievement. These identified practices include the school board’s ability to the following:
effectively create a vision, use data, set goals, monitor progress and take corrective action, create
awareness and urgency, engage the community, connect with district leadership, create climate,
provide staff development, develop policy with a focus on student learning, demonstrate
commitment, and practice unified governance.
According to Johnson (2012), school boards demonstrating the aforementioned traits of
effective governance have a role in student achievement. In addition to the identification and
implementation of effective governance traits, Hess (2010) also proposes that “rather than asking
whether school boards are ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ asking what problem needs to be solved would be
more useful” (p. 17). In a 2009 survey, consisting of a sample size of 900 board members from

16
417 different school districts, the National School Boards Association found that boards who
reported having a stronger academic focus also demonstrated higher proficiency rates. Other
studies also demonstrate that boards in high-proficiency and high-growth districts spend more
time discussing student achievement (Alsbury, 2008; Black, 2008; California School Boards
Association, Land, 2002; LaRocque & Coleman, 1993). Acknowledging the interrelationship
between effective governance and student outcomes may support that adequate governance
training could lead to improvement in low-performing school districts. With the correlation
between effective schoolboard governance and student outcomes, it is also important to examine
the impact of school board professional development in these areas.
School Board Professional Development
School board professional development is a crucial component of continuous
improvement. According to Mizell (2010), school boards have a moral obligation to commit to
learning, asserting that the first step towards achieving or reclaiming their moral authority is to
commit to learning as a priority of the school board as a whole. Mizell (2010) elaborates,
explaining that school systems that don’t organize or effectively provide professional
development are likely not enhancing learning or improving performance. This commitment to
school board professional development is supported by Hirsh and Foster (2013) whose extensive
backgrounds in school board and executive leadership led them to determine that the key to
continuous improvement is “walking the talk” of professional learning. Roberts and Sampson
(2011) have also emphasized the need for school board professional development in their
analysis of 50 state school board associations. Their study found that compared to those that have
no requirement, states that require school board professional development received overall
higher ratings in the annual education week “quality counts” report, which provides states with a

17
letter grade representative of their educational outcomes. Lee and Eadens (2014) concluded that
highly refined and target-enhanced school board training programs might lead to lasting
governance success. Plough’s (2014) study also supported this conclusion, indicating that
governance training may have the greatest impact on their work to improve student achievement.
The crucial piece of Lee and Eadens’ (2014) research is the emphasis on goal setting as a
target within training programs. Johnson (2012) supported goal setting as an essential component
of board efficacy, specifically outlining that these goals should be developed within specific
parameters. These parameters include the following: 1) the necessity of setting the goals in
collaboration with district leadership, 2) that the goals be nonnegotiable in the expectations of
student achievement and instruction, and 3) that the goals allow for the district and their staff to
be autonomous, within established parameters, for the process that will be implemented in order
to accomplish these goals (Johnson, 2012). Marzano and Waters (2009) echo the essentialism of
collaboration in the goal setting process, specifically in the belief that the results of this process
should lead district staff to specifically address student achievement and classroom instruction as
their non-negotiables. The distinction between the board’s crucial role in setting rigorous and
realistic student outcome goals and the guardrail that the district staff, not the board, be the ones
prescribing the means to achieve these goals is an essential component of the training process
(Delagardelle, 2008; Johnson, 2012; McAdams, 2000). Once the goals are set, effective school
boards monitor progress towards goals and take action when benchmarks are not being met
(Goodman et al., 1997; Johnson, 2012; LaRocque & Coleman, 1993). The Lighthouse Study also
supported the need for differentiated goals invested in closing of the opportunity gap and found
that high-performing districts who had set these goals were more likely to see closures in the
achievement gap (California School Boards Association, 2017; Delagardelle, 2008).

18
The school board’s commitment to continuous improvement through professional
learning and development proves to be a crucial component of effective governance. Research
ultimately supports the linkage between effective governance and potential positive influence on
student outcomes and that effective training programs can be the vehicle to enhanced efficacy
(Hirsh & Foster, 2013; Lee & Eadens, 2014). When determining the impact and efficacy of
school board professional development, it is necessary to consider what outcomes school boards
are, or should be, held accountable for.
School Board Accountability
With an increased expectation on student achievement, there is an emphasis on school
board accountability. According to Land (2002), school boards had historically turned to
administrators and teachers for expectations of academic achievement, but in the 1990s the role
and expectations of the school board shifted, now making this a crucial responsibility of an
effective board. In a policy report presented by the Washington State School Directors’
Association (2006), school boards have historically recognized the improvement of student
outcomes as a central responsibility in their realm of governing duties; with increasingly rigorous
expectations for student achievement, this role has magnified to one that requires an enhanced
emphasis of student learning. Much emphasis is placed on a need for school board
accountability, yet the question tends to be “accountable for what?”.
In a study conducted by Lee and Eadens (2014), 115 board meetings were observed and
findings revealed drastic differences between low, medium, and high performing districts’ school
board meetings. Lee and Eadens (2014) questioned how “in this era of accountability, it is hard
to believe that the many low-performing school board members, with such few hours of
mandatory training, are left in charge of the highest levels in school districts” (p. 9), and

19
determined that the accountability for student outcomes demands that school boards receive
target-enhanced school board governance training. According to Walser (2009), due to enhanced
accountability and expectations, school boards are just as responsible as the superintendent in
ensuring student achievement. Johnson (2012) elaborates on this shared responsibility of
outcomes between the board and the superintendent but adds that their relationship and cohesive
approach to achieving student outcomes in just as essential as the equity of expectations. School
board accountability and district level leadership are not mutually exclusive. Goodman and
Zimmerman (2000) concluded that a collaborative relationship between the school board and
district leadership is the cornerstone for obtaining high student achievement. The emphasis on
school board accountability is synonymous with the need for informed decision making
(Johnson, 2012; Mizell, 2010; Walser, 2009). Addressing the necessity for school board
accountability may facilitate an expectation for school board training in crucial areas such as the
setting and monitoring of student outcome goals that are designed around rigorous and realistic
steps towards improved achievement.
Clark and Estes (2008) Framework
According to Clark and Estes (2008), there are active ingredients to improving performance:
the first of which is setting performance goals that align with organizational goals and the second
is that of diagnosing performance gaps in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences. The first cause of performance gaps, knowledge and skills, is essential for it
determines whether or not people know how to achieve their performance goals (Clark & Estes,
2008). In essence, to truly obtain the knowledge needed to improve organizational performance,
one must first know what they do not know. To begin to sort through the inner workings of the
knowledge dimension, one must first explore the four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual,

20
procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Motivation is defined as both
what instigates and sustains goal-directed activities (Rueda, 2011; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece,
2009). Clark and Estes (2008) described motivation as a crucial component in determining the
causes for performance gaps. Ultimately, research has determined that motivation is a key factor
in terms of both learning and organizational performance. The final cause of performance gaps
are the obstacles perpetuated by the organization itself, which could be instigated by influences
such as culture, resources, or policies and procedures (Clark & Estes, 2008).
A modified version of Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis has been utilized to explore the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the WUSD board and based on the
data, recommendations have been made about what is needed in order to achieve their
performance goal. The first section reviews the potential knowledge and skills influences on the
stakeholder performance goal. Next, possible motivation influences on the board achieving their
performance goal are reviewed. Finally, potential organizational influences on the board are
considered. All three of the potential gap influences, in the areas of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational barriers, are thoroughly reviewed via the methodology presented
in Chapter 3.
Board Members’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The review of this current literature focuses on the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences required of the board of Western United States District (WUSD;
pseudonym) to achieve their stakeholder performance goal. The performance goal of this
stakeholder group is to set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals that give WUSD schools
clear expectations towards providing a quality, equitable education for all students they serve by
Spring of 2021.

21
Knowledge and Skills
The section focuses on the knowledge influences required of the board of WUSD as it
relates to the setting and monitoring of rigorous and realistic student outcome goals. The
performance goal of this stakeholder group is to set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals
that support WUSD in achieving 70% or more of their schools in achieving a ‘B’ or ‘A’ rating by
2023. In order for WUSD’s board to successfully achieve their stakeholder goal, it is essential to
explore the knowledge influences which, in conjunction with skills, are the foundation of an
organization’s performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Clark and Estes (2008), there
are active ingredients to improving performance: the first of which is setting performance goals
that align with organizational goals and the second, which happens to be the focus of this review,
is that of diagnosing performance gaps in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
performance.
In essence, to truly obtain the knowledge needed to improve organizational performance,
stakeholders within an organization must first know what they do not know. Rueda (2011)
reinforces this conundrum stating that “the difference between experts and nonexperts is not just
the amount and complexity of the knowledge they have accumulated, but rather qualitative
differences in the organization of knowledge and how it is represented” (p. 20). To begin to sort
through the inner workings of the knowledge dimension, one must first explore the four types of
knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
According to Rueda (2011), factual knowledge is the basic understanding of specific disciplines,
contexts, or domains. Conceptual knowledge is the interrelationships between those basic
elements that allow them to function simultaneously (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Procedural knowledge is knowing how to do something, methods of inquiry, and using skills

22
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Finally, metacognitive knowledge is one’s awareness of their
own cognitive processes (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Framed within the context of the
aforementioned types of knowledge, the following section reviews the five knowledge influences
needed for WUSD’s board to successfully achieve their performance goal.
Knowledge of the Critical Role of an Effective Board in Setting Student Outcome Goals
The first knowledge influence that WUSD’s board needs in order to improve
achievement through the setting of student outcome goals is knowledge of the role of an
effective board and their critical role in setting said goals. Rueda (2011) poses a question that is,
in fact, within itself an answer: “From the perspective of an educational leader, if you are not
clear about what those you supervise should know, how can they themselves be clear?” (p. 27).
This unveils an organizational gap that exists among many school boards: the idea that those
making many key decisions that impact student outcomes, do not, in fact, have an understanding
of what those outcomes should be (Johnson, 2012). According to a research review conducted by
the California School Boards Association (2017), there are five responsibilities the board is
tasked with: 1) setting the direction for the district in adherence to the mission and vision, 2)
establishing structure through policy creation and adoption, 3) providing support and resources
to implement goal achieving, 4) holding the district accountable through monitoring, and 5)
acting as a representative and leader of the community they serve.
Mayer (2011) defines learning as a change in what the learner knows caused by their
experiences. This notion of how learning, and therefore, the acquisition of knowledge occurs
lends itself to the need for WUSD’s board to experience training which provides a clear
definition of their role and the responsibilities that they carry within it. Aguinis and Kraiger
(2009) also support the impact of training, concluding that there is evidence to support the

23
correlation between training and a positive impact on individual and team performance within an
organization. This knowledge influence begins within the factual framework as it focuses on
understanding their domain but can facilitate the transfer into conceptual by guiding the board in
connecting that acquired factual knowledge to a conceptual context.
Knowledge of the Nature and Components of Student Outcome Goals
The second knowledge influence that WUSD’s board needs in order to meet their
performance goal is understanding of the nature and components of student outcome goals.
Research supports that district goals directly related to student learning outcomes have the
greatest impact on improving student achievement (Alsbury, 2008; Black, 2008; California
School Boards Association, 2017; Land, 2002; LaRocque & Coleman, 1993). Building upon the
need for leadership to have an understanding of the expectations of those they supervise is the
need to use this knowledge to set clear organizational goals. In a review of research related to the
school board’s role in creating conditions for student achievement, the California School Boards
Association (2017) found that clearly established and shared goals, in conjunction with taking
the necessary steps to achieve them, are an essential condition for district improvement. In
addition to goals that are clear and shared, David and Talbert’s (2013) exploration of the
successful turn-around of a high-poverty school district found that the evidence-based decision-
making attributed to improved student performance was cultivated by the development of
achievement goals and the monitoring of data at both the district and site level.
In order to effectively develop and monitor student outcome goals using data, the board
would need to have knowledge of their state’s accountability framework (which falls in
accordance with ESSA), and consists of a federally mandated minimum of five achievement
indicators (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). In the case of WUSD, the board would need

24
knowledge in the areas of the State Performance Framework, which consists of the following
indicators: 1) Academic achievement, 2) Student growth, 3) Closing opportunity gaps, 4) English
learner proficiency acquisition, and 4) Student engagement (State Department of Education,
2019). The California School Boards Association (2017) emphasizes that effective use of district
and school data is entirely dependent on the capacity of those using the data, thus reinforcing the
need for WUSD’s board to have full knowledge of the nature and components of student
outcome goals before they can attempt to establish and monitor them.
Knowledge of the Current Academic Standing and Student Performance Within Their Schools
Another important knowledge influence for the board is that of understanding the current
academic standing and student performance of the schools they serve. The knowledge of current
academic standings allows the board to establish a baseline, and a target, in the process of setting
rigorous and realistic student outcome goals (Johnson, 2012). In the Lighthouse study, Dervarics
and O’Brien (2011) found that board members in high-achieving districts had the capacity to
identify specific student needs through data and that they did not shy away from regularly
discussing identified trends in areas such as test scores, dropout rates, and student needs. The
board’s knowledge of the State Performance Framework, and where each of their schools are
currently performing within the four major indicators, will support them in aligning their goals
and vision to support that of state and district goals (Robinson et al., 2008).
Goodman et al. (1997) observed that effective boards hold themselves accountable for
ensuring that their district is progressively moving towards its goals. Togneri and Anderson
(2003) emphasized that effective school boards have an awareness of the current standing of
their schools and they are not afraid to confront negative data but rather use it as the basis to
improve teaching and learning within their schools. Delagardelle (2008) supports the notion of

25
alignment between board and district goals and elaborates that successful boards use data to set
expectations and progress monitor. In a study conducted by David and Talbert (2013)
investigating the successful reduction of student achievement gaps in a high-poverty district, it
was determined that the continuous use of multiple types of data to provide feedback and
influence approaches did contribute to district improvement.
Applying Knowledge of the Board’s Role to Establish Student Outcome Goals
Once an understanding of the board’s critical role in goal setting and the components of
student outcomes goals is acquired, the board must have knowledge in how to use their role to
establish student outcome goals. Research suggests that the first step towards establishing
student outcome goals is for the board and the district leadership to unite in defining and
communicating the vision for effective instruction in their schools (California School Boards
Association, 2017; Goodman et al., 1997; Johnson, 2012). LaRocque and Coleman (1993)
conducted a study that found that although low performing school boards often had shared values
and beliefs, they were not as successful at communicating them as those in high performing
districts. The study also found that the vision of low performing school boards was not being
used to drive decision making or policy creation and implementation in the same capacity as the
high-performing school boards (LaRocque & Coleman, 1993). Once the vision is effectively set,
communicated, and used as the driving force behind decision-making, then goals for student
achievement can be created (California School Boards Association, 2017).
Perhaps the most crucial awareness the board must have of their role in setting student
outcome goals is how their role is distinctly different from that of the superintendent or district
leadership but must be approached as a united team (California School Boards Association,
2017; Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011). Goodman et al. (1997) concluded that districts who have a

26
strong board and superintendent relationship had greater student achievement. In their review of
characteristics of quality governance, they defined key characteristics that directly discussed the
school board and superintendent relationship as well as the essentialism of having clear
organizational structures that allowed the superintendent to function as the instructional leader of
the district (Goodman et al., 1997). This research directly supports the need for the WUSD board
to have awareness of not only their role in setting student outcome goals, but how their role
differs from that of central office leadership.
Reflecting on Ability to Influence Student Outcomes and Monitor Progress
The final knowledge influence that WUSD’s board needs is that of reflecting upon and
evaluating their ability to influence student outcomes and monitor progress. LaRocque and
Coleman (1993) identified that board members in high performing school districts were able to
influence positive outcomes through progress monitoring of goals by adhering to discussion
within three specific parameters: 1) overall district progress towards goals, 2) variations in
performance across the district, and 3) possible explanations for these variations. Rueda (2011)
defines evaluating as making judgements and distinctions based on specified criteria and
standards. This requires not only a way to assess outcomes, but the ability to reflect on them,
which falls into the metacognitive area of knowledge for it requires a level of self-awareness and
one’s own cognitive processes. According to Clark and Estes (2008), the gap analysis process
would be a crucial next step for WUSD’s board for it identifies if they have adequate knowledge,
motivation, and organizational support to achieve such work goals. Identifying their knowledge
gaps allows for training that will provide opportunity for meaningful application of this learning
to setting student outcome goals, which is demonstrative of procedural knowledge. Table 3
shows the knowledge influences, types, and assessments for analysis.

27
Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis

Organizational Mission

The mission of WUSD is to improve and impact education in their state via public schools that
adequately prepare WUSD students for college and career.

Organizational Stakeholder Goal
By Spring 2021, the board will set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals that give WUSD
schools clear expectations towards providing a quality, equitable education for all students.

Assumed Knowledge
Influences
Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative (factual or
conceptual),
procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence Assessment
The WUSD board must
understand their critical role
in setting student outcome
goals.

Procedural Interviews (i.e., open-ended questions
on what the role of a board member is
in the setting and monitoring of
student outcome goals)
The WUSD board needs to
understand the nature and
components of student
outcome goals.

Factual (Conceptual)

Interviews (i.e., open-ended questions
related to board’s current
understanding of student outcome
goals)

The WUSD board must
have an understanding of
the current academic
standing and student
performance within their
schools.
Factual (Conceptual) Interviews (i.e., open-ended questions
related to the board’s current
knowledge of the academic standing
and student performance within their
schools)
The WUSD board must
know how to apply
knowledge of the board’s
role to establish rigorous
and realistic student
outcome goals.
Procedural Interviews (i.e., open-ended questions
on the challenges and barriers to
setting student outcome goals)
The WUSD board must
reflect on their ability to
influence student outcomes
and monitor progress.
Metacognitive Interviews (i.e., open-ended questions
about strengths and barriers in the
board’s perceived ability to set and
influence student outcome goals)

28
Motivational Influences
Motivation is defined as both what instigates and sustains goal-directed activities (Rueda,
2011; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2009). Research suggest that there are three motivated
behaviors (Rueda, 2011; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2009). The first behavior is that of active
choice, which pertains to the motivation to actively start something. The second behavior is
persistence, which is the motivation to persist until the act is finished. The third behavior is
investing enough effort to meet performance goals. Mayer (2011) elaborates on motivational
factors that underlie the motivated behaviors, describing five influences: motivation based on
interest, motivation based on beliefs (self-efficacy), motivation based on attributions, motivation
based on goal orientation, and motivation based on one’s sense of social partnership.
Clark and Estes (2008) describe motivation as a crucial component contributing to
performance; with knowledge and skills and organizational influences being the other
contributing factors. Ultimately, research has determined that motivation is a key factor in terms
of both learning and organizational performance. Rueda (2011) synthesizes that across all
research, there are five reoccurring motivational principles: 1) self-efficacy and competence
beliefs, 2) attributions and control beliefs, 3) value, 4) goals, and 5) goal orientation. This section
focuses on two specific motivational theories: Expectancy value theory and self-efficacy. Each
of these motivational influences are examined in their impact on WUSD’s board being able to set
rigorous and realistic student outcome goals.
Board Members’ Value for Setting Student Outcome Goals
In order to effectively set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals, WUSD’s board
needs to see the value in setting student outcome goals. According to Eccles (2006), expectancy
value theory is essentially one’s perceived capacity to complete and activity (“Can I do the

29
task?”) and value of the activity (“Do I want to do the task?”). Rueda (2011) elaborates on this
theory explaining that “Values are most influential in starting an activity, while expectancies are
most influential in persisting at an activity” (p. 43). The theory is broken down further by
disaggregating the components of task value beliefs: Attainment value, intrinsic value, utility
value, and cost belief (Eccles, 2006). Intrinsic value is the actual or perceived satisfaction one
feels after completing a task (Eccles, 2006). It is crucial that the board feel intrinsically
motivated to establish student outcome goals (Delagardelle, 2008).
Board Member’s Self-Efficacy for Student Outcome Goal Setting
In order for the WUSD board to set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals, the
board members should hold the belief that it is within their own capacity to execute the behaviors
necessary to produce student outcome goals that have a positive impact on school and district
performance. Self-efficacy correlates to utility value, which Rueda (2011) describes as how
useful one views a particular activity to meeting future goals. Essentially, if one does not believe
they will be successful at a task, they are less likely to engage in it (Rueda, 2011). The board
plays a central role in setting and adhering to the vision of their community, this is their task, and
can empower efficacy by embracing their role (Alsbury, 2008; Black, 2008; California School
Boards Association, 2017; Land, 2002; LaRocque & Coleman, 1993). Board members are rarely
educators themselves and are therefore often eager to pass the goal setting task along to district
leadership, but the mindset that is crucial for them to achieve is that they represent functions so
fundamental to school accountability that only an elected governing body can perform them
(California School Boards Association, 2017).

30
Table 3
Motivational Influences and Assessments for Analysis

Organizational Mission

The mission of WUSD is to improve and impact education in their state via public schools that
adequately prepare WUSD students for college and career.

Stakeholder Goal
By Spring 2021, the board will set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals that give WUSD
schools clear expectations towards providing a quality, equitable education for all students.

Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Expectancy Value (Utility and Cost) – WUSD
board members need to see the value in
establishing rigorous and realistic student
outcome goals.
Interview questions:
• Please describe what value, if any, you
feel there is in the board setting student
outcome goals.
• What would you personally like to
achieve from participating in this
process?

Self-Efficacy - WUSD board members need to
feel confident in their ability to set rigorous
and realistic student outcome goals.
Interview questions:
• Please describe your comfort level in
setting student outcome goals. How
confident are you in your ability to do
so?
• What board mindset do you believe is
necessary in order to successfully
establish student outcome goals?
• In what areas of the goal
setting/monitoring process do you
believe you have strengths?
• In what areas of the goal
setting/monitoring process do you
believe you could use continued
support?

31
Organizational Influences
In addition to examining the knowledge and motivational influences of the WUSD board,
it is also crucial to explore the organizational influences, often synonymous with barriers, that
are at the core of the organization’s performance. Clark and Estes (2008) identify organizational
support as a critical component of achieving goals and define that support as the tools, facilities,
resources, policies, and procedures that either help or hinder work. Where knowledge is a
representation of what we know, and motivation a reflection of what keeps us moving,
organizational culture is a direct reflection of who we are, what we value, and what we do as an
organization (Clark & Estes. 2008). For the purposes of this study, the literature focuses directly
on the organizational elements impacting the WUSD school board.
Defining Effective Governance
Understanding the characteristics and parameters of an effective board is crucial when
examining the current policies and practices that encapsulate the cultural profile of WUSD’s
board. According to Clark and Estes (2008), “All organizational goals are achieved by a system
of interacting processes that require specialized knowledge, skills, and motivation to operate
successfully” (p. 104). If process guides behavior, or vice versa, then it is essential to define
those desired behaviors in order to influence the work processes in place within the WUSD
organization.
Holland et al. (1989) conducted a study, using a combination of qualitative and
quantitative research methodology, which determined that the influence of effective governance
provided resources that led to improved performance. Furthermore, it was determined there was
substantial evidence supporting that more effective boards are differentiated from less effective
ones in six distinct areas of competence (Holland, Chait, & Taylor, 1989). Holland et al. (1989)

32
outlined these six competencies as: Understanding institutional context, building capacity for
learning, nurturing the development of the board as a group, recognizing complexities and
nuances that impact board actions, respecting and guarding the integrity of the governance
process, and envisioning and shaping institutional direction. Dervarics and O’Brien (2011)
define comparable characteristics of an effective governing board but elaborate on the
competencies emphasizing behaviors and best practices such as: Collaboration, establishing
shared beliefs and values, striving for continuous improvement through accountability and data-
driven decision making, the alignment and sustaining of resources, respect and trust between the
board and the superintendent, and participation in training geared towards improvement efforts.
Ultimately, there are overlapping characteristics that define effective school board
governance and these traits can be used to measure member competencies (Black, 2008;
Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011; Holland, Chait, & Taylor, 1989). These behaviors should not only
be the desired outcome but should drive the work processes of WUSD’s board. This study
explores board members’ perceptions of characteristics that define effective governance and their
related experiences.
Creating a Culture of Collaboration between WUSD’s Board and the Central Office
The relationship between school board governance and student outcomes is the driving
force behind WUSD’s board achieving their stakeholder goal in that the interrelationship
between effective governance and student outcomes may support that collaborative governance
training, in conjunction with the central office, could lead to improvement in low-performing
schools and districts. Alsbury (2008) addresses this interrelation specifically through the lens of
the relationship between the school board and the superintendent. Alsbury (2008) emphasizes
that the difficulty of the governance and the superintendent (central office) roles, as well as their

33
interaction with each other, often lead to high transiency that, in turn, has a negative impact on
sustained student achievement. This interaction lends itself as a symptom of what Clark and
Estes (2008) would describe as a Culture in Groups dynamic that can have an adverse effect on
organizational performance if not addressed.
Lee and Eadens (2014) also acknowledge that effective school districts are able to sustain
collegiality between the school board and the superintendent. They also take a traditional
approach to the influence of governance on student outcomes, preferring to look at it as an area
in need of enhanced accountability. In their research, Lee and Eadens (2019) compared the
behaviors of school boards from low and high-performing districts, finding conclusively that
members of low-performing districts needed training to improve their effectiveness and that this
would also lead to improved student achievement. The Washington State School Directors’
Association (2006) shared similar findings on the role of school boards in improving student
achievement in addition to defining specific steps that could positively enhance the board’s
influence. A key finding of the research was that ensuring student achievement undoubtedly
requires a system approach, one where all district leadership and the board are working in
partnership (Washington State School Directors’ Association, 2006).
The research continues to support that not only is there a proven influence between
school board governance and improved student outcomes, but that collaboration with district
leadership in governance training can lead to enhanced outcomes, which is especially necessary
in underperforming school districts (Alsbury, 2008; Lee & Eadens, 2014; Washington State,
2006). This study seeks to evaluate the level of collaboration, based on board member
perceptions, in setting student outcome goals between the WUSD board and the central office
prior to training.

34
Role of Governance Training on Improving Student Outcomes
School board professional development is a crucial component of continuous
improvement. In a research report on the conditions for student achievement, the California
School Boards Association (2017) found that governance training is a crucial component of an
effective school board. This research emerged with four key findings: 1) Professional learning
for school boards is essential for them facilitating conditions for school district improvement, 2)
There is evidence that board training and development can lead to improved student outcomes,
3) Governance training is particularly important in boards staying focused on student outcomes,
and 4) Training on board member roles and the relationship with the superintendent can help
them work more effectively as a team (California School Boards Association, 2017). Roberts and
Sampson (2011) presented similar findings but extended their research to explore state
requirements for school board professional development. The study found that most states do not
have such requirements, and that of the states that did require school board professional
development, they received an overall rating of B or C according to the Education
Week 2009 rating, while those states that did not require professional development received
a rating of C or D. School board training is a crucial component of school improvement
(California School Boards Association, 2017; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). This study explores
the board members’ perception of the effectiveness of the training provided by the central office.
Cultural Setting Promoting the Prioritization of Setting and Monitoring Student Outcomes
School district culture is defined as the norms, values, and attitudes that define and drive
behaviors from the classroom to the board room (Johnson et al., 2015). Not one entity can dictate
or drive a district’s culture, but the central office and the board can work cohesively to ensure
that school board agendas and meetings reflect the prioritization of the setting and monitoring of

35
student outcomes as a cultural norm. LaRocque and Coleman (1993) emphasized progress
monitoring after the goal-setting process and describe the sources high performing school boards
call upon to effectively do so. These sources include, but are not limited to, site visits,
discussions with district and school leadership, and school data and assessment reports or
updates. This study evaluates the central office’s capacity to prioritize the setting and monitoring
of student outcome goals prior to governance training.
Table 4
Organizational Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis
Organizational Mission

The mission of WUSD is to improve and impact education in their state via public schools that
adequately prepare WUSD students for college and career.

Organizational Stakeholder Goal
By Spring 2021, the board will set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals that give WUSD
schools clear expectations towards providing a quality, equitable education for all students.

Assumed Organizational
Influences
Organizational Models Organizational Influence
Assessment
The WUSD Central Office
needs to establish the role of
an effective board in
achieving student outcome
goals.

Cultural Settings Interview questions to determine the
current perceived role of the board in
achieving student outcome goals.
The WUSD Central Office
needs to provide effective
training in the area of
setting rigorous and realistic
student outcome goals.

Cultural Settings Interview questions to determine the
level of support and training provided
by the central office in setting student
outcome goals.
The WUSD Central Office
needs to establish a culture
of collaboration and
participation between their
office and the board in order
Cultural Model Interviews questions to determine the
levels of collaboration and
participation between the central
office and the board.

36

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework is constructed, not found (Maxwell, 2013). Maxwell (2013),
outlines the purpose of a conceptual framework the route to addressing the concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that are a key part of the research design.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) elaborate on the definition of a conceptual framework explaining
that they are often used in the methodology section of a quantitative study where concepts are to
be operationalized and measured. This study explores the potential influences of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors, but recognizes that they do not exist in isolation from one
another, but rather have a clear interrelation to one another. This research study explores that
interrelation by examining how the cultural settings and models in place within the WUSD
organization are an incubator of sorts for the knowledge and motivation gaps interfering the
board achieving their stakeholder goal.
The figure below (see Table 4) represents the interactive relationship between the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences as they relate to successfully achieving
their stakeholder goal. In this case, the organizational stakeholder goal is to set rigorous and
for the board to set rigorous
and realistic student
outcome goals.
The WUSD Central Office
needs to work with the
WUSD board to ensure that
school board meetings
actively focus on work
aligned with the established
student outcome goals.

Cultural Settings Interviews questions to determine
emphasis placed on the setting and
monitoring of student outcome goals
as reflected on board agendas and
time spent discussing.

Document Analysis of minutes spent
discussing student outcomes in board
meetings.

37
realistic student outcome goals that give WUSD schools clear expectations towards providing a
quality, equitable education for all students they serve. The stakeholder goal resulted from
WUSD’s responsibility for student outcomes, an expectation that emerged from increasing
national accountability initiatives demanding improved student performance. Governance
training has been identified as a potential influencer of school board behaviors and the
implications of such on student outcomes (California School Boards Association, 2017; Roberts
& Sampson, 2011). In order to evaluate the board’s upcoming governance training as a potential
promising practice in achieving the conceived stakeholder goal, this study seeks explore the
board’s current capacity for setting student outcome goals as a baseline prior to training.
The large circle represents the cultural settings and model in place at WUSD which have
a direct influence on the knowledge, applied skills, motivation, and, ultimately, the behaviors of
the board. The assumed organizational influences have been narrowed to one cultural models
and three cultural settings. The first cultural setting addressed is that of the organization,
WUSD’s central office, needing to establish the role of an effective board in order to achieve
student outcome goals. The second cultural setting pertains to the WUSD central office needing
to provide, and participate in, effective training in the area of setting rigorous and realistic
student outcome goals with the board. The third cultural setting addressed was the need for
WUSD’s central office to work with the board in ensuring that school board meetings and
agendas actively focus on work aligned with the establishing of student outcome goals. The
cultural model addressed is that of the organization needing to establish a culture of collaboration
and participation in order for the board to set rigorous, yet achievable, student outcome goals. All
of the aforementioned cultural settings and model were determined as a key influences because

38
understanding the characteristics and parameters of an effective board is crucial when examining
the current policies and practices that encapsulate the cultural profile of WUSD’s board.
As such, the inner circle represents the boards’ knowledge and motivation as cultivated
by the organization’s cultural setting and models. The assumed knowledge influences are as
follows: 1) The WUSD board needs to understand the nature and components of student outcome
goals, 2) The WUSD board must understand their critical role in setting student outcome goals,
3) The WUSD board must have an understanding of the current academic standing and student
performance within their schools, 4) The WUSD board must know how to apply knowledge of
their role to establish rigorous and realistic student outcome goals, and 5) The WUSD board
must know how to evaluate their ability to influence student outcomes. The assumed motivation
influences include: 1) WUSD board members need to see the value in establishing rigorous and
realistic student outcome goals and 2) WUSD board members need to feel confident in their
ability to set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals.
The interaction between organizational, and as such the knowledge, and motivation
influences, has a direct impact on the WUSD board achieving their stakeholder goal, which is
represented by the arrow leading from the circles to the goal in the below diagram. This
conceptual framework outlines the immersive impact of WUSD’s cultural models on the
knowledge and motivation of their board. Once addressed, the organization will be on a path
towards achieving their goal and, ultimately, improved outcomes within the schools they serve.

39
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Within
Organizational Model and Settings

Conclusion
Chapter two sought to explore the WUSD board’s current capacity to set student outcome
goals prior to receiving training provided by an established governance training program. The
literature review began with research on effective governance and potential correlations to
student outcomes. This section also explored the need for effective school board governance due
to heightened national expectations and increased accountability for those outcomes. This was
followed by an overview of literature that described school board professional development,
highlighting this development as an essential component of continuous improvement. This
section also included a discussion about some prior and current school board training practices,
specifically in regard to support and development in establishing rigorous and realistic student

40
outcome goals. Following the exploration of the literature, the review applied the Clark and
Estes Gap Analysis Framework in conjunction with the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on implementing effective school board training. The research
examined in chapter two has guided the methodology used in chapter three.

41
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this project is to conduct an in-depth study that seeks to explore board’s
current capacity to set student outcome goals prior to training provided by an established
governance training program. Due to the enhanced accountability measures at both the state and
national level, it is the organizational mission of WUSD to adequately prepare their students for
college and career and to demonstrate this through continuous improvement in student
achievement. This initiative sparked the stakeholder goal, which is to set rigorous and realistic
student outcome goals that give WUSD schools clear expectations towards providing a quality,
equitable education for all students they serve. This study utilizes the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap
Analysis Framework to focus on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
are both promoting and impeding WUSD from achieving this goal. The figure below introduces
the data collection process for this study.
Figure 2
Data Collection Cycle

42
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders for this study are the members of WUSD’s current board. The board
members apply for appointment and are selected to represent a significant number of schools
throughout their district. There are currently nine selected board members presiding over the
WUSD board. This study seeks to accurately represent the board. As such, using the research
questions as a guide, the sampling process is optimized by selecting distinct criteria (Maxwell,
2013).
Document Analysis Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Document analysis was utilized to validate and triangulate the responses from
quantitative and qualitative research (Maxwell, 2013; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). For this
study, document analysis consisted of the review of the three most recent WUSD board meeting
agendas and minutes prior to the interview process. It should be noted that meetings pertaining to
the COVID-19 emergency were not utilized for document analysis as they were not reflective of
the traditional meeting content needed to produce baseline data regarding student outcomes.
Criterion
The documents analyzed consisted of the three most recent WUSD board meeting
agendas and minutes prior to the interview process and prior to the board receiving governance
training. The quantitative approach examined data collected from document analysis pre
governance training based on promising practice which has developed a metric for successfully
tracking board priorities by calculating “successful” minutes spent at board meetings. After
receiving training, school board agendas and meetings are monitored to calculate time spent on
required governance matters (i.e., budget, policy, etc.) and the monitoring, discussing, supporting
of the student outcome goals they set for their schools as a result of their governance training.

43
Once this data is collected, WUSD can quantify progress in student outcomes as a priority based
on minutes spent discussing, monitoring, and strategizing about these goals. The pre-training
data collection serves as a baseline for the board to monitor their progress post-training and is a
significant indicator in evaluating the efficacy of the governance training provided.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion
The qualitative element of this study was pre-training interviews. The interview phase
sought to achieve full participation of the current board; therefore, the only criterion was that the
board members were willing to participate in the interview process. All nine board members
were invited to participate in the interview process, eight of the nine members agreed to
participate. The interviews were used to better explore and inform the quantitative results
(Creswell, 2014). The interviews were conducted after the document analysis phase. Though the
interviews allow for an opportunity to elaborate, it should be noted that there is still a level of
inference as what is said is not necessarily an accurate reflection of perspective (Maxwell, 2013).
To avoid over interpretation, the interview questions were posed around specific events and
actions to avoid eliciting generalizations or abstract thoughts (Maxwell, 2013; Weiss, 1994).
Explanation for Choices
This mixed methods evaluation study seeks to explore the board’s capacity to set student
outcome goals prior to training provided by an established governance training in order to
establish a baseline for potential evaluation of training impact and effectiveness. The selection of
document analysis and interviews may evolve into a potential recommendation of a promising
practice that might be appropriate in addressing this problem within another K-12 district or
network.

44
Table 5
Sampling Strategy and Timeline
Sampling
Strategy
Number in
Stakeholder
population
Number of
Proposed
participants from
stakeholder
population
Start and End
Date for Data
Collection
Interviews: Purposeful,
Non-Random
There are a
total of 9
board
members
All 9 board
members were
invited to
participate in
interviews, 8 of 9
participated
June 2020-
August 2020
Documents: Purposeful,
Non-Random
N/A N/A June 2020-
August 2020

Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
The quantitative approach examined data collected from document analysis pre-
governance training based on promising practice which has developed a metric for successfully
tracking board priorities by calculating “successful” minutes spent at board meetings. This study
utilized the exploratory sequential mixed methods design, which consists of an initial
quantitative data collection and then builds to a qualitative collection and analysis (Creswell,
2014). The first phase of data collection occurred through initial document analysis of the board
meeting agendas and minutes from the three meetings prior to interviews and the COVID-19
crisis. This data serves as a baseline should WUSD wish to explore the potential impact of their
governance training following their future training.
Documents and Artifacts
In addition to the qualitative interview process, this research study conducted quantitative
document analysis. Document analysis is utilized to validate and triangulate the responses from

45
quantitative and qualitative research (Maxwell, 2013; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Though
document analysis is traditionally a qualitative approach to data collection (Maxwell, 2013;
McEwan & McEwan, 2003), this study utilizes a specific method developed by a promising
practice which analyzes documents in a quantitative manner. For this study, document analysis
consisted of the review of the WUSD board meeting agendas and minutes prior to the interview
process and governance training and, utilizing the aforementioned metric, produced quantitative
results reflecting the board’s current capacity to set, monitor, and prioritize student outcome
goals.
The documents analyzed consisted of three months prior to the interview process,
COVID-19 crisis, and anticipated governance training. The quantitative approach examined data
collected from document analysis pre-governance training based on promising practice which
has developed a metric for successfully tracking board priorities by calculating “successful”
minutes spent at board meetings. After receiving training, school board agendas and meetings are
monitored to calculate time spent on required governance matters (i.e., budget, policy, etc.) and
the monitoring, discussing, and supporting of the student outcome goals they set for their schools
as a result of their governance training. Once training has occurred and this data is collected,
WUSD can quantify progress in student outcomes as a priority based on minutes spent
discussing, monitoring, and strategizing about these goals. This analysis serves as a baseline for
this process. The artifact review occurred prior to interviews in order to better inform the inquiry
process. McEwan and McEwan (2003) emphasize that this process provides for a meaningful
opportunity to fill in the missing pieces of information collected in the research process.

46
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study used a mixed methods research approach to analyze both the quantitative and
qualitative aspects associated with the board’s current capacity for setting rigorous and realistic
student outcome goals pre-training. This integration of data provides a stronger understanding of
the problem than a singular approach could offer (Creswell, 2014). From the qualitative aspect,
this study examined data collected from interviews related to the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on board training, communication, and goal-setting and monitoring,
specifically in terms of setting and monitoring rigorous and realistic student outcome goals.
Interviews
Interview Protocol
The purpose of this project was to conduct an in-depth study that analyzed the board’s
current capacity in the setting of rigorous and realistic student outcome goals within the WUSD
public school network. The study also serves as a baseline so that WUSD can later determine the
impact of the school board governance training following its occurrence. Interviews with the
board were conducted prior to governance training takes place, utilizing a semi-structured
approach. The semi-structured approach consisted of combination of predetermined interview
questions but with all questions used flexibly (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). According to Merriam
and Tisdell (2016), this format can allow for richer data collection as it allows the researcher to
respond to the situation in the moment. As the questions were geared towards uncovering the
board’s knowledge and motivation prior to governance training, the semi-structured interview
approach allows for flexibility in uncovering the likely vast array of responses from the board.
Interview Procedures

47
The interview process took place prior to the board’s governance training, which is
tentatively scheduled to take place by the Spring of 2021. Interviews were conducted after
Instructional Review Board (IRB) approval was received. The interviews took place over the
summer months, as determined by availability of the board members. The interviews were semi-
formal, in addition to being semi-structured, to ensure the participants felt comfortable and that
the richest data possible is extracted from the process. Completely informal interviews,
according to Patton (2002), can be exceedingly difficult to analyze so a semi-formal approach is
ideal. Creswell and Creswell (2018) also emphasize that one of the advantages of a semi-formal
interview process is that it allows the researcher to control the questioning.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting quarantine and in-person restrictions,
all interviews were conducted via Zoom to ensure the safety of all participants. Interviews were
conducted with one participant at a time during a single one-hour session. Therefore, the total
number of interviews took place over a combined eight hours. The choice of an hour was made
as it would be a sufficient amount of time to ask predetermined questions with anticipated
additional time spent on in-the-moment inspired questions. Though the interviews allowed for an
opportunity to elaborate, it should be noted that there is still a level of inference as what is said is
not necessarily an accurate reflection of perspective (Maxwell, 2013). To avoid over
interpretation, the interview questions were posed around specific events and actions to avoid
eliciting generalizations or abstract thoughts (Maxwell, 2013; Weiss, 1994). The fact that an hour
would likely not inconvenience the participants, who also have full-time day jobs, was taken into
consideration as a deciding factor. Two devices were used to capture and record data. The first
device utilized was Zoom, the second was a recording application on a phone, to minimize the
opportunity for technical recording issues interfering with data collection.

48
Data Analysis
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe the systematic analyzing of multiple data sources as
the final critical principle of action research. Data analysis for this study consisted of three
phases. The first phase of analysis was be that of document analysis prior to WUSD’s training.
This analysis utilized an established quantitative metric for calculating board agenda items and
minutes spent discussing items pertaining to student outcome goals and scores them. In
conjunction with the metric, analysis focused on frequencies and averages. The second phase of
data collection consisted of qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with eight of the nine
members of WUSD’s current board. The process of designing interview questions was guided by
the research questions and the conceptual framework of this study. The interview data was
examined for potential reoccurring or overlapping themes in the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences of WUSD and the board. Careful consideration was taken to remove all
identifying information of the interviewees to protect their anonymity. The data collected in this
study explores the board’s current capacity to set student outcome goals prior to receiving
governance training and serves as baseline for potential future evaluation of the efficacy of the
training they receive in the setting of student outcome goals.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
It is crucial to maintain credibility and trustworthiness in this study to ensure limitations
on researcher bias. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) emphasize that the ability to conduct research in
a trustworthy and ethical manner directly correlates to the credibility of their study. Ratcliffe
(1983) offers an interesting perspective on assessing validity in research, reminding that the
following should be kept in mind: 1) data does not speak for itself, 2) one cannot measure or
observe a phenomenon without changing it, and 3) numbers, equations, and words are all

49
representations of reality, not reality itself. This concept of a researcher not being able to capture
reality is supported by Maxwell (2013).
Keeping this important research in mind when attempting to enhance credibility and
trustworthiness in data, there are, in fact, recommended strategies to do so. The first way in
which I increased credibility was through the use of triangulation, which is the process of
examining evidence and data from multiple sources to justify themes (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). The interview process supported this as it was a planned, open-ended questions conducted
in isolated interviews with each individual board member. As each data source, in this case each
interviewee, was kept form influencing one another, this allowed for potential themes to emerge
in an unbiased capacity. The use of interviews, which were used to identify specific board
member beliefs and behaviors, were a valuable additional data point in the context of
triangulation.
An additional way that this research study sought to increase credibility and
trustworthiness was through adequate engagement in data collection. According to Merriam and
Tisdell (2016), adequate time spent collecting data, coupled with the purposeful search for
variation in understanding the phenomenon, can be a crucial contributor to credibility. In this
particular study, observations and interviews were key to adequate engagement in data
collection. This process also supports a third way of increasing credibility, which Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) refer to as the purposeful seeking of data that could challenge your expectations,
which is sometimes also referred to as discrepant case analysis. The tool undoubtedly surfaced
potential challenging themes, which led to the purposeful seeking of contradicting research if in
existence.

50
Validity and Reliability
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) define reliability as the extent to which findings can be
replicated and, additionally, define validity as the extent to which findings can be applied to
other situations. They elaborate that the connection between reliability and validity rests on the
assumption that a study is increasingly valid if there are visible repeated observations and the
entire study is successfully replicated. The established instrument being utilized provides a solid
metric for quantifying board behaviors and time spent as an indicator for prioritizing student
outcomes. To ensure that there is no bias in seeking out particular components of the board
agendas and minutes, the instrument outlines how to calculate and categorize every component,
in conjunction with time spent, resulting in an evaluation of board priorities. The use of this
instrument requires ample time engaged in data collection within the document analysis process
and also removes additional potential for researcher bias. The instrument was designed to
quantify board behaviors pre and post governance training allows for the repetition of this study
across similar settings. There is also potential for peer examination as the tool is not limited to
certain users and there is comparable data from other boards who have been measured pre and
post training as well.
Ethics
The purpose of this project is to conduct an in-depth study that analyzes the WUSD
board’s current capacity to set and monitor student outcome goals, as well as the potential need
for school board governance training. Due to the enhanced accountability measures at both the
state and national level, it is the organizational stakeholder goal of WUSD to set rigorous and
realistic student outcome goals that give WUSD schools clear expectations towards providing a
quality, equitable education for all students they serve. This study utilized the Clark and Estes

51
(2008) Gap Analysis Framework to focus on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that are both promoting and impeding WUSD in achieving this goal.
There are some essential ethical considerations when examining this topic. The first
consideration is that of doing no harm. It was crucial when investigating the board’s knowledge
and motivation that I did so in a way that does not in any way make the public question their
integrity or competency as this could potentially cause harm. Glense (2011) specifically
discusses the importance of informed consent as a way to empower participants, therefore I
ensured I retrieved informed consent from all participants. It was also crucial to protect the
participants identity and ensure confidentiality. As the board only consists of nine members, they
were more susceptible to identification, so it was crucial that I protected any identifiable
information. Finally, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) address the ethical implications of storing data
in a secure location. I ensured that the data collected was kept in a password protected, secure
location.
Limitations and Delimitations
It is essential that researchers anticipate the ethical issues that can potentially arise and
influence the data collection process (Creswell, 2009). As there are always be variables beyond
the researcher’s control, it is essential to examine the limitations and delimitations of the study
(Creswell, 2009). In the case of this particular study, there are limitations and delimitations that
need to be acknowledged. For example, a limitation of the study was the honesty of the
participants in the interview process. To address such limitations, delimitations are used to assist
the researcher in regulating them. An example of a delimitation in the context of this study is that
interviews were done one-on-one, with full anonymity of responses guaranteed to the
participants. In addition to anonymity, the questions were explicitly designed to be neutral in

52
nature in order to elicit authentic, unbiased responses from the participants. This delimitation
was implemented by ensuring that the conceptual framework is the basis for all questions. In
terms of delimitations, it should also be taken into consideration that only one school district and
one school board were used for data collection. The results and findings may not be
generalizable to other school districts and other boards.

53
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to explore the WUSD board’s current capacity to set
student outcome goals prior to receiving governance training tailored to the acquisition of this
skillset. This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework to focus on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on WUSD accomplishing their stakeholder
goal of the board setting rigorous and realistic student outcome goals that give schools clear
expectations towards providing a quality, equitable education for all students by the Spring of
2021. This chapter reviews the following components of the study: participating stakeholders,
document analysis and interview results, and findings. The questions guiding this study were:
1. What is the WUSD board’s knowledge and motivation related to setting rigorous and
realistic student outcome goals?
2. What organizational structures, lines of communication, accountability and evaluation
measures are currently in place between the board and WUSD’s central office and how do
they impact the board’s knowledge and motivation in setting rigorous and realistic student
outcome goals?
3. Do the board’s current meetings reflect the prioritization of the discussing and monitoring
of student outcome goals?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational structure in terms of setting and monitoring rigorous and
realistic student outcome goals?
Participating Stakeholders
Eight of the nine WUSD current board members participated in this study. Each of the
eight participating members have diverse professional backgrounds and areas of expertise

54
ranging from extensive backgrounds in education and previous board experience to parent
activism and executive business experience. Time served on the board also reflects a range of
experience with four members serving less than or equal to one year (the newest member having
only had participated in two board meetings prior to the interview process) and three members
having served between two and eight years on the board. The most senior member has been on
the board since its inception. Table 6 identifies the participants, using a gender-neutral
pseudonym, and relative time served on the board.
Table 6
Stakeholder Participants
Participant Time Served on WUSD Board
Member Anderson ≤ 1 year
Member Brown ≤ 1 year
Member Carter > 1 year
Member Davis ≤ 1 year
Member Evans > 1 year
Member Freeman > 1 year
Member Gibson > 1 year
Member Hill ≤ 1 year

Findings
The data presented below is organized by knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences. Interview data was used to analyze all five knowledge, two motivation, and four
organizational assumed influences. When analyzing interview data, if five or more of the eight

55
(average > 62.5%) participants provided evidence from interviews that confirmed the assumed
influence, then the gap was determined to be validated, demonstrating that this is a focus area for
which recommendations are provided in Chapter 5. If less than five (average < 62.5%)
participants provided evidence in their interviews that confirmed the influence, then the gap was
considered not validated, or rather, an asset. It is important to note that when a gap was not
established, the potential need for improvement of this influence still exists. However, for
purposes of this study, the validated gaps are prioritized for recommendations. Under the
circumstances that interviews did not provide enough definitive evidence to validate or not
validate, then the assumed influence was listed as undetermined. In the case of undetermined
influences, additional research may be required.
Document analysis data was collected using an established metric for quantifying board
priorities through analysis of their agendas and meeting minutes. As this metric was pre-
established and focuses on quantifying a specific measure, document analysis data was only used
to validate or not validate one correlating influence. The organizational influence being analyzed
was that of the WUSD central office needing to work with the board to ensure that school board
meetings actively focus on work aligned with the established student outcome goals. If less than
50% of the WUSD board’s minutes, from three combined meetings, were calculated as being
dedicated to goal-setting or goal-monitoring regarding student outcomes, then the gap was
considered validated. If greater than 50% of the WUSD board’s minutes, from three combined
meetings, were calculated as actively focusing on the discussion of goal-setting or goal-
monitoring regarding student outcomes, then the gap was considered not validated.

56
Knowledge Findings
To begin the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis, this study focused on the five
knowledge influences impacting WUSD accomplishing their stakeholder goal of the board
setting rigorous and realistic student outcome goals that give schools clear expectations towards
providing a quality, equitable education for all students by the Spring of 2021. Several interview
questions aligning to these five influences were asked to evaluate the board’s current knowledge
influences. Three knowledge gaps, in the areas of factual (conceptual), procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge, were validated during data collection and analysis. Table 7 outlines
the assumed knowledge influences, determination, and a summary of the findings.
Table 7
Assumed Knowledge Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings
Assumed Knowledge Influence Gap Validated, Not Validated or
Undetermined

The WUSD board must understand their
critical role in setting student outcome
goals.

The WUSD board needs to understand the
nature and components of student
outcome goals.

The WUSD board must have an
understanding of the current academic
standing and student performance within
their schools.

The WUSD board must know how to
apply knowledge of the board’s role to
establish rigorous and realistic student
outcome goals.
Gap not validated. The board
demonstrates they understand their
role and responsibility in setting/
monitoring student outcome goals.

Gap validated. Board member
understanding of the nature and
components of student outcomes
varied and were not consistently
differentiated from adult outcomes.

Gap not validated. Board members
demonstrate knowledge of the
current academic standing and
student performance within their
schools.

Gap validated. Board members lack
understanding of how to apply
knowledge of their role to establish
rigorous and realistic goals.

57

The WUSD board must reflect on their
ability to influence student outcomes and
monitor progress.

Gap validated. Board members
heavily rely on the central office to
influence and monitor progress and
consider themselves to be the
accountability component, not as
having ability to influence student
outcomes.

Board Understands Critical Role in Setting Student Outcome Goals
Board members were asked during the interview process who is responsible for setting
student outcome goals for their schools, to describe the role the board plays in setting these
goals, and the degree to which they had participated in setting student outcome goals as a board.
The California School Boards Association (2017), outlined five responsibilities a school board is
tasked with: 1) setting the direction for the district in adherence to the mission and vision, 2)
establishing structure through policy creation and adoption, 3) providing support and resources
to implement goal achieving, 4) holding the district accountable through monitoring, and 5)
acting as a representative and leader of the community they serve. During the interview process,
board members consistently demonstrated that they understood their critical role and
responsibility in setting student outcome goals, determining that this influence was an asset to
the WUSD board.
When asked who was responsible for setting student outcome goals for their district and
schools, seven of the eight interviewed members mentioned the board’s critical role in setting
student outcome goals. All eight members mentioned multiple parties involved in the goal setting
process. Specifically, all eight mentioned some layer of state involvement, whether it be through
legislation or the State Performance Framework, as well as mentioning that the schools

58
themselves play a crucial role in goal setting. Member Carter was the only board member who
did not state that the board had a role in setting the goals stating, “I look back to the schools to
set goals and outcomes. I look to the legislature to set goals and outcomes. I look to our own,
personal board to evaluate.”
When asked about the degree to which they have participated in setting student outcome
goals, Member Anderson and Member Davis shared that they had not yet participated but they
attributed this to their short time on the board and most of their meetings focusing on crisis
response to COVID-19. Member Brown, Member Evans, Member Freeman all mentioned their
Strategic Plan as a formal goal setting process that they had recently engaged in. Over the course
of the entire interview, all eight members referred to the Strategic Plan in regard to board-
specific student outcome goals.
Finally, when asked about the role the board plays, if any, in setting student outcome
goals, all eight members shared some acceptance of responsibility for setting and monitoring
student outcome goals. Member Anderson, much like many of their fellow board members,
described the board’s crucial role in setting expectations stating, “We set the standard: This is
where we want to be, this is our line, this is where we want everything to start.” Ultimately, all
board member responses reflected awareness of their critical role in setting goals and
expectations that reflect the mission and vision of their district.
Varied Levels of the Knowledge of the Nature and Components of Student Outcome Goals
Board members were asked during the interview process to define a student outcome
goal, the intent of a student outcome goal, and the key components of a student outcome goal.
This influence aligns with the research question regarding the WUSD board’s current knowledge
related to setting rigorous and realistic student outcome goals. The literature supports that student

59
outcome goals should directly align to two distinct areas: student achievement and classroom
instruction (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011). When asked to define a student outcome goal, the data
demonstrates that board members were inconsistent in their definitions and that only three of the
eight members provided responses specifically aligning to student achievement or classroom
instruction.
When asked to expand upon the definition by explaining the intent of a student outcome
goal, only two of eight members provided student-centered responses that directly aligned to
improved student achievement or classroom instruction. Member Freeman, a member with
extensive education experience, defined a student outcome goal as “a student’s proficiency or
growth on a pre-determined measure” and elaborated on the intent of a student outcome goal to
be one that “helps shape instruction and decision-making at a systematic level.” Member Gibson
defined a student outcome goal as “an articulated target for student improvement, generally
measurable by some type of data instrument.” Responses outside of those of Member Freeman
and Member Gibson varied. Member Anderson noted that their individual identity leads them to
have their “own particular definition of a student outcome” and that it is one that is “different
than any other standard person’s outcome…Not just [defined] by grades but by the experience,
by the socialization.” Member Davis shared the organizational goal of “achieving more ‘A’ rated
schools” as their definition for student outcome goals, whereas Member Evans quoted the
mission statement of “preparing students for college or trade school or a job” as their definition.
Responses also varied, with minor overlap, when answering the question regarding the
key components of setting a student outcome goal. According to the literature, the most
influential student outcome goals have two key components: being clear and instructionally
oriented (California School Boards Association, 2017; Robinson et al., 2008). The most

60
frequently used word amongst the interviewed WUSD board members was “measurable” or
“measurement,” which was identified as a key component of consideration when setting student
outcome goals by Member Carter, Member Gibson, and Member Hill. Table 8 identifies the
words used to describe key components by each of the WUSD board members.
Table 8
Words used to describe the key components of setting student outcome goals
Board Member Words

Member Anderson

Member Brown

Member Carter

Member Davis

Member Evans

Member Freeman

Member Gibson

Member Hill

Experience, socialization, informed
decision-making

Transparency, consistency, equity

Communication, evaluation,
measurement

Student preparation

Legislature, performance
framework, curriculum

Baseline, data, student objective

Measurable, achievable, student-
specific

Measurable, clear

The findings indicate that there is a diverse understanding of the key components to be
taken into consideration when setting student outcome goals. The board members responses
indicate their understanding of the nature and components of student outcomes varied and that
they were not consistently differentiated from adult outcomes.

61
Members Had a Strong Awareness of Academic Standing of Their Schools
The next finding that emerged was that the WUSD board had a strong awareness of the
academic standing of their schools. Board members were asked to broadly describe the academic
standing of the schools in their district based on the state’s performance framework. The board’s
knowledge of the State Performance Framework, and where each of their schools are currently
performing within the four major indicators, will support them in aligning their goals and vision
to support that of state and district goals (Robinson et al., 2008). Seven of the eight members
interviewed were able to describe their district’s performance in comparison to surrounding
school districts. Member Carter, Member Evans, Member Freeman, and Member Hill were able
to elaborate on that and specifically cite that “over 60% of [district] schools are ‘A’ and ‘B’
schools.” Member Gibson made an important distinction that, “Our portfolio of schools are
performing better than their similarly situated peers…[but] they are all over the place. We have
high-performers, we have low-performers and they are all impacted by issues relevant to their
communities.” Members Anderson, Brown, Carter, and Davis shared similar sentiments of a
need for continuous improvement at all of their schools, despite outperforming surrounding
districts. The findings confirmed that the WUSD’s awareness of the academic performance of
their schools was an asset. Not only were boards able to provide a clear and consistent overview
of district performance compared to neighboring districts, a majority also acknowledged the need
for consistent improvement, which directly aligns to how they hold their schools accountable.
Inconsistent Understanding of How to Apply Their Role to Establish Student Outcome Goals
The next finding that emerged from data analysis involves the need for the WUSD
board’s procedural knowledge in applying understanding of their role to the establishment of
rigorous and realistic student outcome goals. According to Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011),

62
procedural knowledge is knowing how to do something, methods of inquiry, and using skills. In
this study, eight board members were asked to describe how a board member should go about
determining if a student outcome goal is rigorous and realistic. The literature supports that the
first step in establishing student outcome goals is for the board, and their district leadership, to
unite in defining and communicating the vision for effective instruction in their schools
(California School Boards Association, 2017; Goodman et al., 1997; Johnson, 2012). The
interview question posed to the board sought to analyze the board’s knowledge of their role in
establishing rigorous and realistic goals, as well as to seek consistency in their answers as an
indicator of unity in the process.
Board member descriptions of the process for establishing rigorous and realistic goals
were mixed. Member Anderson did not specifically outline a process but emphasized important
considerations for goal setting, stating “I think that is actually a hard decision…We have so
many students that come from so many different backgrounds and different states and different
education and different countries. So there’s always something that it’s [the goal] blocking.”
Member Gibson also prioritized considerations of the student population when goal setting,
stating:
You have to look at a holistic approach: circumstances of the students, enrollment of a
particular school, experience level of the staff, what type of support measures, resources
are available at the site…All of that contributes to performance, and ultimately the
progress they can make towards whatever the designated goal is…and whether or not that
goal is rigorous is highly dependent on all of those factors in whether you are setting the
bar too low or too high.

63
Member Brown described the process for determining whether or not a student outcome
goal is rigorous and realistic in “three parts,” stating that “It needs to be measurable…Needs to
have some comparability…and needs to be inclusive of all students in the system.” Member
Carter said it was essential to “look at past data…Look at the curriculum…Look at the
demographics and the resources.” Member Davis stated that rigorous and realistic goals are
determined by “tracking student progression year over year” and being able to answer the
question “is the educational program they put forth a good one?” Member Freeman emphasized
that a board member needs to “have confidence and faith” in their central office leader “because
there’s just no way for a board member to have that kind of knowledge.”
Data analysis indicates that although the board has a strong understanding of their role in
setting student outcome goals, as well as a united overall vision for student achievement with
their central office, there is a lack of unity in how to specifically approach the establishment of
goals that are both rigorous and realistic. It should also be noted that there was a strong
consistency in board member acknowledgement of how school and student circumstances can
contribute to student outcomes, but there was not a clear and consistent approach in the process
for establishing student outcome goals with these considerations in mind.
Dissenting Opinions on their Ability to Monitor and Influence Student Outcomes
The final validated knowledge influence gap is the WUSD board’s metacognitive
knowledge in the area of reflecting upon and evaluating their ability to influence student
outcomes and monitor progress. WUSD board members were asked to describe when and how a
school board should approach monitoring progress towards goals. This question required board
members to not only describe how and when to assess outcomes but demonstrates their ability to,
and prioritization of, reflecting on them, which falls into the metacognitive area of knowledge for

64
it requires a level of self-awareness and one’s own cognitive processes (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda,
2011).
In regard to the frequency of reflecting on progress towards goals, the literature supports
that the board members of high-achieving districts seek such information on a regular or monthly
basis (Delagardelle, 2008; Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011). LaRocque and Coleman (1993)
identified that board members in high performing school districts adhered to discussion of
progress towards goals within three specific parameters: 1) overall district progress towards
goals, 2) variations in performance across the district, and 3) possible explanations for these
variations. Data collection indicates that although the board members do see progress monitoring
as a part of their role, there is inconsistency in the frequency that this should be done, the role of
the board versus their central office in the reflection process, and what prompts the need for their
involvement. Member Anderson stated that the board should be progress monitoring
“constantly” but elaborated that “It feels like nagging and people are going to hate it and feel like
there’s too much oversight…like they aren’t trusted, but they are trusted, you’re just dealing with
kids’ education.” Member Freeman’s perspective differed, sharing that the board “should
monitor them annually…I don’t think that they have the bandwidth to do much more than that.”
Member Davis had a similar mindset stating that “the [central office] should be doing it on a
regular basis…They [the board] all have regular day jobs and so our time is best spent letting the
[central office] bring us those schools that are in extra need of attention.”
Member Brown was succinct in their response regarding frequency, stating that progress
monitoring is initiated by “specific mandates in statute.” Member Brown also emphasized the
board’s role in progress monitoring stating, “As a matter of governance, I take very seriously the
obligation of any member of the board to push every button at their disposal to what they think

65
can lead to improved student outcomes.” Member Carter emphasized that “you have to watch the
data continually…All the time, continually and often, and in different measurements.” Member
Hill shared, “I feel like we should be seeing it more than just what we are right now, like in
maybe quarterly spotlights…Like at a level where it’s more preventative than reactionary.”
Data collection infers that the board carries dissenting opinions on the frequency,
capacity, and role of the board versus the central office in monitoring progress towards goals.
This identified knowledge gap indicates the board needs to achieve consistency in their
metacognitive understanding of how to incorporate the reflective practice of progress monitoring
and how this will ultimately contribute favorably to improved student outcomes (Dervarics &
O’Brien, 2011; Rueda, 2011).
Motivation Findings
Interview questions addressed motivation influences impacting WUSD accomplishing
their organizational goal of at least 70% of their district’s schools being categorized as ‘B’ and
‘A’ rated schools by 2023. Two motivational influences were explored in the areas of expectancy
value and self-efficacy. According to Eccles (2006), expectancy value theory is essentially one’s
perceived capacity to complete and activity (“Can I do the task?”) and value of the activity (“Do
I want to do the task?”). To assess board member expectancy value, members were asked to
describe what value, if any, they found in setting student outcome goals and also what they
would like to personally achieve from this process. Members consistently emphasized the value
of setting student outcome goals and provided thoughtful responses that indicated a strong sense
of expectancy value, therefore validating this as an asset rather than a gap. Rueda (2011)
describes the importance of self-efficacy, outlining that if an individual believes they will not be
successful at a task, it lessens their likeliness to engage in it. The literature supports that the

66
board plays a central role in setting and adhering to the vision of their community, this is their
task, and can empower efficacy by embracing their role (Alsbury, 2008; Black, 2008; California
School Boards Association, 2017; Land, 2002; LaRocque & Coleman, 1993). To evaluate the
board’s sense of self efficacy in their ability to set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals
they were asked multiple questions to get a sense of the following: 1) their confidence level in
setting student outcome goals, 2) the mindset they believe is necessary in order to successfully
establish goals, and 3) their self-perceived strengths and areas where they need continued support
in the goal setting and monitoring process. The data collection and analysis process revealed the
area of self-efficacy to be a validated gap of the WUSD board. Table 9 outlines the assumed
motivation influences, determination, and a summary of the findings.
Table 9
Assumed Motivation Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings
Assumed Motivation Influence Gap Validated, Not Validated or
Undetermined

Expectancy Value (Utility and Cost) –
WUSD board members need to see the
value in establishing rigorous and realistic
student outcome goals.

Self-Efficacy - WUSD board members
need to feel confident in their ability to set
rigorous and realistic student outcome
goals.

Gap not validated. The board
demonstrates they see the value in
establishing rigorous and realistic
student outcome goals. Specifically,
the board demonstrated a strong
sense of “want to do the task”
(Eccles, 2006).

Gap validated. Board member
confidence, and perceived mindset,
in establishing rigorous and realistic
student outcome goals varied.
Although board members did
consistently view their unique
experience as a strength, they also
frequently associated their limited
understanding of the nuances of

67
education and student data as an area
of needed improvement.

Board Demonstrates They See Value in Establishing Student Outcome Goals
The next finding that emerged from the interview process was that the WUSD board
demonstrates that they see the value in establishing rigorous and realistic student outcome goals.
According to Eccles (2006), expectancy value theory is essentially one’s perceived capacity to
complete and activity (“Can I do the task?”) and value of the activity (“Do I want to do the
task?”). The board was asked to describe what value, if any, they felt there was in the board
setting student outcome goals, determining that this is an asset. All eight members emphasized
that participating in this process was extremely valuable. Member Hill shared a particularly
insightful answer stating:
I think that the board setting goals for schools reminds schools that they are responsible
to the public and responsible to the community, not just responsible to the state. They are
here and intended to serve a purpose…of doing something better. I feel like when we are
able to push them and encourage them and promote better outcomes, then they [the
schools] see that we are all in this together…that their purpose is larger than just the
school.
When asked to elaborate by sharing what they would personally like to achieve from this
process, all eight interviewed members shared insightful responses that spoke to their desire to
participate in this process as an avenue to improve their community and the students that they
serve. Member Carter was brought to tears describing their personal goals sharing that:
I’d like to personally see the community value education as its top priority. I don’t
believe we do in this state, I’ve never felt that way. I also feel that there should be no

68
discrimination, there should not be any kind of value placed on monetary things when it
comes to children and their families…I get a little emotional when I think about that
because I remember a former Superintendent telling me, and it stuck with me, that
“parents send us the best children they have.” And when that was driven into my thinking
I thought, surely you can’t judge anymore. You can’t judge what families are coming
from and are doing. You just have to fight for the resources to take care of them.
Overall, the WUSD board members demonstrated a strong motivation to “do the task”
(Eccles, 2006). Whether describing the value of participating in the goal setting process or what
they would like to personally achieve from participating in the process, the WUSD board
demonstrated high expectancy value. Perhaps Member Brown summed up the value of the board
participating in student outcome goal setting the best, “There is a great degree of value, there are
other things that have value, but probably nothing has more value than that.”
Board Member Self-Efficacy is Hindered by Educational Experience and Understanding of
Student Data
The validated motivation influence gap pertains to the board’s self-efficacy and their
confidence in their own ability to set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals. Board
members were asked to describe their individual comfort levels in setting student outcome goals
and, specifically, to rate their confidence level on a scale of one to ten. Board member
confidence varied with the lowest confidence level being that of Member Davis at a self-assigned
“two” and the highest being that of Member Freeman at a self-assigned “ten” but with the
important distinction that this high confidence was present only “with the right support and
expertise in place.” Member Hill chose not to provide a specific number on the one to ten scale
but did describe their confidence level as “low” stating “I am not an expert. I am not an

69
educator…I leave the actual setting of the outcomes to individuals who are experts in education,
who have been in the classroom, who are more familiar with the nationwide standards.” Member
Davis rated themselves at a two, stating “I put myself pretty low on that scale because I’m new
to just trying to understand all of these things.” Member Anderson rated themselves a “4.75”
specifying “I don’t feel that I am quite in that middle of the road yet.” Members Evans and
Gibson also rated themselves moderately at a six. Member Brown felt “highly confident” at a
“nine.” Member Carter gave a self-assigned rating of an “eight” but, similar to Member
Freeman, provided a disclaimer that the high confidence level is dependent on “if the
information is really good and we’ve asked the right questions…If we have some good
documentation and data.” In all, Member Hill and Member Davis expressed the lowest
confidence levels in setting student outcome goals, Members Anderson, Evans, and Gibson rated
their confidence levels in the moderate range, and Members Brown, Carter, and Freeman
expressed the highest levels of confidence. Figure 3 provides a visual representation of board
members’ self-assigned confidence levels in setting student outcome goals.

70
Figure 3
Interview Question: Board Member Confidence in Setting Student Outcome Goals

In addition to sharing their confidence levels, members were also asked to describe what
mindset they felt was necessary in order to successfully establish student outcome goals, along
with the areas they felt they had the greatest strengths or needed enhanced support in when
approaching the goal setting process. According to the literature, board members are rarely
educators themselves and are therefore often eager to pass the goal setting task along to district
leadership, but the mindset that is crucial for them to achieve is that they represent functions so
fundamental to school accountability that only an elected governing body can perform them
(California School Boards Association, 2017). The data indicates that although board members
were able to deliver clear attributes that contributed to a board member’s ability to establish

71
student outcome goals, there was a common belief that a lack of educational experience hinders
member ability, and diminishes their capacity, to adequately set student outcome goals.
Member Evans shared the board’s “different backgrounds and different perspectives” as a
strength, but also said that “having not been in the education environment myself,” they would
consider this lack of educational experience an area in which they could use continued support.
Member Anderson and Member Hill shared that their greatest strength in the goal setting and
monitoring process is the parent perspective they can bring to the conversation, but adversely
described their lack of understanding of education as their area of needed continued support.
Member Anderson expressed that “not everyone is an educator” and that they would like “more
examples of things in general…I want to get more in-depth, I truly want to understand ‘this is
what we want’ and why we want it.” Member Hill stated, “I am not an expert, I am not an
educator, I am a parent” and elaborated “I would welcome learning more…it’s probably my
weakest space of my understanding of student outcomes.” Member Davis expressed, “I’m still
kind of learning how they [educators] go about it and how they monitor it…having not been the
education business in my life, you know, how do you get to be an [‘A’ rated] school, what does it
really take? I don’t know that.” Member Freeman saw their experience in education as their
greatest strength stating, “I understand it. It’s part of my day to day life and so I understand what
it means…I have a frame of reference for it” and also described this experience as a crucial
mindset needed by all board members sharing that:
Some life experience is important. I do think it can help as a board member if you’re
familiar with the industry in which you are overseeing. I don’t even know how people are
sitting on the board who don’t have any experience with education. I can only come from

72
my perspective, but I don’t know how much value-add I would be if I didn’t have that
expertise.
The data supports that board members all viewed their independent experiences and
perfectives as a strength. Specifically, members had a shared belief that they might be
contributing a crucial perspective of the community they serve; whether it be of parents,
students, industry, demographic, policy, or educator, members felt their greatest strengths were
associated with bringing those perspectives to the discussion of student outcome goals.
Adversely, members also saw a lack of experience in education as inhibiting their ability to set
rigorous and realistic student outcome goals, which significantly impacts their self-efficacy and
motivation in participating in the process.
Organizational Findings
Interview questions and document analysis addressed organizational influences impacting
WUSD accomplishing their organizational goal of at least 70% of their district’s schools being
categorized as ‘B’ and ‘A’ rated schools by 2023. Clark and Estes (2008) identified
organizational support as a critical component of achieving goals and defined that support as the
tools, facilities, resources, policies, and procedures that either help or hinder work. Several
interview questions aligning to these four influences were asked to evaluate the board’s current
organizational influences. Document analysis was also conducted to evaluate the cultural setting
of the WUSD Central Office adequately ensuring that school board meetings actively focus on
work aligned with the established student outcome goals. The findings validated one cultural
setting influence gap and indicated no gaps in one cultural setting assumed influence or the
cultural model assumed influence. Additionally, the findings were inconclusive as to whether the
central office needs to provide training in the area of setting rigorous and realistic student

73
outcome goals. The evidence could not validate this particular influence as a gap or an asset due
to the insufficient time served for multiple members in conjunction with members attributing a
lack of trainings to the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 10 outlines the assumed organizational
influences, determination, and a summary of the findings.
Table 10
Assumed Organizational Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings
Assumed Organizational Influence Gap Validated, Not Validated or
Undetermined

The WUSD Central Office needs to
establish the role of an effective board in
achieving student outcome goals.

The WUSD Central Office needs to
provide effective training in the area of
setting rigorous and realistic student
outcome goals.

The WUSD Central Office needs to
establish a culture of collaboration and
participation between their office and the
board in order for the board to set rigorous
and realistic student outcome goals.

The WUSD Central Office needs to work
with the WUSD board to ensure that
school board meetings actively focus on

Gap not validated. The board
demonstrates that WUSD’s central
office has established the role of an
effective board in achieving student
outcome goals and that there is a
clear distinction between the board
and central office leadership’s role
in this process.

Gap undetermined. The evidence
suggests that there could be room for
improvement in providing effective
training; however, the number of
newer board members and the
limitations of being able to train
during the COVID-19 pandemic
contribute to evidence that can
neither confirm nor reject the
assumed influence.

Gap not validated. Board members
indicate that there is an established
culture of collaboration and
participation between the central
office and the board.

Gap validated. The evidence
suggests that the WUSD central
office needs to work with the board
to ensure school board meetings

74
work aligned with the established student
outcome goals.

actively focus on work aligned with
established student outcome goals.

Central Office Has Established Role of Board in Achieving Student Outcome Goals
The next finding that emerged was that the WUSD central office has established the role
of an effective board in achieving student outcome goals and that there is a clear distinction
between the board and central office leadership’s role in this process. Holland et al. (1989)
determined that the influence of effective governance provided resources that led to improved
performance. Johnson (2012) elaborates that this is a shared responsibility for student outcomes
between the board and the superintendent, each with clearly defined roles. WUSD board
members were asked to describe the role of the central office in setting student outcome goals
and an example of a time they felt the central office was involved in the goal setting process. All
eight members clearly established the board’s role is in goal setting and monitoring whereas the
central office’s role is really to provide the board with everything they need to successfully
accomplish this. Member Hill summarized what seemed to be the sentiments of a majority of the
board when asked to define the role of the central office in setting student outcome goals:
They are the boots on the ground that go out and make sure the student outcomes are
being achieved…Their involvement is through setting standards that are being met or
worked through at the school level. They are going out and ensuring that those targets are
being met through direct support and observation.
Established Culture of Collaboration and Participation Between the Central Office and the
Board

75
Findings indicate that there is strong culture of collaboration between the central office
and their board, determining that this is an asset to WUSD. Alsbury (2008) emphasizes that the
difficulty of the governance and the superintendent (central office) roles, as well as their
interaction with each other, often lead to high transiency that, in turn, has a negative impact on
sustained student achievement. Lee and Eadens (2014) also acknowledge that effective school
districts are able to sustain collegiality between the school board and the superintendent. All
eight members interviewed described a high level of support from the current Superintendent and
central office team. Member Brown emphasized, “They are consummate professionals and they
bring a level of professionalism to their work in ways that are very helpful to our board and
essential to our board.” Member Freeman described the Superintendent’s ability to provide
prescriptive support for the board based on the need they see, elaborating that:
I think that is actually one of the best things that [the Superintendent] has been able to do
– to see that ‘this is an issue for the board; therefore I need to give more information on
A, B, and C’…[the Superintendent] has been masterful at that. I also feel that I could call
on them at any time…I think the other board members would probably say the same
thing.
Board members were also asked how they collaborate with, and participate in, creating
the strategic plan with the WUSD central office. All four members who were present for the
entirety of this process described it as a “back and forth” conversation that they had significant
input on. The four newer members, although varying in their involvement with the plan, all
described an awareness of the process being highly collaborative. Board members were also
asked what continued support they need from the central office. Answers varied, but most
revolved around enhanced and consistent progress monitoring. Member Brown and Member

76
Freeman both requested continued access to data and perhaps different forms of it. Member
Gibson also requested that information provided pertaining to student outcome goals and
progress “be provided in a systematic way.” Ultimately, though, the board was able to elaborate
on some areas they felt they could use continued support from the central office, it was clearly
demonstrated that there is a highly collaborative relationship and mutual participation between
the central office and the board.
School Board Meetings’ Lack of Prioritizing the Setting and Monitoring of Student Outcomes
This validated gap aligns to the need for the WUSD central office to work with the board
in ensuring that school board meetings actively focus on work aligned with established student
outcome goals. The documents analyzed consisted of the three most recent WUSD board
meeting agendas and minutes prior to meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
interview process and to the board receiving governance training. The quantitative approach
examined data collected from document analysis pre governance training based on promising
practice which has developed a metric for successfully tracking board priorities by calculating
“successful” minutes spent at board meetings. In accordance to the Silver state Governance
(2020) metric, there are two categories that would be considered student-outcome aligned: goal
setting and goal monitoring. In order for the WUSD board to have minutes counted towards the
“Goal Setting” indicator, their time would have needed to be actively reviewing, discussing,
and/or selecting goals (Silver State Governance, 2020). Similarly, minutes qualifying as “Goal
Monitoring” would be minutes the board spent reviewing, discussing, and accepting or not
accepting goal monitoring reports (Silver State Governance, 2020). In the case of the WUSD
board, prior to the study, they did not receive governance training in which they would establish
updated student outcome goals, but this data can serve as a baseline to monitor board progress.

77
Prior to document analysis, WUSD’s recently established strategic plan contained goals
particularly related to student outcomes. These goals were used as the indicator for calculating
successful minutes spent goal setting and goal monitoring. Interviews conducted after the
document analysis process confirmed that the WUSD board views the goals established in their
most recent strategic plan as their current student-outcome goals.
The literature supports that a characteristic of quality governance is the ability of the
board to focus on student achievement, spending significantly less time on day-to-day
operational issues (Delagardelle, 2008; Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011; Goodman, et al., 1997). The
data supports that the WUSD board spends a majority of their time on the Accountability and
Monitoring indicator on the rubric, specifically in the category of “Voting” which includes the
board debating and/or voting on any item (Silver State Governance, 2020). Figures 4, 5, and 6
provide a visual representation of the results of the Board’s Monthly Time Use Evaluation for
their three most recent meetings.
Figure 4
Board Monthly Time Use Evaluation: Meeting 1

78
Figure 5
Board Monthly Time Use Evaluation: Meeting 2

Figure 6
Board Monthly Time Use Evaluation: Meeting 3

79
Document analysis identified that in the three combined meetings, totaling almost 27
hours of public meeting minutes, the board dedicated a total of 20.1% of that time to “student-
outcome-focused” discussion, 69.0% on “voting” items, and 10.9% on “other” items such as roll
call, the pledge of allegiance, and Superintendent updates. Meeting breaks were excluded from
total minutes and calculation. A majority of identified student-outcome focused minutes were
focused on two goals within the strategic plan. The first goal being the organizational goal of at
least 70% of their district’s schools being categorized as ‘B’ and ‘A’ rated schools by 2023. The
second is that of ensuring that every student demonstrating high academic growth, proficiency,
and graduation rates. It should be noted that the board also discussed items pertaining to other
goals established in their strategic plan but that for the purpose of this study, and is dictated by
the metric, student outcome goals are specifically defined as measures of what a student knows
or is able to do (Silver State Governance, 2020). According to Silver State Governance (2020), a
governance program established in alignment with the Texas Education Agency’s Lone Star
Governance (2020), no fewer than 50% of board-authorized public meeting minutes should be
invested in goal setting or monitoring. Ultimately, document analysis validated the assumed
organizational gap pertaining to ensuring that board meeting minutes actively focus on student
outcome goals and progress towards goals.
The qualitative aspect of measuring this assumed organizational influence was that of
interviews. Board members were asked to describe the process for setting the board’s agenda for
public meeting and if they have an opportunity to provide input on the topics chosen for
discussion. Though a majority of board members confirmed that there is an opportunity for input,
answers varied in member awareness of an established process. In response to how a board
member would go about requesting an item be placed on the agenda, Member Anderson stated,

80
“I’ve never been informed for this board, how I would do that …I’m guessing I would email the
[Superintendent]. I’ve never heard of other board members doing it either.” Member Carter
explained that the “chair is involved in the agenda…There’s a policy that at least a third of the
membership had to agree before something was placed on the agenda.” Member Carter
elaborated on requesting agenda items stating, “I had asked for training, and I understand why it
hasn’t been accommodated, but I’ll still keep pressing for that.”
Member Evans agreed that there were opportunities to provide input, stating that “there is
a sequence of things…a calendar that we will go through” and that “the chair, [the
superintendent] and [the superintendent’s staff] will talk about what the agenda needs to look
like.” Member Gibson confirmed the opportunity to place items on the agenda stating, “A couple
of board members, including myself, have requested that items be placed on the agenda.”
Member Hill explained that board members could request agenda items during public comment
and shared an example of successfully requesting an item be placed on the agenda, stating “I feel
very good about the fact that we can make recommendations in the board meetings and we can
proceed with having those discussions.” When Member Brown was asked about the opportunity
to provide input they shared, “Certainly. Formally, every meeting has the discussion of the long-
range planning calendar.” Member Brown also stated, “In the short time that I’ve served on this
board, the long-term planning calendar does get modified by board-driven suggestions and that’s
a process working well.”
Synthesis of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Findings
This study assumed 11 knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences which may
impact WUSD accomplishing their organizational goal of at least 70% of their district’s schools
being categorized as ‘B’ and ‘A’ rated schools by 2023. This study identified three knowledge

81
influences as areas for improvement: one influence related to factual (conceptual) knowledge,
one procedural, and one metacognitive. Additionally, this study identified one motivation
influence for improvement in the area of self-efficacy. Finally, of the four assumed
organizational influences analyzed, two were not validated to be gaps, one was undetermined
due to insufficient evidence, and one cultural setting influence was validated as a gap and
therefore, as an area for improvement. Table 11 shares the validated influences of this study.
Table 11
Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Gaps
Validated Assumed Influence Determination and Summary of
Findings
Knowledge

The WUSD board needs to understand the
nature and components of student
outcome goals.

The WUSD board must know how to
apply knowledge of the board’s role to
establish rigorous and realistic student
outcome goals.

The WUSD board must reflect on their
ability to influence student outcomes and
monitor progress.

Gap validated. Board member
understanding of the nature and
components of student outcomes
varied and were not consistently
differentiated from adult outcomes.

Gap validated. Board members lack
understanding in how to apply
knowledge of their role to establish
rigorous and realistic goals.

Gap validated. Board members
heavily rely on the central office to
influence and monitor progress and
consider themselves to be the
accountability component, not as
having ability to influence student
outcomes.

Motivation

Self-Efficacy - WUSD board members
need to feel confident in their ability to set
rigorous and realistic student outcome
goals.

Gap validated. Board member
confidence, and perceived mindset,
in establishing rigorous and realistic
student outcome goals varied.

82

Although board members did
consistently view their unique
experience as a strength, they also
frequently associated their limited
understanding of the nuances of
education and student data as an area
of needed improvement.

Organizational

The WUSD Central Office needs to work
with the WUSD board to ensure that
school board meetings actively focus on
work aligned with the established student
outcome goals.

Gap validated. The evidence
suggests that the WUSD central
office needs to work with the board
to ensure school board meetings
actively focus on work aligned with
established student outcome goals.

Data about the knowledge findings identified that while the WUSD board demonstrates
an understanding of their role and responsibility in the setting and monitoring of student outcome
goals, their knowledge of how to apply that role to establishing goals is in need of support.
Further analysis supported that despite a strong understanding of their responsibility in the
setting and monitoring of student outcome goals, board members heavily rely on the central
office to influence and monitor progress, deflecting reflection on their ability to influence
outcomes to their central office staff. Findings also indicated that board member understanding
of the nature and components of student outcomes goals was inconsistent and that few members
provided responses specifically aligning to student achievement or classroom instruction.
Potentially interconnected to the board’s validated knowledge gap in the nature and components
of student outcome goals is their associated motivation influence in the area of self-efficacy. This
study identified that board member confidence, and perceived mindset, in establishing rigorous
and realistic student outcome goals varied and was significantly impacted by a lack of
confidence related to educational experience and an understanding of student data.

83
The final finding of this study, related to the organizational influence of cultural setting,
was that the WUSD central office needs to work with the board to ensure school board meetings
focus on work aligned with established student outcome goals. After document analysis of
almost 27 hours of board agenda meeting minutes, it was found that only 20.1% of the board’s
time was spent setting, monitoring, or discussing established student outcome goals. Interviews
conducted with eight of the nine current board members also validated this influence as a gap.
Findings from interview questions associated with this influence found that although a majority
of board members confirmed that there is an opportunity for input, answers varied in member
awareness of an established process, and that board members rely heavily on the central office to
determine agenda items. Without identifying the aforementioned knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps, WUSD may struggle in achieving their organizational goal.

84
CHAPTER 5: SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study specifically explored the board’s current capacity to set and monitor student
outcome goals prior to receiving governance training tailored to the acquisition of this skillset.
The literature supports that it is of the utmost urgency that school boards carry the capacity to set
and monitor rigorous and realistic student outcome goals that influence desired results,
particularly in low performing school districts. Chapter 4 presented the results and findings from
data collected from quantitative document analysis and qualitative interviews striving to address
the research questions identifying the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
affecting the organizational goal. The organizational goal of WUSD is for at least 70% of their
district’s schools to be categorized as ‘B’ and ‘A’ rated schools by 2023. An influence was
determined a validated gap if more than 62.5% of evidence collected from interviews confirmed
or rejected the assumed influence. In the analysis of the organizational influence of a cultural
setting as it pertains to WUSD’s central office working with the board to ensure that board
meetings actively focus on work aligned with established student outcome goals, document
analysis was used in conjunction with interviews for data collection. In the case of document
analysis for this singular influence, the influence was validated as a gap if less than 50% of the
board’s time was spent setting or monitoring student outcome goals. An influence was
determined to not be a gap if less than 62.5% of evidence collected from interviews confirmed or
rejected the assumed influence. In the instance where document analysis was utilized, the
influence was not validated as a gap if more than 50% of the board’s time was spent setting or
monitoring student outcome goals. An influence was considered undetermined if there was not
sufficient evidence to support or reject the assumed influence. Five influences were validated as

85
a gaps in this study, while five influences were not validated as a gaps and one influence was
undetermined.
This chapter identifies recommendations based on the current knowledge, motivation,
and organizational resources to improve upon the board’s current capacity to set and monitor
student outcome goals, supporting the organization in achieving its mission. The
recommendations made in this chapter are based on validated gaps evaluated and identified as a
result of data collection and analysis. The recommendations are presented by knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influence utilizing the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
framework. Recommendations, implementation and evaluation plans are provided based on
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model framework. Finally, this
chapter discusses the limitations of this study and potential recommendations for future research.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Three knowledge gaps were identified in this study: one influence related to factual
(conceptual) knowledge, one procedural, and one metacognitive. Additionally, this study
identified one validated motivation influence for improvement in the area of self-efficacy.
Finally, of the four assumed organizational influences analyzed, two were not validated as gaps,
one was undetermined due to insufficient evidence, and one cultural setting influence was
validated as an area for improvement. The findings indicate the board’s current capacity to set
and monitor student outcome goals requires specific areas in need of targeted support and
improvement.
Knowledge Recommendations
Five knowledge influences in the areas of factual, conceptual, and metacognitive
knowledge types were investigated (Krathwohl, 2002). One factual (conceptual) knowledge gap

86
was validated in the area of the board needing to understand the nature and components of
student outcome goals. One procedural knowledge gap was validated in the area of the board
knowing how to apply knowledge of their role to establish rigorous and realistic student outcome
goals. Finally, one metacognitive knowledge gap was validated in regard to the board reflecting
on their ability to influence student outcomes and monitor progress. To begin to sort through the
inner workings of the knowledge dimension, one must first explore the four types of knowledge:
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). According
to Rueda (2011), factual knowledge is the basic understanding of specific disciplines, contexts,
or domains. Conceptual knowledge is the interrelationships between those basic elements that
allow them to function simultaneously (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Procedural knowledge
is knowing how to do something, methods of inquiry, and using skills (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda,
2011). Finally, metacognitive knowledge is one’s awareness of their own cognitive processes
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Framed within the context of the aforementioned types of
knowledge, the following section reviews the three knowledge influences needed for WUSD’s
board to successfully achieve their performance goal. The goal of the recommendations listed in
Table 12 is to close the validated factual, procedural, and metacognitive gaps of the WUSD
board.
Table 12
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence

Knowledge
Type
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
The WUSD board needs
to understand the nature
and components of
student outcome goals.

Declarative Social interaction,
cooperative
learning, and
cognitive
apprenticeships
(such as
The central office
will provide the
board with an
informational session
on the nature and
components of

87
reciprocal
teaching)
facilitate
construction of
new knowledge
(Scott &
Palinscar, 2006).

student outcomes.
During this session,
the board will be
provided with
relevant research and
readings to enhance
declarative
knowledge as well as
effective frameworks
for goal-setting.

The board will
participate in
governance training
that:
-Requires all
members to
participate and
engage in cooperative
learning
- Provides sufficient
scaffolding over and
tools to facilitate
learning and
performance
- Requires the board
to engage as a team
in partnership tasks
where they establish
mock student
outcome goals
- Gradually
withdraws scaffolds
as learning progresses
and performance
improves in the tasks
improve

The WUSD board must
know how to apply
knowledge of the
board’s role to establish
rigorous and realistic
student outcome goals.
Procedural To develop
mastery,
individuals must
acquire
component skills,
practice
integrating them,
Provide a training
where the board is
provided an
opportunity to make
sense of the material
and models effective
strategy use,

88
and know when
to apply what
they have learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).

including “how” and
“when” to use
particular strategies
in the context of
setting rigorous and
realistic student
outcome goals.
Following training,
provide additional
opportunities for the
board to practice
skills for transfer.

The WUSD board must
reflect on their ability to
influence student
outcomes and monitor
progress.
Metacognitive Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners set goals,
monitor their
performance and
evaluate their
progress towards
achieving their
goals. (Ambrose
et al., 2012;
Mayer, 2011)

Provide
opportunities for
learners to engage
in guided self-
monitoring and
self-assessment
(Baker, 2006).

Provide a training
where board
members have an
opportunity to
identify what they do
and do not know
about setting and
monitoring student
outcome goals, set a
strategy for goal-
setting, and calendar
quarterly
opportunities to
engage in guided
self-monitoring and
self-assessment.

Expand Board Member Declarative Knowledge of the Nature and Components of Student
Outcome Goals
The findings of this study revealed that the board needs to improve their declarative
knowledge in understanding the nature and components of student outcome goals. A
recommendation was selected to address this declarative knowledge gap through sociocultural

89
theory. Scott and Palinscar (2006) recommend providing sufficient scaffolding and tools that
facilitate learning and performance, followed by the gradual withdrawal of scaffolds as learning
progresses as independent performance develops. To facilitate construction of new knowledge,
the board needs not only to acquire the knowledge of the skills needed to establish student
outcome goals, they need practice integrating them under relevant circumstances to demonstrate
they can apply what they have learned (Scott & Palinscar, 2006). To ensure the opportunity for
relevant goal construction, the board should first be provided with an informational session,
organized by the WUSD central office, where they will be provided with relevant research,
readings, and goal-setting frameworks that can enhance their declarative knowledge. The
training provided should then gradually withdraw scaffolds and culminate in the establishment of
student outcome goals that will be utilized by the board.
Johnson (2012) emphasized that in order for the board to make key decisions about
student outcomes, they must first be trained in student outcomes. Additional research supports
that district goals directly related to student learning outcomes have the greatest impact on
improving student achievement (Alsbury, 2008; Black, 2008; California School Boards
Association, 2017; Land, 2002; LaRocque & Coleman, 1993). The integration of these proven
essential components in practice through cooperative learning activities and then the application
of this practice to the creation of relevant, usable student outcome goals as a culminating
activity, will assist in closing this declarative knowledge gap.
Provide Opportunities for the Board to Practice Skills for Transfer in the Goal-Setting Process
The findings of this study confirm that the board needs enhanced procedural knowledge
in how to apply their role as a board member to establish rigorous and realistic student outcome
goals. Procedural knowledge influences the processes and procedures correlated to the successful

90
establishment and monitoring of student outcome goals. A recommendation rooted in
information processing system theory has been selected to close this procedural gap. Drawing
from Schraw and McCrudden (2006), to develop mastery, individuals must acquire component
skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned. In this context,
this correlates to providing the WUSD board with an opportunity develop skills in establishing
student outcome goals, practice in implementing them, and an awareness of when to apply what
they have learned. The recommendation is for the board to participate in a training where they
are provided an opportunity to make sense of the material and models effective strategy use,
including “how” and “when” to use particular strategies in the context of setting rigorous and
realistic student outcome goals. In addition to the training itself, it is imperative that following
training, the board is provided with additional opportunities to practice skills for transfer.
Support Board’s Reflection on Their Ability to Influence Student Outcomes and Monitor
Progress
The data resulting from qualitative interviews conducted with the WUSD board supports
that the board needs increased knowledge in how to continuously influence student outcomes,
beyond the initial establishment of goals, and the monitoring of progress towards these goals.
Specifically, it was found that the board heavily relies on the district’s central office to influence
and monitor progress towards goals. The board frequently referred to themselves as “the
accountability component,” not as having the ability to influence outcomes. The
recommendation for minimizing this knowledge gap stems from research reacted to
metacognition. Specifically, the recommendation acknowledges that learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners have the opportunity to set goals, monitor their performance, and
evaluate their progress towards achieving their goals (Ambrose et al., 2012; Mayer, 2011). The

91
strategy to promote metacognition revolves around providing opportunities to the board that
allow engagement in guided self-monitoring and self-assessment (Baker, 2006). Based on these
principles, it is recommended that the board take part in a training seminar where they have an
opportunity to identify what they do and do not know about setting and monitoring student
outcome goals, establish a timeline and strategy for goal-setting, and calendar quarterly
opportunities to engage in self-monitoring and self-assessment.
LaRocque and Coleman (1993) identified that board members in high performing school
districts were able to influence positive outcomes through progress monitoring of goals by
adhering to discussion within three specific parameters: 1) overall district progress towards
goals, 2) variations in performance across the district, and 3) possible explanations for these
variations. This requires not only a way to assess outcomes, but the ability to reflect on them,
which falls into the metacognitive area of knowledge for it requires a level of self-awareness and
one’s own cognitive processes. This research confirms that the aforementioned recommendations
would sufficiently support the termination of this metacognitive knowledge gap.
Motivation Recommendations
Two types of motivation influences were evaluated in this study: expectancy value and
self-efficacy. One motivation gap was validated in the area of self-efficacy, specifically the need
for board members to feel confident in their ability to set rigorous and realistic student outcome
goals. Clark and Estes (2008) described motivation as a crucial component contributing to
performance; with knowledge and skills and organizational influences being the other
contributing factors. Ultimately, research has determined that motivation is a key factor in terms
of both learning and organizational performance. This section focuses specifically on

92
motivational theories related to the board’s identified gap of self-efficacy. The goal of the
recommendations listed in Table 13 is to close the validated motivation gap of the WUSD board.
Table 13
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations

Provide Regular Feedback and Coaching to Improve the Board’s Self-Efficacy
The results of this study indicate that board members do not feel confident in their ability
to set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals. Specifically, data analysis revealed that
although board members did consistently view their unique backgrounds and experiences as
strengths, that they also frequently associated a lack of educational experience and a limited
understanding of student data as areas hindering their ability to set rigorous and realistic student
Motivation Influence Motivation Type Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
WUSD board
members need to feel
confident in their
ability to set rigorous
and realistic student
outcome goals

Self-efficacy High self-efficacy
can positively
influence
motivation
(Pajares, 2006)

Feedback and
modeling
increases self-
efficacy (Pajares,
2006)

Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners have
positive
expectancies for
success (Pajares,
2006)
Have the board
take a quarterly
self-evaluation that
will allow them to
see their gradual
improvement.

Provide the board
with a
mentor/coach who
will attend board
meetings & goal-
setting sessions and
provide regular
feedback for them
on their progress.

93
outcome goals. A recommendation rooted in self-efficacy theory has been applied to close this
motivation gap.
Pajares (2006) found that high self-efficacy can positively influence motivation. The
recommendation is to have the board take a quarterly self-evaluation which will allow them to
see their gradual improvement as a direct result of their motivation and ability to set student
outcome goals. The metric used for this study to evaluate board time use allows board members
to quantify their priorities by analyzing minutes spent setting, discussing, and monitoring student
outcome goals. This monthly metric, paired with a quarterly evaluation, will provide the board
with an opportunity to reflect on their progress and motivate them towards continuous
improvement. Pajares (2006) elaborates that feedback and modeling increases self-efficacy and
that learning and motivation are enhanced when learners have positive expectancies for success.
It is also recommended that the board be provided with a mentor/coach that will attend board
meetings and goal-setting sessions and provide regular feedback for them on their progress. This
recommendation will increase the feedback loop, provide opportunities for modeling, and build
in opportunities for the board to have positive expectancies for success.
Self-efficacy correlates to utility value, which Rueda (2011) described as how useful one
views a particular activity to meeting future goals. Essentially, if one does not believe they will
be successful at a task, they are less likely to engage in it (Rueda, 2011). The governing board
plays a central role in setting and adhering to the vision of their community, this is their task, and
can empower efficacy by embracing their role (Alsbury, 2008; Black, 2008; California School
Boards Association, 2017; Land, 2002; LaRocque & Coleman, 1993). Board members are rarely
educators themselves and are therefore often eager to pass the goal setting task along to district
leadership, but the mindset that is crucial for them to achieve is that they represent functions so

94
fundamental to school accountability that only an elected governing body can perform them
(California School Boards Association, 2017). This evidence indicates that having the board
reflect on their meeting time and taking a quarterly self-evaluation which will allow them to see
their gradual improvement will likely enhance their self-efficacy, thus positively influencing
their motivation.
Organization Recommendations
Four organizational influences were evaluated in this study: one cultural model influence
and three cultural settings. One organizational gap was validated in the area of cultural setting,
specifically the need for the WUSD central office to work with the board in ensuring that school
board meetings actively focus on work aligned with established student outcome goals. Clark
and Estes (2008) identified organizational support as a critical component of achieving goals and
define that support as the tools, facilities, resources, policies, and procedures that either help or
hinder work. Where knowledge is a representation of what we know, and motivation a reflection
of what keeps us moving, organizational culture is a direct reflection of who we are, what we
value, and what we do as an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). This section focuses specifically
on organizational theories related to the board’s identified gap. The goal of the recommendations
listed in Table 14 is to close the validated organizational gap of the WUSD board.
Table 14
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Organization Influence

Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation

The WUSD Central Office needs
to work with the WUSD board to
ensure that school board
meetings actively focus on work

Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders monitor and

The central office will
ensure that
performance appraisals
(utilizing the Time Use

95
aligned with the established
student outcome goals (Cultural
Settings)
evaluate the
effectiveness of all
aspects of their
organization and use
valid and reliable
data to drive
decision-making.

Evaluation metric) and
progress monitoring
opportunities are
scheduled routinely on
the board’s agendas.

Support the Board in Ensuring Meetings Actively Focus on Work Aligned with Established
Goals
Document analysis revealed that only 20.1% of the board’s time was spent setting,
monitoring, or discussing established student outcome goals. In addition to this, qualitative
interviews revealed that although a majority of board members confirmed that there is an
opportunity for input, answers varied in member awareness of an established process, and that
board members rely heavily on the central office to determine agenda items. A recommendation
from organizational change theory has been selected to address this gap. This theory specifies
that organizational effectiveness increases when leaders monitor and evaluate the effectiveness
of all aspects of their organization and use valid and reliable data to drive decision-making
(Vroom, 1964; Walters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). As such, it is
rational to infer that the board scheduling opportunities to monitor data will have a positive
impact on improving the data. Therefore, the recommendation is to ensure that performance
appraisals and progress monitoring opportunities are scheduled routinely on the board’s
agendas.
School district culture is defined as the norms, values, and attitudes that define and drive
behaviors from the classroom to the board room (Johnson et al., 2015). Not one entity can dictate
or drive a district’s culture, but the central office and the governing board can work cohesively to
ensure that school board agendas and meetings reflect the prioritization of the setting and

96
monitoring of student outcomes as a cultural norm. LaRocque and Coleman (1993) emphasized
progress monitoring after the goal-setting process and describe the sources high performing
governing boards call upon to effectively do so. These sources include, but are not limited to, site
visits, discussions with district and school leadership, and school data and assessment reports or
updates.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), a modernized
extension of the original Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2006), provided the foundation for this implementation and evaluation plan.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Model framework presents the four levels in
reverse (i.e., beginning with Level 4 and ending with Level 1), which is the recommended order
when considering program implementation. Following the recommended order, the first area for
consideration would be that of results (Level 4), which requires the evaluator to make
observations and measurements that track progress towards targeted program outcomes.
Following this, critical behaviors (Level 3) need to be explored by ensuring, not just observing,
that the processes and systems put into place from training are reinforced, monitored, and
rewarded when applied on the job. Level 2, learning, is the degree to which participants
demonstrate acquisition of the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment
during training. Finally, Level 1, reaction, requires the evaluator to determine the degree to
which participants engage, favor, and relate to the training program in the context of their jobs.
Overall, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Mode presents an opportunity to apply
a proven framework to achieving WUSD’s organizational goal.

97
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
In order to that support WUSD in achieving 70% or more of their schools in achieving a
‘B’ or ‘A’ rating by 2023, it is essential that the board identify, address, and improve low student
performance within their network. To address this need, the board set a goal to establish rigorous
and realistic student outcome goals that give WUSD schools clear expectations towards
providing a quality, equitable education for all students they serve by Spring 2021. In order to
facilitate the board and the organization meeting their goals, the recommendations presented
revolve around the board and their central office participating in a comprehensive training
program that will guide them is the setting of student outcome goals and well as in the
implementation of policies and procedures that will allow them to continuously monitor progress
towards these goals.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 15 identifies the desired internal and external outcomes, measures for success, and
the method of data collection to evaluate the level 4 results of the implementation and execution
plan.
Table 15
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increased index scores
on the WUSD school
ratings
1. State performance ratings and
framework
1. Annual monitoring and
calculation of the percentage of
schools that improved overall
ratings/met student outcome
goals established by the board
and the central office.

2. Increased participation
in external activities and

2. Percentage of board and
central office members that

2. Central office will
monitor/collect data on: the

98
trainings that enhance
participation and
collaboration between the
board, the central office,
and similar entities

participate in external activities
related to the organization and
stakeholder goal

number of opportunities they
extend to the board, the
percentage of board members
who attend, the percentage of
central office members who
attend, the percentage of
activities attended

3. Increase in time spent
by board actively setting,
monitoring, and
discussing student
outcome goals in
agendized meetings

3. Board Monthly Time Use
Evaluation

3. Meeting minutes tracked by
training facilitator

Internal Outcomes
1. Increase in board and
central office participation
in trainings regarding the
board’s role and the
setting/monitoring of
student outcome goals

1. Number of trainings and
hours offered and utilized

1. The central office will track
the number of trainings and
hours (both offered and
required), the amount of training
completed, and the participation
rates of board and central office
members

2. Increase in scheduling
opportunities to progress
monitor student outcome
goals

2. Board Monthly Time Use
Evaluation

2. Meeting agendas tracked by
training facilitator

3. Increase in
opportunities for the board
to reflect on their learning
and progress towards
goals

3. Board Quarterly Self-
Evaluation

3. Quarterly completion of
board self-evaluation

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
The stakeholders of focus are the members of WUSD board. The first critical behavior of
the board is that they begin to provide input on their meeting agendas, thus ensuring they are

99
self-regulating in their commitment to actively discuss and monitor the student outcomes goals
they have set. The second critical behavior is to actively engage in the monitoring of data that
signifies progress towards goals. Finally, the third critical behavior of the board is to reflect on
their learning and progress towards the student outcome goals they establish. The recommended
metrics, methods, and timing for these critical behaviors are outlined in Table 16.
Table 16

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. The board will
provide input on
the agenda and the
contents within

1a. Frequency of
board member review
of agenda

1b. Processes for
board contributions to
the agenda

1a. Number of
opportunities for agenda
review

1b. Process for board
contributions provided

1a. Once a month

1b. Annual
reminder

2. The board will
actively monitor
data that signifies
progress towards
goals

Percentage of board
agenda items and
minutes

Updates provided by
central office

Quarterly
3. Board members
meet to reflect on
their learning and
progress towards
goals

Self-evaluation

Collected by central
office

Quarterly

Required Drivers
There are required drivers that will facilitate the board in achieving their stakeholder
goal. The board needs to reinforce what they learn in training through active planning of their

100
agendas and topics of discussion, along with opportunities to self-evaluate on their progress
towards goals. The board needs encouragement in the form of collaboration and feedback, along
with the establishment of a reward system such as opportunities to attend conferences and
networking events and central office recognition of board progress. Table 17 shows the
recommended drivers to support these critical behaviors.
Table 17
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Governance training session

Annually 1, 2, 3
Meetings/Agendas that reflect board prioritization of
established student outcome goals

Monthly 1, 2, 3
Self-evaluation

Quarterly 1,2,3
Encouraging

WUSD board members and the central office will
collaborate to establish student outcome goals and
processes for aligning board meeting agendas that
actively focus on prioritizing these goals

Annual review of
student outcome
goals; monthly
collaboration on
board agendas

1,2,3
The board will receive feedback from their
governance coach and central office

Monthly 1,2,3
Rewarding

Board members will be provided with opportunities
to attend conferences/networking events

Annually 1,2,3
The Central office will provide recognition of board
progress

Quarterly 1,2,3

101
Monitoring

The board will utilize the Board Monthly Time Use
Evaluation with support of their Governance coach

Monthly 1,2,3
The central and office and the board will engage in
opportunities to progress monitor schools

Ongoing (As data
updates are
available)
1,2,3

Organizational Support
As outlined in Table 17, it is recommended that WUSD’s central office support the
board’s critical behaviors in a variety of ways. The first, and perhaps most crucial, contribution
of the central office to the board’s attainment of critical behaviors is to ensure they receive the
initial training that defines the board’s role in, and the establishment of, the setting of rigorous
and realistic student outcome goals. After this training the central office should reinforce the
board’s learning by providing opportunities for them to review and provide input on board
agendas, encourage the board through collaborative experiences and feedback, and reward the
board by providing networking opportunities and recognizing progress made in outcome goals.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals

Following completion of the recommended solutions, stakeholders will be able to:
1. Apply understanding their critical role in setting student outcome goals. (P)
2. Articulate the nature and components of student outcome goals. (D)
3. Reflect on their ability to influence student outcomes and monitor progress, demonstrated
by regular engagement in guided self-monitoring and self-assessment. (M)
4. Design priorities and monitoring initiatives throughout the year with benchmarks of
progress (P, M)

102
5. Feel confident in their ability to set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals. (Self-
efficacy)
Program

Upon examination of interviews with the WUSD board and the culminating data, it was
determined that there are five learning goals that will result in closing identified knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps. First, the board needs to understand their critical role in
setting student outcome goals, followed by the second goal of understanding the nature and
components of student outcome goals. Third, the board needs to reflect on their ability to
influence student outcomes and monitor progress, demonstrated by regular engagement in guided
self-monitoring and self-assessment. Fourth, the board needs to prioritize time spent in meetings
to actively monitor established student outcome goals and have identified benchmarks to reflect
on progress. Finally, they need to feel confident in their ability to set rigorous and realistic
student outcome goals.
The board will achieve these learning goals by participating in an in-depth governance
training program. Prior to the training program, the board will have the opportunity to attend a
retreat where they have the opportunity to get to know each other outside of the constraints of
public meeting minutes. A board retreat would enhance the comfort of the board prior to
participating in the intensive training program. The training program will launch with a two-day
workshop that focuses on critical areas for school board improvement. The workshop will begin
by focusing on knowledge and skills, and then move into critical behaviors and mindset shifting.
The second day of the workshop consists of the board reviewing their student data and modeled
student goal setting. Two to three weeks after the initial workshop, the board will take part in a
thorough goal-setting workshop where they will establish student outcome goals based on

103
previously reviewed data. The workshop will culminate with the board calendaring dates where
they will agendize progress monitoring of the established goals.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning

It is essential to evaluate the board’s acquisition of the knowledge and skills, as well as
the motivation, needed to achieve their stakeholder goal. Table 18 outlines the potential methods
and timeline for evaluation.
Table 18
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing

Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Engage as a team in partnership tasks where they
establish mock student outcome goals

During and After

Gradually remove scaffolds as learning
progresses and performance improves in the
tasks improve

During

Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Demonstrate role and behaviors of an effective
board member

During and After

Set a strategy for goal-setting

During

Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Reflect on their ability to influence student
outcomes and monitor progress and regularly
self-assess

During and After

After

104
Quarterly progress towards-goal updates that will
validate their impact and keep them engaged in
their adoption of this process as a positive value

Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Actively engage in goal-setting sessions

During and After

Engage in opportunities for regular feedback on
progress
During and After

Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Prioritize established student outcome goals

During and After

Calendar regular opportunities for progress
monitoring

After

Level 1: Reaction
Table 19 outlines the potential components and timeline to measure reactions to the
program.
Table 19

Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing

Engagement

Observations of behaviors and interactions

During and After

Agenda minutes (time spent prioritizing goal
discussions in meetings)

During and After

Training attendance

During

105
Relevance

Check-in with participants each day of
training

During

Customer Satisfaction

Post training survey

After

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
Formal evaluations of learning will be conducted both during and after the initial
workshops. A key component of measuring learning and behavior shifts will be through monthly
reviews of the board’s agenda and meeting minutes. The coach who conducted the workshop
will monitor the board monthly and, using a metric established to quantify the board’s shifts in
knowledge and behavior, will provide the board with regular feedback on the results. The
implementation after the workshop is what creates the environment for the board to improve
student outcomes. Following the two-day workshop, school boards and superintendents will be
encouraged to engage with their coach for on-going support in implementing the mindset,
knowledge, and skills gleaned during the workshop, evaluating their progress along the way.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation

After a quarter of the aforementioned implementation plan, the board will conduct a self-
evaluation. Appendix C will be used for delayed use after training.

106
Data Analysis and Reporting
The level 4 goal of this implementation plan is to provide WUSD board members with
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational support needed to ensure that they achieve their
organizational goal of 70% or more of their schools in achieving a ‘B’ or ‘A’ rating by 2023.
Multiple metrics will be used to determine the effectiveness of the recommended board
governance training. The following data visualization presents the findings in a clear and
accessible manner for both the WUSD central office and their board members. WUSD has a
dashboard available to them where similar visualizations could be provided and progress could
be tracked with ease. A sample of this potential visualization of the Board Monthly Time Use
Evaluation results in provided in Figure 7.

107
Figure 7
Sample Dashboard Visualization: Board Monthly Time Use Evaluation

108
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The use of the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis framework in conjunction with the
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Kirkpatrick model offered a comprehensive
approach for identifying and validating gaps as well as providing recommendations to address
these gaps. The structure of the gap analysis framework does limit influences to those of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational assumptions. These influences, supported by a review
of the literature, were effective for the purposes of this study; however, it does not diminish the
possibility that there are other potential assumed influences or gaps that were not addressed in
the scope of this study.
Limitations and Delimitations
There were several limitations to this study, many of which became apparent as the study
progressed and throughout the data collection process. Limitations known to the researcher
include:
• The participation of eight of nine board members prevented a complete analysis of the
current board based on their full membership;
• The truthfulness of respondents during the interview process
• Four of the eight board members interviewed have been on the board less than one year,
which might have limited their potential exposure to some of the knowledge explored in
this study in comparison to senior board members;
• Interviews took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have potentially
influenced some of the perspectives on knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences

109
Delimitations were also established by the researcher for this study and include the
following:
• Interviews were done one-on-one (via Zoom), with full anonymity of responses
guaranteed to the participants
• Questions were explicitly designed to be neutral in nature in order to elicit authentic,
unbiased responses from the participants
• This study was conducted utilizing only one school board, limiting the study to
explore their individual capacity to set and monitor student outcome goals prior to
receiving training and therefore is a reflection of a singular entity
Recommendations for Future Research
This study evaluated eleven assumed influences contributing to WUSD’s goal for 70% or
more of their schools in achieving a ‘B’ or ‘A’ rating by 2023. Eight of the nine current board
members were interviewed prior to receiving governance training during this study to identify
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences impacting WUSD in achieving their goal.
Training was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions on public gatherings.
Further research should be conducted to evaluate the impact of the recommended training after it
occurs. Evaluation of post-training progress could enhance the findings of this research and
validate the gaps identified as a result of data analysis as the board addresses the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barriers identified within the context of this study.
The researcher would also recommend the expansion of the exploration and evaluation of
board member capacity to set rigorous and realistic student outcome goals outside of this
organization. According to the National School Board Association (2020), there are currently
90,000 local school board members who directly influence policy and high stakes decisions

110
impacting the over 50 million students that they serve. The WUSD board represents only a small
fraction of this population and so further comparative studies, utilizing other school boards and
districts, could lead to the potential identification of a promising practice in the area of quality
governance.
Conclusion
The goal of WUSD as it relates to the problem of practice is for at least 70% of schools in
WUSD to be categorized as ‘B’ and ‘A’ rated schools by 2023. This goal is in response to the
Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), which requires every district and school to measure, report,
and demonstrate student progress in a federally mandated report card. Under this law it is
essential that schools are able to demonstrate purposeful and consistent student outcomes and,
according to the National School Board Association (2020), school boards are being increasingly
held responsible for these outcomes. With this enhanced accountability in mind, it was important
to explore and evaluate the current capacity of the WUSD board in the setting and monitoring
rigorous and realistic student outcome goals.
This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis framework. This framework
provided the method in which knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences were
researched and evaluated through a review of the literature, quantitative document analysis, and
qualitative interviews with the selected stakeholder group. This process led to the validation of
gaps that were potentially impeding WUSD from achieving their organizational goal. Upon
completion of the data collection and analysis process, recommendations were proposed to close
each of the identified gaps. Utilizing the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model,
an implementation and evaluation plan was constructed to successfully facilitate the proposed
recommendations.

111
There were some key findings that emerged over the course of this study that directly
impact the goals of WUSD and their board. The first is that the WUSD board lacks consistent
knowledge of the nature and components of student outcome goals and this also directly
contributes to the board needing an enhanced understanding in how to apply their role as a board
member to establish rigorous and realistic student outcome goals for their schools. An additional
finding was that board members heavily rely on the central office to influence and monitor
progress in student outcomes, seeing themselves as limited in their ability to influence outside of
accountability. This self-imposed limitation could also be tied to the self-efficacy gap that was
revealed upon analysis of board member’s confidence in establishing rigorous and realistic
student outcome goals. This study found that although board members did consistently view their
individual experience as a strength, they also frequently associated a lack of experience in
education and limited understanding of student data as an inhibitor to the goal-setting process.
The final key finding of this study was that the WUSD central office needs to work with the
board to ensure that board meetings actively focus on work aligned with established student
outcome goals. Document analysis revealed that the board spent only 20.1% of their three most
recent meetings setting or monitoring established goals and interviews supported that this may be
exacerbated by misalignment in board understanding of how to contribute to the agenda.
Successful implementation of the recommendations discussed in this study could lead to
a potentially promising practice in governance training. Now more than ever it is crucial for
school boards to embrace their role in improving student outcomes, not only for the success of
the WUSD school district in achieving its mission and goal, but because that achievement is a
direct reflection of adequately preparing the students they serve.

112
References
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451–474.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Alsbury, T. (2008). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 7(2), 202–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701748428
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. http://www.education.com/reference/article/ metacognition/.
Black, S. (2008). The keys to board excellence. American School Board Journal, 195(2), 34-35.
https://www.nsba.org/resource-library/board-leadership
California School Boards Association (2017). The school board role in creating conditions for
student achievement. http://aec.csba.org/sitecore/content/home/
GovernanceAndPolicyResources/GovernanceBriefs.aspx?p=1
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. CEP Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. SAGE.
David, J.L., & Talbert, J.E. (2013). Turning around a high-poverty district: Learning from
Sanger. S.H. Cowell Foundation.
Delagardelle, M.L. (2008). The lighthouse inquiry: Examining the role of school board
leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In T.L. Asbury, The future of
school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 191-223).
Rowan & Littlefield Education.

113
Dervarics, C. & O’Brien, E. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards. Center for
Public Education. www.centerforpubliceducation.org
Duke, D.L. (2016). The children left behind: America’s struggle to improve its lowest
performing schools. Rowman & Littlefield.
Education Week (2020). Quality counts 2020. Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/quality-counts-2020/state-grades-on-chance-for-
success-2020.html
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Public Law No. 114-95, S.1177, 114th Cong.
(2015). https://www.congress. gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95. pdf
Goodman, R.H., Fulbright, L., & Zimmerman, W.G., Jr. (1997). Getting there from here –
School board-superintendent collaboration: Creating a school governance team capable
of raising student achievement. Educational Research Service.
Goodman, R.H., & Zimmerman, W.G., Jr. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for
21
st
century school board/superintendent leadership. Governance and teamwork for high
student achievement. Educational Research Service and New England
School Development Council.
Hess, F.M. (2010). Weighing the case for school boards: Today and tomorrow. Phi Delta
Kappan Magazine, 91(6), 15-19.
Hirsh, S., & Foster, A. (2013). A school board guide to leading successful schools: Focusing
on learning. Corwin, a SAGE Company.
Holland, T.P., Chait, R.P., & Taylor, B.E. (1989). Board effectiveness: Identifying and
measuring trustee competencies. Research in Higher Education, 30(4), 435-53.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,

114
and mixed approaches. Sage.
Johnson, P.A. (2012). School board governance: The times they are a-changin'. Journal of
Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(2), 83-102.
Johnson, S.M., Marietta, G., Higgins, M.C., Mapp, K.L., & Grossman, A. (2015). Achieving
coherence in district improvement: Managing the relationship between the central office
and schools. Harvard Education Press. (p. 5).
Kirkpatrick J. (2008). The new world level 1 reaction sheets. http://www.
kirkpatrickpartners.com/Portals/0/Storage/The%20new%20world%20level%201%20reac
tion%20sheets.pdf.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218. 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72, 229-278.
LaRocque, L., & Coleman, P. (1993). The politics of excellence: Trustee leadership and school
district ethos. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 39(4), 449-475.
Lee, D. E. & Eadens, D. W. (2014). The problem: Low-achieving districts and low-performing
boards. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 9(3).
www.ijepl.org
Marzano, R.J., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.).

115
SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
McAdams, D. (2000). Fighting to save our urban schools…and winning.
Teachers College Press.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Sage.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mizell, H. (2010). School boards should focus on learning for all. Phi Delta Kappan
Magazine, 91(6), 20-23.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative Research & Evaluation
Methods (3rd ed.) SAGE Publications.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Plough, B. (2014). School board governance and student achievement: School board
members’ perceptions of their behaviors and beliefs. Educational Leadership and
Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 25.
Ratcliffe, J.W. (1983). Notions of validity in qualitative research methodology. Knowledge:
Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 5(2), 147-167.
Roberts, K.L. & Sampson, P.M. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management,

116
25(7), 701-713. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
Robinson, S.B. & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions.
SAGE.
Robinson, V.M. J., Lloyd, C.A., & Rowe, K.J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Education
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674. https://bit.ly/1xvoAsC
Rueda, R. The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers
College Press, 2011. Print.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Scott, S., & Palinscar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
Silver State Governance. (2020). Silver State Governance: Continuous improvement for
governing teams participant manual. Print.
Speer, T. L. (1998). Reaching for excellence: What local school districts are doing to raise
student achievement. National School Boards Association.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2019). 2019 kids count data book: State trends in child
wellbeing. https://www.aecf.org/resources/2019-kids-count-data-book/
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. (2003). How high poverty districts improve: A national study
uncovers the policies and practices of high-poverty districts that have improved
achievement across multiple schools. Leadership (Burlingame, Calif.), 33(1), 12–.
U.S. Department of Education. (2019). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
https://www.ed.gov/essa

117
Walser, N. (2009). The essential school board book: Better governance in the age of
accountability. Harvard Education Press.
Washington State School Directors’ Association. (2006). The role of school boards in improving
student achievement. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521566.pdf
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.

118
APPENDIX A
Interview Questions
KMO Influence Interview Question
Knowledge Influences
The WUSD board must understand their
critical role in setting student outcome
goals.

To your knowledge, who is responsible for
setting student outcome goals for your district and
schools?

Please describe the role you believe that the board
plays, if any, in setting outcome goals.

To what degree have you participated in setting
student outcome goals as part of the board?
The WUSD board needs to understand the
nature and components of student outcome
goals.

Please define what you believe a student outcome
goal is. What, in your opinion, is the intent of a
student outcome goal?

What, in your opinion, are the key components
when setting a student outcome goal?

The WUSD board must have an
understanding of the current academic
standing and student performance within
their schools.
How would you describe the current academic
standing of the schools within your district based
on the state performance framework?

The WUSD board must know how to apply
knowledge of the board’s role to establish
rigorous and realistic student outcome
goals.

Please describe how a board member should go
about determining whether or not a student
outcome goal is rigorous and realistic?

The WUSD board must reflect on their
ability to influence student outcomes and
monitor progress.

Please describe how you would approach
monitoring progress towards goals as a member
of the school board.

Motivation Influences
WUSD board members need to see the
value in establishing rigorous and realistic
student outcome goals.
Please describe what value you feel there is, if
any, in setting student outcome goals. What
would you personally like to achieve from
participating in this process?

WUSD board members need to feel
confident in their ability to set rigorous and
realistic student outcome goals.

Please describe your comfort level in setting
student outcome goals. How confident do you
feel in your ability to do so? How would you rate
your confidence on a scale of one to ten?

119

What board mindset do you believe is necessary
in order to successfully establish student outcome
goals?

In what areas of the goal setting/monitoring
process do you believe you have strengths?

In what areas of the goal setting/monitoring
process do you believe you could use continued
support?

Organization Influences
The WUSD Central Office needs to
establish the role of an effective board in
achieving student outcome goals.

Please describe the role you believe that WUSD
central office plays in setting outcome goals.
Describe an example of a time when you felt the
central office was involved in the goal-setting
process.

The WUSD Central Office needs to
provide effective training in the area of
setting rigorous and realistic student
outcome goals.

Please describe some training opportunities
related to the understanding of student outcomes
and the setting and monitoring of these outcomes
that the WUSD leadership has provided for you
and your fellow board members. How were those
experiences for you?

How would describe the current level of support
and training you receive from WUSD in the
setting and monitoring of student outcome goals?

The WUSD Central Office needs to
establish a culture of collaboration and
participation between their office and the
board in order for the board to set rigorous
and realistic student outcome goals.
Moving forward, what kind of support do you
need, specifically from WUSD, to successfully
set and monitor student outcome goals?

Please describe how you collaborate with, and
participate in, creating the strategic plan with
WUSD leadership. How often does this occur?

The WUSD Central Office needs to work
with the WUSD board to ensure that
school board meetings actively focus on
work aligned with the established student
outcome goals.

Please describe the process for setting the board’s
agenda for public meetings. Do you have an
opportunity to provide input on the topics chosen
for discussion?

120
Thank you so much for participating in this study. It is crucial that when investigating the
board’s knowledge and motivation that I do so in a way that does not in any way make the public
question their integrity or competency as this could potentially cause harm, therefore I will
ensure your confidentiality by removing all identifying information and utilizing pseudonyms. I
will also ensure that the data collected is kept in a password protected or otherwise secure
location. I would like to remind you that your participation in this study is voluntary and that if at
any point you should desire to no longer participate that is your right and I will comply. Finally, I
will be recording this interview to facilitate accuracy in notetaking and a copy of the transcripts
will be provided to you upon completion. Do I have your permission to proceed with recording
our interview?
Let’s begin by exploring some of your current understanding of student outcomes.
1. Please define what you believe a student outcome goal is. What, in your opinion, is the
intent of a student outcome goal?
2. What, in your opinion, are the key components when setting a student outcome goal?
3. Please describe how a board member should go about determining whether or not a
student outcome goal is rigorous and realistic.
4. To your knowledge, who is responsible for setting student outcome goals for your district
and schools?
5. To what degree have you participated in setting student outcome goals as a board?
6. How would you describe the current academic standing of the schools within your district
based on the state’s performance framework?
7. Please describe when and how a school board should approach monitoring progress
towards goals.

121
I’m curious about what you believe the board’s role is in setting student outcome goals. These
next questions explore this topic.
8. Please describe the role you believe that the board plays in setting outcome goals.
9. Please describe some ways that you believe the board could monitor student outcome
goals. When and how should this occur?
These next couple of questions focus more on your own experiences.
10. Please describe what value you feel there is in the board setting student outcome goals.
What would you personally like to achieve from participating in this process?
11. Please describe your comfort level in setting student outcome goals. How confident do
you feel in your ability to do so? How confident would you say you are on a scale of one
to ten?
12. What board mindset do you believe is necessary in order to successfully establish student
outcome goals?
13. In what areas of the goal setting/monitoring process do you believe you have strengths?
14. In what areas of the goal setting/monitoring process do you believe you could use
continued support?
Thank you for your perspective. I would now like to shift from your individual experiences and
beliefs to an organizational perspective.
15. Please describe some training opportunities related to understanding of student outcomes
and the setting and monitoring of these outcomes that the WUSD leadership has provided
for you and your fellow board members. How were those experiences for you?
16. How would describe the current level of support and training you receive from WUSD in
the setting and monitoring of student outcome goals?

122
17. Please describe the role you believe that WUSD’s central office plays in setting outcome
goals. Describe an example of a time when you felt the central office was involved in the
goal-setting process.
18. Moving forward, what kind of support do you need, specifically from WUSD, to
successfully set and monitor student outcome goals?
19. Please describe how you collaborate with, and participate in, creating the strategic plan
with WUSD leadership. How often does this occur?
20. Please describe the process for setting the board’s agenda for public meetings. Do you
have an opportunity to provide input on the topics chosen for discussion?
That will conclude the interview questions. I’d like to end by asking if you have any
questions for me? Thank you again for your time today!

123
APPENDIX B
Board Monthly Time Used Evaluation

124
APPENDIX C
Board Quarterly Self-Evaluation

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Recent data indicates that despite efforts to emphasize high-stakes accountability for student outcomes, a majority of the nation’s schools are still considered underperforming by our own standards. In response to laws such as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), school boards have become increasingly accountable for improved student outcomes in the schools they serve. The purpose of this study was to explore the current capacity of a school board to set student outcome goals prior to receiving governance training tailored to the acquisition of this skillset. The school board utilized for this study serves a moderate-sized school district located in the western United States. Following a review of the literature, assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences of the school board were evaluated using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework. Data was collected via qualitative interviews and through document analysis using an established quantitative metric. Consulting the literature and the findings which emerged from the data, a comprehensive implementation and evaluation plan utilizing the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is provided. Successful implementation of the recommendations discussed in this study could lead to a potentially promising practice in governance training.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Increasing workplace training transfer

PDF

Lack of Latinx senior executive service members in a federal government agency

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

Advisor impact on student veterans at a post-secondary institution: an evaluation study

PDF

Principals’ impact on the effective enactment of instructional coaching that promotes equity: an evaluation study

PDF

High school counselors’ support of first-generation students’ postsecondary planning: an evaluative study

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

The implementation of data driven decision making to improve low-performing schools: an evaluation study of superintendents in the western United States

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

Incentivizing for-profit investment in the non-profit initiatives of the Community Cooperative: an evaluation study

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Performance management in government: the importance of goal clarity

PDF

Pacific Coast University Police Department sworn officer staffing shortages: a gap analysis

PDF

Curriculum and assessment alignment, instructional practices, and the impact on Hispanic/Latino students advanced placement exam achievement

PDF

The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

PDF

Utilizing data analytics in the field of physical security: an exploratory study

PDF

Increasing strategic investments of philanthropic funding in nonprofit organizations

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

Factors contributing to student attrition at a healthcare university: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Barr, Jessica (author)

Core Title Good governance: the role and impact of school boards in setting student outcome goals

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/01/2020

Defense Date 10/09/2020

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

Tag education,governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,School boards,student outcome goals

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Phillips, Jennifer (committee member), Rayburn, Kalim (committee member)

Creator Email barrj@usc.edu,mrsjessicabarr@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-390774

Unique identifier UC11665842

Identifier etd-BarrJessic-9091.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-390774 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BarrJessic-9091.pdf

Dmrecord 390774

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Barr, Jessica

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