Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
(USC Thesis Other)
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Perceived Impact of Masters in Governance Training on Student Achievement and
Governance
by
Isabel Elisabeth Fernandez Brenes
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May, 2021
© Copyright by Isabel Elisabeth Fernandez Brenes 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Isabel Elisabeth Fernandez Brenes certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Rudy Castruita
Charles Hinman
Katherine Thorossian
Michael F. Escalante, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
This study sought to examine the perceived impact Masters in Governance (MIG) training
offered by the CSBA had on effective school governance and student achievement. The study
found that MIG participation built trust and relationships by providing opportunities that fostered
increased collaboration and communication amongst participants and district teams. Participants
found the content disseminated via the training modules as well as the real-world applicable
scenarios given to be indispensable in understanding the decisions they would be faced with as
they fulfilled their respective roles and responsibilities. MIG modules provided learning that
increased role clarity, confidence and effective decision making. MIG indirectly impacted
student achievement as participants learned best practices that allowed for conditions of success
through the ability to hold others accountable, set priorities, look at data and focus on
achievement. This study provides the necessary data to superintendents in supporting formal
training for their school board member teams, as the findings demonstrate that training positively
impacts a school board member’s school governance as well as increases student achievement.
This study should enhance the scholarly body of work that currently exists on the impact of MIG
training upon district school governance teams. The research can be expanded to include a
comprehensive analysis of the perceived impact of MIG training on effective governance
practices of school board members in California, on the perceived impact on student
achievement in school districts located in both large urban and small suburban counties, and by
examining the case for potential mandates to attend training in the state of California.
v
Dedication
To my better half, Jimmy Edward, who is the constant calming force in the chaos that my
leadership roles have brought upon our family: He is the epitome of strength, wisdom and
loyalty. My love for Jim and my gratitude towards him is infinite as it extends beyond the human
universe we know. No words can ever describe the depths of my appreciation for his constant
support, encouragement, tolerance, faith, and unconditional love as I pursued my doctoral
studies. Forever present in all of my times of need, the love of my youth, my sweetheart since
1988.
To my children-James Christian, Madalin Elise, and Jacob Daniel-who are extensions of me: my
learning, my essence, and my being. Not only are they proof that goodness still exists in the
world, but also, they are why I always aspire to be. Each of them humbles me as they are living,
breathing examples of the beauty and limitless love that exists both in this world and in our
family. Each of my children has extended me grace, loved me unconditionally, exhibited
patience, and went above and beyond in supporting me as I worked toward meeting my personal
goal of obtaining my doctorate. When the decision to pursue a doctorate is made, one goes into
the experience knowing that sacrifices will transpire; however, it is unclear what the journey
entails or the extent to which one will have to sacrifice until the road is traveled. Jim, James,
Madalin, and Jake have sacrificed much in a multitude of ways. Through this experience (as well
as others that have crossed our path), we have best learned how to physically and emotionally
cleave to one another. The successful completion of my studies, research, and writing would
have been impossible without their presence in my life.
vi
Acknowledgements
My accomplishment in finalizing this dissertation was possible with the support and
encouragement of a number of integral people. These individuals assisted me with bridging the
gap of where I was and where I endeavored to be.
I would like to thank my dissertation committee—Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. Charles
Hinman, and Dr. Katherine Thorossian—who provided a great deal of inspiration, and support.
A special thank you goes to my dissertation chair, Dr. Michael F. Escalante, whose wisdom,
guidance and encouragement was pivotal as I pursued my lifelong personal goal.
I thank all of my thematic cohort members, who truly believed in the mantra, “We start
together. We finish together.” The competitive pushing and constant rallying were crucial to
completing my dissertation. I would especially like to thank William Gideon, Natalie Hart,
Jennifer Jackson, Maria Morales, Patricia Salazar and Danielle Weinstein who continuously
came to my assistance.
Thank you to Dr. Sean and Dr. Sara Delgado, my sounding boards, my brother and sister
in Christ, who have always assisted me in any time of need. I am most grateful for the honesty
and wisdom that they so readily share (especially as it pertains to my doctoral studies and the
writing of my dissertation).
I thank my mother, Norma Olivia Garcia Hernandez, and my father, Daniel Izac
Fernandez, who taught me the power of hard work, persistence, and how faith can conquer any
evil in the world. I thank my brothers—Isaac Daniel, Anthony Jesse Joe, David Dominic, and
Christopher—for toughening me up in ways that have prepared me to become a fierce leader
who will stare injustice in the eye of any storm, regardless of the consequences. I thank my
sisters: Ivette Gomez, Ana Isabel, and Patricia Ann. They are living proof that love, sisterhood,
vii
and friendship extend beyond one's bloodline; they have taught me the importance of leaning in,
especially in times where physical and mental strengthening are required.
I thank my grandparents—Catalina Ruiz, Joe Isabel Fernandez, Elisabeth Martha
Artalejo, and Lorenzio Hernandez—who believed in this land of opportunity, the power of love,
and the importance of their legacy. My mother-in-law, father-in-law, aunts, and uncles have
loved as well as prayed for and with me in every valley that I have endured and at every peak
that I have celebrated. My nephews and nieces have shown me how love is timeless, and they
bring me peace in knowing that the future of the nation is in more than capable hands. My
cousins, Zaiann (a fearless warrior) and Lezra (the epitome of freedom), have lifted me up and
have shown me the true meaning of advocacy.
To every person and student whom I have loved and lost: Their angelic spirit guides me
by lighting my path. As long as I am living, I will always remember and celebrate them.
Last but certainly not least, I thank my Lord and Savior. He has never left or forsaken me,
even in my times of complete darkness. I give Him all of my praise and glory. The completion of
this study or all that has transpired in my life would not have been possible without His grace
and divine intervention.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 5
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 6
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 6
Limitations of the Study...................................................................................................... 7
Delimitations of the Study .................................................................................................. 7
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 8
Theoretical Frameworks ..................................................................................................... 9
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 12
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 13
History of Education and Local School Boards ................................................................ 15
Responsibilities of Modern School Boards....................................................................... 18
California School Board Training ..................................................................................... 20
Leadership ......................................................................................................................... 22
School Board Leadership .................................................................................................. 23
ix
Effective Governance: Superintendent–Board Relationships ........................................... 25
Effective School Governance and Practices ..................................................................... 27
Ineffective School Board Practices ................................................................................... 29
Student Achievement and Effective Governance ............................................................. 31
MIG Training .................................................................................................................... 32
Accountability ................................................................................................................... 36
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 38
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 44
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 46
Purpose of Study Restated ................................................................................................ 46
Thematic Work Group ...................................................................................................... 47
Research Design................................................................................................................ 47
Population and Sample ..................................................................................................... 51
Research Procedures ......................................................................................................... 53
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 54
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 56
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 57
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 58
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 59
Participants and School Districts ...................................................................................... 60
Presentation of the Data .................................................................................................... 65
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 66
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 81
x
Results for Research Question 3 ..................................................................................... 101
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 114
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 117
Statement of the Problem Restated ................................................................................. 117
Purpose of the Study Restated ........................................................................................ 117
Research Team: Description and Process ....................................................................... 118
Participants, Sample, and Instruments ............................................................................ 118
Research Questions Restated .......................................................................................... 119
Summary of Key Findings .............................................................................................. 119
Findings Related to the Research Questions ................................................................... 120
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 127
Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................. 130
Delimitations of the Study .............................................................................................. 131
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 131
Conclusion of the Study .................................................................................................. 133
References ................................................................................................................................... 134
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails .................................................................... 143
School Board Member Recruitment Email ..................................................................... 143
Superintendent Recruitment Email ................................................................................. 144
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey .............................................................................. 145
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 148
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ........................................................... 151
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ....................................................................... 152
xi
Appendix F: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 153
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix .................................................................................. 154
xii
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participants 61
Table 2: Summary of Pseudonyms Used in Study 62
Table 3: Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to
Participate in the Masters in Governance Training
67
Table 4: Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Should
Be Mandated in California
69
Table 5: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in
Governance Training Impacted Their Ability to Govern Effectively
72
Table 6: Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Masters
in Governance Training Should Be Encouraged for School
Governance Teams by the Local District Policy
74
Table 7: Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the
Masters in Governance Program Would Increase Chances of
Participation
77
Table 8: Participants’ Responses to Whether the Current Cost of the
Masters in Governance Training Program Impeded School Board
Members From Participating
79
Table 9: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Would
Recommend Masters in Governance Training to School
Governance Teams
83
Table 10: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether It Was Important
to Attend Masters in Governance Training With Their
Superintendent
85
Table 11: Superintendents’ Responses to Whether It Is Important to Attend
Masters in Governance Training With Their School Board
Members
86
Table 12: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in
Governance Training Encouraged School Governance Teams to
Contribute to the Effectiveness of Their School Board Meetings
89
Table 13: Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance
Training Helped School Board Members to Differentiate Among
Policy, Leadership, and Management
91
xiii
Table 14: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in
Governance Training Clarified the Differences Between the Roles
and Responsibilities of a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent
94
Table 15: Superintendents Responses to Whether School Board Members
Who Are MIG Trained Understand the Importance of Aligning-the
Decision Making Process to The District's Vision and Goals
96
Table 16: Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance
Modules in Order of Importance to Their Role as a Member of the
Governance Team (N = 180)
98
Table 17: School Board Members’ Responses to Whether as a Result of
Masters in Governance Training, Their Focus Was on
Achievement
104
Table 18: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Encouraged
Governance Team Members to Consistently Use Data to Make
Informed Decisions Regarding Student Achievement
106
Table 19: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Believed That
All California School Board Members Could Benefit From
Masters in Governance Training
108
Table 20: Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in
Governance Training Had Positively Impacted Student
Achievement in Their District
111
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Education in the 21st century is a field that looks very different than when it was initially
created. Currently, the concept of accountability is extremely high. Students, teachers, individual
school sites, administrators, districts, superintendents, and school board members are being held
accountable for the quantitative data that are produced through the mandated high stakes
standardized testing. The collaborative school board–superintendent relationship is “essential to
the successful and efficient oversight of a school district” (Hendricks, 2013, p. 62). Opportunities
to work together and to receive training outside of the normal work atmosphere allow
superintendents and school board members not only to gain pertinent knowledge but to do so in a
way that fosters a good relationship between the two. School board member training allows
superintendents and school board members to be more productive, as it assists with building trust
and more meaningful relationships (Weiss et al., 2014). The challenge rests upon the increased
accountability that school board members face in regard to school governance and student
achievement.
In 2013, a University of Southern California (USC) thematic dissertation cohort showed
how the California School Board Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) nine
training modules positively impacted the relationship between superintendents and school board
members. Since then, the CSBA MIG training has been reduced from nine to five 1-day learning
modules. The present study, an update of the 2013 study, advocates for superintendents and their
school board members to participate in the newly adopted five CSBA MIG training modules that
assist participants with defining roles by providing training on (a) Effective Governance, (b)
Policy and Judicial Review/Student Learning and Achievement, (c) School Finance, (d) Human
Resources, and (e) Community Relations and Advocacy (CSBA, 2018a). CSBA training also
2
affords school board members the opportunity to better equip themselves in ways that should rise
to the demands of accountability through effective governance and increased student
achievement.
This chapter provides an overview of the critical issues that necessitate participation in
the MIG training program. A brief summary of MIG training establishes the relevance for school
board members to participate in governance training. Discussion on the need for role clarity,
building relationships, and preparation in accountability shows the importance of school board
members and their superintendent to train together. Extensions of the topic are presented in this
qualitative study as it examined the characteristics of effective governance of the K-12 public
school setting within the following California counties: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin,
Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara,
and Ventura. Although Chapter Two elaborates on the literature that delves into the purpose of
this study, this chapter discusses the progress made to further understand the issue.
Background of the Problem
A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) reported that
students in the United States did not have the “levels of skill, literacy, and training essential to
this new era” (p. 5). Therefore, it was reported that the United States “will be effectively
disenfranchised, not simply from the material rewards that accompany competent performance,
but also from the chance to participate fully in our national life” (p. 5). This report created a
sense of urgency to increase rigor, create new standards, and increase teacher prep and pay
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). In the late 1980s, data continued to
show a lack of improvement in school performance. During this time, elementary and secondary
effectiveness in schooling were raised and the public began to look more toward the school
3
board with scrutiny (Danzberger, 1994). The demands for increased performance, coupled with
changes in society, added to the pressure and criticism that local school boards received from
various stakeholders.
The public-school governance system is complex in that there are many players and
decision makers who respond to the concerns of those who are considered unofficial players (i.e.,
citizens and special interest groups; Danzberger, 1994). The local school board’s primary task
has always been to govern the nation’s public school system, but in current times societal
changes have brought about a renewed sense of urgency (Hess & Meeks, 2010). At the local
level school boards carry many responsibilities as they oversee “the implementation of state and
federal mandates and ensure academic excellence for all students” (Hendricks, 2013, p. 62).
Local school boards must ensure that their graduates are prepared for postsecondary success, as
research “suggests that boards can add value to raising student achievement” (Maricle, 2014, p.
1). They are also responsible for evaluating superintendents and overseeing public funds, yet not
all states require mandated training (Lee & Eadens, 2014). These demands on the local school
boards have created a great amount of stress in that they are being held accountable in ways that
were not seen in years past. With today’s increased accountability, school district leaders are
challenged with addressing changes in demographics, high-stakes testing, academic progress,
and evolving technology. It is important, now more than ever for the relationship between a
superintendent and school board members to be collaborative in nature, because it is vital for the
success of public education (Goodman et al., 1997). Research shows that role ambiguity among
superintendents and school board members has intensified during this time of accountability and
stresses the importance of role clarity (Hendricks, 2013). As such, many studies have been
4
conducted and committees formed to recommend ways in which local school boards and
superintendents could be effective in their leadership.
In 1994, representatives from the American Association of School Administrators and the
National School Boards Association (NSBA) created a joint committee to provide
recommendations to assist school board members with building and maintaining a collaborative
relationship with the superintendent (Hendricks 2013). More recently, in 2010, the NSBA (as
cited in Hess & Meeks, 2010) published a report whose findings indicate that student
achievement remains the greatest challenge facing today’s school boards and that local school
board members are willing to play a stronger leadership role in raising achievement. According
to Maricle (2014), in 2000 the CSBA developed Professional Governance Standards to sharpen
the public’s understanding of the responsibilities of the local school board and to support
effective governance. The CSBA (2019) noted that local school boards must govern responsibly
and effectively because they have to uphold the constitution, protect the public interest, and
ensure that all students receive a high-quality education. The Professional Governance Standards
encompass three vital components that lead to effective school governance: the attributes of an
effective individual trustee, the attributes of an effective governing board, and the specific jobs
that the board performs in its governance role.
Literature shows that a school district’s success is dependent on a positive relationship
between the superintendent and its school board members as it drives successful governance
within the district (Hanover Research, 2014). Per the report by Hanover Research (2014),
components for successful school board–superintendent relations are clarifying roles and
expectations, establishing and implementing a clear process for communication, actively
working to build trust and mutual respect, evaluating the whole team, and actively working on
5
improved decision making. Past research has shown that superintendents and local school board
members who participated in MIG training exhibited behaviors in effective governance through
role clarity, collaboration, and collegiality (Richter, 2013). Currently, there is no existing
research pertaining to the impact that MIG training has on student achievement; the only
research found on MIG training and its impact on school governance was conducted 7 years ago.
With increased demands for accountability by local school boards, along with their various
responsibilities, their impact on student achievement, and the necessity for positive relationships
with their superintendent, participation in MIG training is encouraged.
Statement of the Problem
The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of
informed decision making that influences the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. As such,
CSBA’s MIG training gives school board members and superintendents expertise in foundations
of effective school governance, policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and
community relations. All of these modules in turn allows them to rapidly accommodate to the
global demands.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researcher examined the benefit of the MIG
6
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding MIG training and its perceived impact on
school governance and student achievement.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Significance of the Study
One common saying is that the children are the future and, as such, it is crucial to ensure
that all children receive a free and appropriate education. In order to gauge how much students
learn in school, they are tested so that quantitative data can assist educators with tailoring the
educational experience (e.g., through instruction, use of instructional strategies, lesson planning,
interventions, providing resources, etc.) for all students. This high-stakes testing requires school
districts to be held accountable for the education of all students. Although not necessarily
educators by trade, school board members are being held accountable for the decisions they
make because they impact the lives of many children, their communities, and the future of the
country. This study should provide the necessary data to superintendents in supporting formal
training for their school board member teams, as the aim was that the findings would
7
demonstrate that training positively impacts a school board member’s school governance as well
as increases student achievement.
Limitations of the Study
One limitation of this study was that the findings would be of little use to states other
than California because the MIG training program is offered only in the state of California. As
such, the findings cannot be generalized to other states. Another limitation of this study was that
the responses may have been subjective and might have reflected the personal opinions of those
surveyed and interviewed; therefore, personal bias could not be controlled. A further limitation
pertained to geographical constraints, as data were pulled only from select California school
districts. Another limitation was that research was conducted over a 2-month period in the
summer; interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom™ instead of the more desirable in-
person interviews due to the restrictions imposed by the global coronavirus pandemic. Finally,
the study was limited only to those superintendents and school board members who volunteered
to participate in the study, as it was not possible to mandate all those who participated in CSBA’s
MIG training to complete a survey and participate in an interview.
Delimitations of the Study
A delimitation of this study was that the selection criteria required that a majority of
school board members had participated in MIG training. Due to the non-release of data that
would reveal which school districts had participated in CSBA’s MIG training, it was a challenge
to find a large enough sample size to provide the data to conduct a valid research study. It was
decided by the research team not to include other types of school board governance training, as
the credibility and structure of the training could not be ascertained. CSBA’s MIG training was
selected due to its credibility and the fact that it is tailored specifically for the state of California.
8
Another delimitation is that the school districts studied were from select California
counties: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura. This restriction added to the difficulty in
finding districts that met the initial criteria of the study. Furthermore, from those districts who
met the initial criteria of the study, the research team had to seek the support of the
superintendent in their participation of the study.
A further delimitation of this study was that data collection largely took place during the
summer of 2020 and in the beginning of the 2020–2021 academic year when many
superintendents and school board members were normally taking vacation time and preparing for
the opening of their schools. However, given the current COVID-19 pandemic and the
restrictions imposed, vacations were not taken and participants were difficult to contact as they
were heavily involved in making decisions and creating policy to accommodate an opening of a
new school year unlike any other: a school year opening of distance learning.
Assumptions
An assumption of the study was that each participant would be honest and forthcoming
with completing the surveys and answering questions in the interviews. It was assumed that the
selection criteria and the survey instruments created were valid and reliable. Another assumption
was that all participants had a working knowledge of the academic language used in education
and knew their responsibilities as local school board members. Finally, it was assumed that each
school board member and superintendent who had participated in CSBA’s MIG training would
positively impact school governance and student achievement.
9
Theoretical Frameworks
The three theoretical frameworks that guided this research study were the CSBA’s (2019)
Professional Governance Standards, the Lighthouse Inquiry study conducted by the Iowa
Association of School Boards (IASB; Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000); and Bolman and
Deal’s (2017) four-frame leadership model.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
Accountability: The concept that schools and school districts will be held responsible for
performance or producing documents and records, creating and following plans, and reporting
student performance on assessments.
ATLAS.ti: “A qualitative data analysis (QDA) software that allows users to locate, code,
and annotate findings in text-based and multimedia data and visualize the complex relationships
between these data” (USC, n.d., Description section, para. 1).
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): A state
assessment consisting of the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment System and the
California Alternate Assessments (CAAs), including the CAA for Science, the California
Science Test, and the California Spanish Assessment (California Department of Education
[CDE], 2019).
California School Dashboard: The Dashboard provides the public with virtual access to
“reports that display the performance of local educational agencies (LEAs), schools, and student
groups on a set of state and local measures to assist in identifying strengths, challenges, and areas
in need of improvement” (p. 1). “The California School Dashboard Navigator is an interactive
mapping tool for visualizing school and student group performance on a map that displays
10
schools by their color-coded performance level for each of the state indicators and student
groups” (p. 1).
California School Boards Association (CSBA): An organization entrusted with the
responsibility to provide guidance, resources, and training for school board members throughout
California (CSBA, 2007).
DataQuest:
The CDE’s (2020a) web-based data reporting system for publicly reporting information
about California students, teachers, and schools. DataQuest provides access to a wide
variety of reports, including school performance, test results, student enrollment, English
learner, graduation and dropout, school staffing, course enrollment, and student
misconduct data. (para. 1)
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through the
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000).
Institutional Review Board (IRB): An administrative body established to protect the
rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in research activities
conducted under the auspices of the institution with which it is affiliated.
Mandate: An official order or commission to do something.
MIG: A training program sponsored by the CSBA (2018a) consisting of five modules
designed to define roles and responsibilities and to improve governance and leadership through
increased knowledge and skills to support an effective governance structure and maintain a focus
on student learning.
11
NSBA: “A federation of 49 state associations and the U.S. territory of the Virgin Islands,
representing their more than 90,000 school board officials. These local officials govern over
13,600 local school districts serving more than 50 million public school students” (NSBA, 2019,
para. 1).
Public school: A free, tax-supported school controlled by a local governmental authority.
Qualtrics: A survey platform that “combines the world’s best technology for listening to
feedback with automated and integrated workflows that drive action at every level of the
organization” (Qualtrics, 2020, p. 1). QualtricsXM empowers teams “to hear every stakeholder’s
voice and close every experience gap” (p. 1).
Rev.com: Company that provides online audio transcription and video caption services
for business, legal, academic, and personal needs; transcribes audio to text and creates captions
and subtitles (Rev.com, n.d.).
School board: A group of nonpartisan citizens, either elected or appointed, within a
school district, to act as a single unit regarding various aspects of governance (CSBA, 2007).
School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding over the
public meetings of school boards.
School district: Synonym for local education agency; a public organization tasked with
operating public schools and serving students within a designated geographic area.
Student achievement: The performance by students on the annual summative assessment
given by the state of California.
Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district with
oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
12
Zoom: A web-based conferencing tool that allows video communications for video and
audio conferencing, collaboration, chat, and webinars across mobile devices, desktops,
telephones, and room systems (Zoom, 2019).
Organization of the Study
Chapter One has provided an overview of the study by explaining the background of the
problem, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions, and the
significance of the study. The limitations and delimitations of the study, the assumptions of the
study, a brief overview of the guiding theoretical frameworks, and a definition of terms used in
the study have also been presented in Chapter One. Chapter Two provides significant and
relevant literature as it pertains to local school board member training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement. Chapter Three gives an in-depth description of the
methodology used in the research study. Specifically, research design, instrumentation, data
collection procedures, the data collection approach, and data analysis procedures are presented in
Chapter Three. Chapter Four presents and summarizes the data while providing a thorough
explanation of the findings. Chapter Five provides an analysis of the study and discusses the
implications of the findings for the impact of MIG training on school board members’ school
governance and student achievement, as well as the factors that impacted the decision to
participate in the MIG training program.
13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
School boards that govern California K-12 districts have been entrusted to make the right
decisions that will positively affect and advance the mission of their districts. Charged with
governing the schools that they oversee, local school boards not only oversee the implementation
of state and federal mandates but must also ensure academic excellence for all students
(Hendricks, 2013). The key work of the school board involves raising student achievement,
providing effective governance, and involving the community to assist with the goal of raising
student achievement (Gemberling et al., 2000). To aid with this endeavor, the CSBA (2007) has
outlined the school board’s responsibilities to include such roles as setting the direction for the
school district in which they serve, establishing the necessary structures of board policy to meet
the district’s vision, providing support for implementation of the vision and goals, and ensuring
that adequate monitoring and oversight occur to hold others accountable as they act as
community leaders. To further assist local school boards in being successful, the NSBA
(Gemberling et al., 2000) created a guidebook that outlined eight critical and key action areas for
school boards to focus on: vision, standards, assessment, accountability, resource alignment,
climate, collaboration and continuous improvement.
It has always been a challenge to be a local school board member; however, that
challenge is even more demanding due to the increased accountability and demands for
improving student achievement (Gemberling et al., 2000). The role of local school boards is one
of great power, as they possess the ability to engage in behaviors that include hiring and firing
superintendents, setting budgets, setting terms of employment, approving budgets, and directing
superintendents and others to adopt policies and programs. School boards can influence
academic achievement outcomes by positively influencing a school’s culture, by becoming
14
united through establishing good relationships with their superintendents, and by spending time
consistently monitoring student achievement (Maranto et al., 2017).
Research shows that professional development training is vital to the successful impact
that school boards have on student achievement. Professional development training provides
participants with the skills and information required to efficiently and effectively run a school
district (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Roberts and Sampson (2011) noted that some states, such as
Arkansas and Texas, have acknowledged the importance of professional development as they
mandated training. Arkansas requires at least 6 hours of professional development training for
school board members who have served more than 1 year. Texas mandates 18 hours of in-service
training in the 1st year of service and 8 hours of professional development after the 1st year.
Professional development is essential to schools that seek improvement, and those school board
members who wish to be effective will do the necessary work to receive their own professional
development. Thus, with the changes in their roles (i.e., intense scrutiny and increased
accountability of school boards), it is important to determine whether MIG training has an
impact on school governance and student achievement.
Chapter Two discusses the history of education and local school boards; the
responsibilities of modern school boards; leadership in general as well as school board
leadership; and effective governance practices: superintendent–board relationships, effective and
ineffective school board practices, the MIG training program for local school boards, student
achievement and effective governance, and accountability. The chapter also deals with the
conceptual frameworks that guided the study: CSBA’s (2019) Professional Governance
Standards, the Lighthouse Inquiry study (Rice et al.), and Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four
leadership frames.
15
History of Education and Local School Boards
Public school education is historically rooted in a political culture that encompassed local
policy, local management and local financial control (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). In the 18th century,
the founding fathers pushed for the public to be educated because the sentiment was that literate
citizens would benefit all people, as instruction would provide the necessary wisdom to make
wise voting decisions. Initially, history was taught to teach good judgment because students
would learn from the error of people’s ways (and their successes as well) and would instill
desirable character traits such as honesty, integrity, and compassion. Benjamin Franklin’s
proposal for Pennsylvania schools also placed emphasis on history, because it would spark
debates that would deepen logic, develop reasoning, and enhance both conversation and writing.
George Washington advocated that public schools teach students virtue, morality, valuing their
rights, and knowing the difference between oppression and lawful authority (Jacobson &
Rothstein, 2008). Due to the fact that the U.S. Constitution did not mention schools, when
schools came to fruition, it was natural for the states to assume local control and subsequently
give governance power to local school districts (Sell, 2006; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). In 1787, if new
states committed themselves to public education, they received funds through the Northwest
Ordinance. Labor unions advocated for public schools to teach more than math and reading as
they should be teaching intellectual subjects found in schools for the wealthy (Jacobson &
Rothstein, 2008).
The local school board, as it is known today, first originated in New England, where
citizens controlled the schools through their town meetings (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). This system of
governance was thought to be too much of a burden in attempting to manage both towns and
schools (Danzberger, 1994). In 1826, Massachusetts developed a separate school committee that
16
was not attached to local government (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). This Massachusetts model eventually
spread throughout the states and was in alignment with Horace Mann’s philosophy that other
than financial contributions, schools should be free of local government and controlled by local
boards (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). In 1837, Horace Mann, known as the Father of the Common
School, utilized his elected position to enact educational reform that ensured that local taxes
would provide an education for every child. The idea of universal schooling stemmed from
Horace Mann’s belief that education would provide both political stability and social harmony
(Neiman & Levin, 2019).
The “first state board of education and office of state superintendent” (Danzberger, 1994,
p. 1) were established in 1837. By the late 1800s, the percentage of Americans living in rural
areas was at 71% and school boards continued to “act as an agent of the state for school policy
and operations that the state chose to delegate” (Wirt & Kirst 2005, p. 132). Public schools as
they are known to be today did not become actualized until the 1840s, when the common school
movement became more prominently established. As a result of this movement, southern states
developed county school districts; people in the northeast organized themselves around small
towns; and both the southwestern and western school districts grew by annexation (Kirst, 2010).
Due to reforms and municipal corruption within the school system, by 1890–1910, schools were
under stronger control of local education governments (Kirst, 2010). Around this time, reformers
were of the belief that local school board members who were elected by wards were there to
advance their own personal interests and thus called for an election at large (Kirst, 2010). Their
intent was to take politics out of education and out of the hands of certain individuals and place
issues in the hands of professional educators (Kirst, 2010).
17
The Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education was a report created in 1918 by the
Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, which argued that academics were
not enough and advocated for a balanced approach to seven educational goals. These goals
touched upon academics and such areas as physical activity, public health, preparation of
traditional household roles (husband and wife), vocational education, civic education,
appreciation of the arts, and ethics (Jacobson & Rothstein, 2008). By 1920, public schools relied
on the local government for 83% of their funds and left other policy issues to district professional
staff (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The National Education Association (as cited in Jacobson &
Rothstein, 2008) contended that schools should respond to the Great Depression by teaching
morality and that tests should measure matters of importance: sympathy, civic-social-economic
concerns, personal health, and appreciation of the arts.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2012a), in 1939 there were
117,108 school districts and 226,762 public schools in the United States. Due to the desire to
appease a variety of stakeholder groups (e.g., business leaders, university professors, etc.), state
officials began a campaign to reduce the number of school districts by combining small rural
districts to create larger districts (Guthrie, 1996). After Moscow launched Sputnik in 1957, the
confidence level in local school boards and educational administrations began to weaken, as it
was felt that Moscow’s education system was surpassing that of the United States (Kirst, 2010).
During this time, there was an emphasis on basic academic skills, as evidenced in the 1958
Rockefeller Report (as cited in Jacobson & Rothstein, 2008) that stated that all forms of abstract
intellectual activity (i.e., music, art, technical work, craftsmanship, etc.) were forms of
achievement that must be embraced and that testing was important for determining scientists and
leaders. The 1984 publication of Goodlad’s book, A Place Called School, analyzed goals that
18
were adopted by state and local boards and that shed light on the current areas of focus; basic
academic skills, vocational programs, problem-solving skills and intellectual curiosity,
interpersonal skills, citizenship, emotional and physical well-being, and moral-ethical character;
(Jacobson & Rothstein, 2008). The decline in confidence continued well into the 1960s and
1970s, as many wanted to reduce inequality in the educational opportunities that students
received (Kirst, 2010). Additionally, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act of
1965, also known as No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002), mandated that school boards pay
particular attention to the high levels of expected achievement for all students (Plough, 2014).
Over time, with increased accountability, desegregation, and categorical aid, school boards
became more active, and school board members were asked to act in ways that were essentially
foreign to them (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Responsibilities of Modern School Boards
Recent challenges pertaining to changing demographics, increased student testing (i.e.,
CAASPP), increased district and academic accountability due to easy access to school
performance results (i.e., DataQuest), and the ever-evolving changes in technology have
intensified the need for district leadership teams (school board members and superintendents) to
work collaboratively in order to run more efficiently in their pursuit to excellence (Hendricks,
2013). Research has also found that the relationship between local school boards and their
superintendents are essential to educational quality (Honingh et al., 2018). Governance of public
schools remains complex as there are various stakeholders (i.e., federal state courts, the U.S.
Congress, state governors, etc.) who respond to the public (Danzberger, 1994). In regard to
educational policy, it is not uncommon for the public to be concerned about “special interest
19
groups, the business community, and groups of citizens who want their perspectives reflected in
the policies governing schools” (Danzberger, 1994, p. 67).
At the local district level, school boards have the responsibility of making decisions that
will determine the actions taken by the local schools that they govern (Danzberger, 1994).
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2012b), there were 13,588 public
school districts in the United States with approximately 50,000–55,000 school board members
whose decisions affected 98,817 schools and 49,177,617 students a day. School board
governance provides strategic leadership by “setting the direction, making policy and strategy
decisions, overseeing and monitoring organizational performance, and ensuring accountability”
(Renz, 2007, p. 1). Creating policy that guides the board’s actions as well as the vision of the
district should be created with all major stakeholders. Those stakeholders may include the
superintendent, the school board members, staff, families, and other community members
(Brodinsky, 1977). Furthermore, the enactment of No Child Left Behind’s (2002) accountability
for all students to learn forced local school boards to take such actions as approving outside
agencies to provide supplemental services, replacing principals, reassigning certificated staff,
and ensuring that students’ needs were met so that they could achieve adequate yearly progress
(Plough, 2014).
Modern-day school boards have many responsibilities; however, their primary ones
pertain to setting the direction of the district by providing structure through the establishment of
policies, ensuring accountability, and providing leadership to the community on behalf of both
the district and public education (CSBA, 2019). As a result, there are many job duties performed
by effective school boards. According to the CSBA (2019), these job duties:
20
• Involve the community, parents, students and staff in developing a common
vision for the district focused on learning and achievement and responsive to the
needs of all students.
• Adopt, evaluate and update policies consistent with the law and the district’s
vision and goals.
• Maintain accountability for student learning by adopting the district curriculum
and monitoring student progress.
• Hire and support the superintendent so that the vision, goals and policies of the
district can be implemented.
• Conduct regular and timely evaluations of the superintendent based on the vision,
goals and performance of the district, and ensure that the superintendent holds
district personnel accountable.
• Adopt a fiscally responsible budget based on the district’s vision and goals, and
regularly monitor the fiscal health of the district.
• Ensure that a safe and appropriate educational environment is provided to all
students.
• Establish a framework for the district’s collective bargaining process and adopt
responsible agreements.
• Provide community leadership on educational issues and advocate on behalf of
students and public education at the local, state and federal levels. (p. 2)
California School Board Training
Within the field of education,
21
local control refers to (a) the governing and management of public schools by elected or
appointed representatives serving on governing bodies, such as school boards or school
committees, that are located in the communities served by the schools; and (b) the degree
to which local leaders, institutions, and governing bodies can make independent or
autonomous decisions about the governance and operation of public schools. (Great
Schools Partnership, 2014, para. 1)
Although the state legislature oversees the California public school system, there have
been more responsibilities given to the local levels—in particular, school boards—than any other
government entity (CDE, 2018b). According to Bell (1988), local school boards must become
assertive so that they may supervise and manage, implement state and federal mandates, and set
standards for academic success. Such acts as reviewing board policies, clarifying the goals and
practices of the board, ensuring effective policy making and implementation of policies,
declaring roles of various areas of administrative and policy making responsibilities, and
participating in board member training are all ways to strengthen the effectiveness of school
board members (Hadderman, 1988).
School boards whose members are chosen by election tend to have more conflict as they
govern than those who were appointed. Those candidates who run for the office of school board
member often have an agenda and are ready to make change. This mindset is what often spurs
the unwillingness to work collaboratively with fellow board members when it comes to solving
issues stemming from difficult problems (Renz, 2007). Therefore, it is imperative that all school
board members receive training.
When considering the function of the school board, it is less about local control and more
about how to ensure a successful central policymaking body. A strong school board not only
22
gives citizens the opportunity to have some control over their children’s education and how their
tax monies are spent but also furnishes effective leadership and governance. Essentially school
boards are expected to direct schools in the course they are to take to ensure success. School
boards assist with such actions as setting staff and student expectations and the degree of parent
and community involvement, the fruitfulness of communication, the extent that short-term
constituent demands or long-term interests of students will exist, how much communities
understand educational issues, the type of accountability required, and the equitability of the
allocation of resources (Danzberger, 1994).
Leadership
Leadership is a process that is developed throughout time. Leadership involves common
goals (set forth by the leader) that requires change, occurs in groups, and influences others
(Northouse, 2016). Leadership “is a process whereby an individual influences a group of
individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2016, p. 6). According to Northouse (2016),
leadership is a transactional process that involves an “interactive exchange between followers
and the leader” (p. 6). During this exchange, a leader should “make followers feel as if they are
part of the process of creating change by helping them make sense of the need to change”
(Bridwell-Mitchell & Mezias, 2012, p. 191). Interactive exchanges are important as they often
lead a member within the organization to feel as if he or she is an integral part of the
organization itself as well as part of the impending change. This collaboration and inclusiveness
makes the desired change less riddled with conflict and resistance. As such, leaders may
influence followers in a multitude of ways. They can utilize their knowledge of the
organizational culture to assist in the efforts to bring about change. Leaders can also influence
their followers by communicating with them, through understanding and using “the language,
23
symbolism and ritual” (Bridwell-Mitchell & Mezias, 2012, p. 196), that change is necessary and
is shared within the organization. Leaders can further assist followers by crafting a current
cultural perception that is closer to the leader’s desires for the change by using the five strategies
discussed by Bridwell-Mitchell and Mezias (2012): (a) dealing with optimism in the new way of
doing things, (b) acknowledging the symbolism within the culture, (c) removing the haze to
eliminate confusion and ambiguity, (d) buffering negative feedback, and (e) increasing
identification.
Ramaley (2002) noted that the leader extends his or her leadership to ensure that
individual members of a community develop a shared sense of purpose, learn to communicate
effectively with one another, and participate in collaborative work if they are to create
transformational change. Leaders must “understand the factors in the institutional culture and
history as well as in the external environment that can support or resist change” (p. 1). To this
end, understanding culture also leads to foresight in bringing together a shared understanding to
develop and have a very good guess on what reactions the change will bring forth from the
organization (McClellan, 2007).
Finally, Bolman and Deal (2017) contended that all leaders must possess a mental model
that is carried with them to assist with understanding and negotiating events. Framing makes it
easier for the leader to take bits of information and establish a coherent pattern that will assist
with making sense of the situation and in providing leadership.
School Board Leadership
California school boards have no particular affiliation to a specific political group; thus,
candidates are not required to belong to a political party (CSBA, 2007). In California, some
districts hold elections and others appoint whom they wish to be on their governing board. To be
24
eligible to run for a California school board of a school district, a person must meet the following
criteria:
• 18 years of age or older
• a citizen of the state;
• a resident of the school district;
• a registered voter; and
• not disqualified by the constitution or laws of the state from holding a civil office.
(p. 9)
Additionally, the prospective school board member cannot be an employee of the school district
in which he or she is seeking to be a governing member (CSBA, 2007).
As of 2005, there were 15,000 school districts in the United States, of which 79% had at-
large elections, 11% had district-based elections, 6% had a mixed electoral system, and 4% were
appointed (Berkman & Plutzer 2005). Local school board elections give citizens a chance to
participate in the local education process where school board members will serve for a 4-year
staggered term (Webber, 2010). School boards may consist of anywhere from five to eight board
members, each of whom plays an integral role in keeping schools on track with the vision of the
district. Elected board members are chosen differently if they are participating in elections for a
large or small district. Large-district elections tend to be far more competitive and more
expensive because they require board members to raise funds from a wider array of sources.
Additionally, large-district elections have more involvement as well as input from various
constituent groups (Hess, 2002).
There are far fewer board members who are appointed than elected to be on a district’s
school board. Approximately 4% of all board members are appointed and thus are selected in a
25
variety of ways. These appointments are typically “made by the board or a board officer filling a
vacant position (37.1 percent), by a city or town council (12.9 percent), and by the mayor (9.7
percent)” (Hess, 2002, p. 32). Other ways to be appointed are through such governances as the
“state, a combination of city council and township board, the governor, the superintendent, the
board of aldermen, and a probate judge” (Hess, 2002, p. 32).
Effective Governance: Superintendent–Board Relationships
The relationship that a superintendent has with school board members is vital in
educational quality (Honingh et al., 2018). This relationship is even more vital today because
state accountability measurements are readily available for the public to access. The CDE
(2020a) has a web-based reporting system that provides the public with pertinent quantitative
data regarding the state, local districts, and individual schools. The CDE’s (2019b)
Accountability Dashboard is an electronic data source that reports to the public the strengths,
weaknesses, and areas of growth. As such, the relationship between the superintendent and the
school board is a priority. This leadership team must concentrate on the various influences that
impact decision making, understanding roles, and working toward positive relationships with one
another. School board members must elicit local action for education but often find themselves
not understanding the differences between their responsibilities for policymaking and the
administrative responsibilities of the superintendent (Danzberger et al., 1987). Although the
relationship between a school board president and the superintendent is constantly changing,
professional development and training can assist with building trust and meaningful relationships
that are more effective and productive (Weiss et al., 2014).
Communication between the school board governance team and the superintendent is
vital for the successful oversight of the district they serve and in their relationship with the
26
superintendent. A relationship that is built on strong communication affects a board’s decision
more than any other factor. Although many school boards and superintendents make a concerted
effort to work toward effective and efficient communication with one another, it is unfortunate
that the demise of effective school board–superintendent relationships is often due to ineffective
communication (Hanover Research, 2014).
Communication through the use of public relations is important to all school boards, as
this is also another major responsibility of a school board. School board members must keep
communication with district staff and that of local taxpayers at the forefront of their minds
because they are given the task of being responsive to the concerns and interests of the
community in which they serve (CSBA, 2018b; Sell, 2006). In this light, it is also important for
district boards to increase their communication with the community to ensure that they market
their school district in an honest and positive manner (Sell, 2006).
Superintendent self-evaluations as well as board member self-evaluations are an effective
way to have ongoing conversations that will lead to strengthening the relationships of the
superintendent and the school board members. Although ongoing conversations that occur
should not replace the formal evaluation, not only will the latter improve the communication
between school board members and their superintendent but it will also prevent the possibility of
suppressed underlying issues blocking district progress (Hanover Research, 2014). As a result of
intensive board planning, a successfully conducted superintendent evaluation creates an
opportunity to effect change in the future performance of a superintendent (Hanover Research,
2014). For the evaluation process to be effective, it must be done frequently (approximately
every 1–2 years), be clear and concise, and be written with the district’s goals in mind.
27
During times of conflict, the superintendent must ensure that this conflict does not
impede decision making that would adversely affect student achievement. Superintendents and
local school boards must constantly work toward distancing any personal or professional
conflicts from the students they serve by continuing to focus on the success of the district
(Hanover Research, 2014). The Hanover Research (2014) report assists superintendents with
achieving this goal as it describes five types of conflict that may arise: (a) “philosophical (value
differences)”; (b) “resource-based (competition for scarce resources)”; (c) “interpersonal (e.g.,
personality clashes)”; (d) “territorial (power and jurisdictional disputes)”; and (e) “perceptual
(e.g., assumptions not validated)” (p. 12). A superintendent can utilize these five types of conflict
to assist in navigating through the conflict at hand as it rises.
Effective School Governance and Practices
Actions and the level of success from a district’s school board governance impact student
achievement and the success of the district (Hanover Research, 2014). The IASB’s Lighthouse
Inquiry study (Rice et al., 2000) was a meta-analysis of 27 school board governance studies and
the Educators Writers Association (2003), which discovered various functional and
dysfunctional differences among school boards as they related to student achievement (Hanover
Research, 2014). “The Lighthouse Inquiry study found that school boards who serve in high-
achieving districts are significantly different in their knowledge and beliefs than school boards in
low achieving districts” (Hanover Research, 2014, p. 18). Each of these studies found that there
is a relationship between school board governance and student achievement. The studies
discovered common behaviors and characteristics of successful school board governance and
practices (Hanover Research, 2014). Strategies for effective school governance that affect
student learning are as follows:
28
1. Non-negotiable goals are prevalent in districts that possess higher levels of
student achievement.
2. Unlike low-achieving districts, high-achieving school districts see social and
economic conditions as “challenges in the quest to help students succeed” (p. 18).
3. Board members in high-achieving districts are more aware and stay informed with
respect to school improvement initiatives.
4. Staff members in high-achieving districts align their building-specific practices
with school board goals.
5. To combat turnover, functional school boards implement processes for orienting
new school board members and seek continuous professional development
training opportunities for all school board members.
6. Functional school boards have minimal regulations.
7. Functional school boards are unified in their ethical communication and
interactions with the media.
Effective school board governance teams have strong ties to the community. To this end,
the specific best practice with respect to community relations is that effective school boards
protect their credibility as well as that of their superintendent and their district, through
consistent and ongoing honest messaging to the public. Successful school boards recognize and
utilize their role to influence and reach external stakeholders. Successful relationships built with
the community are utilized to develop comprehensive links that address the diverse educational
needs of all community members. The building of relationships and the variety of ways in which
school boards choose to communicate with the community allows board members the
opportunity to reach a large number of community stakeholders. A strong school board
29
governance team understands the important role of mass communication, how it impacts society
and, in turn, develops ways to utilize it as well as develops direct dialogue with other boards
(Hanover Research, 2014).
According to the CSBA (2019), unity and purpose allow boards to run effectively.
Specifically, in order to run smoothly, school boards must focus on learning and achievement for
all students as well as communicate a common vision in a transparent manner, because trust and
integrity are important for an efficiently run school board. The school boards that operate
effectively are those that govern in a dignified and professional manner, adhere to board-adopted
policies and procedures, and treat others with civility and respect. Additionally, school board
governance teams run effectively when they collectively take responsibility for their
performance as well as periodically self-evaluate their effectiveness. Finally, an effectively run
school board “ensures opportunities for the diverse range of views in the community to inform
board deliberations” (The Board section, para. 9).
Ineffective School Board Practices
Ineffective board governance teams tend to be unable to engage in healthy debates,
possess a lack of consensus on their roles as well as their purpose, and are unable to hold others
accountable or relate to their constituencies. Ineffective boards lack the goals and strategies
required to achieve expected results and cannot define their role in relation to that of the
superintendent (Danzberger, 1994). “Without such consensus, school boards will focus on the
short-term micro-management of the school system and will respond to special interests,
factions, and specific complaints of individual constituents” (Danzberger, 1994, p. 4). Phillip
Schlechty (as cited in Danzberger 1994) has made the point well that the “greatest barrier to
revitalizing America’s schools is that too many board members view themselves as political
30
leaders and too few view themselves as moral and cultural leaders” (p. 4). Critics agree that
school boards all too commonly:
• fail to provide far-reaching or politically risky leadership for reform;
• have become another level of administration, often micromanaging districts;
• are so splintered by members’ attempts to represent special interests or meet their
individual political needs that boards cannot govern effectively;
• are not spending enough time on educating themselves about issues or about
education policy making;
• have not provided the leadership required to mobilize other agencies and
organizations to meet the health and social service needs of students and their
families;
• do not exercise adequate policy oversight, lack adequate accountability measures,
and fail to communicate schools’ and school systems’ progress to the public:
• rely on rhetoric rather than action in devolving decision making on the schools;
• exhibit serious problems in their capacity to develop positive and productive,
lasting relationships with superintendents;
• pay little or no attention to their performance and to their needs for ongoing
training; and
• tend either to make decisions in response to the “issue of the day” in changing
communities or to govern to maintain the status quo in more stable communities
(Danzberger, 1994, p. 5).
31
Student Achievement and Effective Governance
School board members and superintendents have decision-making authority. They are
held accountable for the decisions they make but are not required to participate in professional
development to assist them with understanding their roles as members of a school board. Roberts
and Sampson (2011) conducted a mixed-methods study to determine whether professional
development of school board members had an effect on student achievement. They created an
eight-question instrument that contained both Likert and short-answer questions. The
questionnaire was emailed to 50 directors of the state school board association, and 52%
responded to the study. Thirty-one percent of those who responded mandated 8–16 hours of
school board member training, and 27% required training to begin in the 1st year. All state
directors indicated that they thought there was a link to school board professional development
and student achievement. Roberts and Sampson looked at the state rankings in 2009 by
Education Week and noted that the states that required training received a B or C grade, while
those that did not require training received a C or D grade.
Plough (2014) conducted a mixed-methods study to determine whether there was a
difference in low- and high-achieving districts and the perceptions that school board members
had about their own behaviors and beliefs relating to student achievement. Twenty-two school
districts with 105 school board members were identified to be in low-performing school districts,
and 17 school districts with 82 school board members were identified to be in high-performing
school districts. A closed 4-point scale survey was sent electronically; the survey also included
three open-ended questions. Interview questions were then developed based upon the answers to
the surveys that were received. The study found that low- and high-achieving districts were in
agreement that school board members are responsible for high levels of student learning and
32
must “possess a fundamental commitment to closing the achievement gap” (Plough, 2014, p. 47).
Members in high-performing school districts spent more time attending conferences than
members in low-performing school districts and felt that training was more important than
demonstrating their commitment. Additionally, members of high-performing school districts
thought that dedication to equality and democracy would allow their school board to run
efficiently and thus shed light on the type of training they felt was most beneficial to them.
Finally, members of high-performing school districts believed that connecting with the
community enhanced student achievement; therefore, they allocated resources for the purpose of
connecting with parents.
Using systematic review methodology, Honingh et al. (2018) attempted to find out
whether and how school boards were related to educational quality. Unlike a traditional literature
review, a systematic review was intentionally chosen in the effort to remove bias by identifying
literature in transparent, specific steps. Once review protocols were established, a data search
was conducted. After coding many studies, 16 were identified as possibly indicating whether
school boards were related to educational quality. The findings indicated that there was limited
research regarding school boards and student achievement and that with what little literature that
did exist, there was a lack of solid empirical evidence. This study found that there is a need for
more evidenced-based research, as it is important to learn the significance of how school boards
are related to educational quality.
MIG Training
Within the public sector governance refers to processes of regulation, coordination, and
control (Rhodes, 1997). There are various ways of governing when it comes to school board
training. Finding the type of model that best suits the needs of the district and its school board is
33
largely dependent on what the right fit is for that governing body. Although various boards
govern differently, the governance model does affect the dynamics of a school board (Ford &
Ihrke, 2016). The average board member typically has little or vague prior knowledge or
understanding of the work and responsibility that a board member must do—an unfortunate
situation given the importance of effective boards and governance (Renz, 2007). Many board
members feel unprepared for their new roles and responsibilities and do not possess the basic
knowledge of how to develop working relationships as a governing body. Although workshops
are offered and some may attend them, rarely does the entire team of board members attend such
workshops. School board members who realize the need for professional development and
understand that they are only effective as leaders if the entire board is also an effective leader
will participate in such acts as goal setting, self-performance evaluations, and overseeing the
implementation of board policies (Danzberger et al., 1987).
MIG training is California’s answer to ensuring that school board members are effective
in their roles and responsibilities. Per the CSBA (2018b), an excess of 2,000 board members and
superintendents have participated in the MIG program, with 90% of its graduates recommending
the program to other school board governing teams and more than 80% stating that the program
provided them with the knowledge necessary to effectively govern their districts. The MIG
training program provides local board members and their superintendents with the necessary
knowledge and appropriate skills to support and create a governance structure that will
effectively meet their district’s unique needs. The MIG training program has created modules to
provide core governance principles that are ideal for professional development training. The
modules operate on an accelerated timeline and are provided in a structured format that is
34
convenient and flexible for working professionals, as it allows participants to finish the program
at their own speed.
There are five course modules that are provided within the training program, each of
which has pre-course assignments that must be completed prior to attending the full-day course
and provides each participant with the necessary materials and handouts to support learning.
Each training module is available throughout the year at numerous locations throughout the state.
The five modules that are available to governing boards and superintendents are Foundations of
Effective Governance (setting direction), Policy and Judicial Review (student learning and
achievement), School Finance, Human Resources (collective bargaining), Community Relations
and Advocacy (governance integration).
Module 1
The Foundation of Effective Governance module focuses on trusteeship and governance
to assist with providing insight with respect to the roles and responsibilities of the school board
governance team. The Setting Direction portion of the module allows members of the
governance team to learn how to meet the needs of their district’s direction through the creation
of a vision. This vision will encompass the district’s commitment and beliefs by engaging
various stakeholders and focusing on student learning (CSBA, 2018b).
Module 2
The central focus of the Policy and Judicial Review module is (a) to learn about policy
and the developmental process of policy and (b) to understand how the role of the district,
community, and the school board’s policy development fits in the process. The student learning
and achievement portion of the module assists participants with aligning their responsibilities in
such a way as to support student learning. This support is accomplished through such acts as
35
utilizing data to make decisions and setting high expectations for student learning through policy
development (CSBA, 2018b).
Module 3
The School Finance training module teaches school board governance teams how to
create budget priorities that have a balance of meeting the needs of both district goals and goals
pertaining to student achievement. This module teaches the appropriate process for budget
development, adoption, revision, implementation, monitoring, and auditing a district’s finances
(CSBA, 2018b).
Module 4
The Human Resources module explores the relationship between the board and
superintendent by dealing with the various components necessary in employing a superintendent,
the responsibilities of the school board toward staff, a framework for evaluation, and
accountability for staff practices. The emphasis on collective bargaining shows insight on the
process and what the individual board member’s role is as part of the process. This training deals
with how to build a positive climate, monitor the collective bargaining process, and incorporate
successful communication strategies (CSBA, 2018b).
Module 5
The Community Relations and Advocacy module applies theory to common situations in
order to strengthen a local school board’s understanding of community leadership. This module
examines the role and responsibilities of the school board governance team as they pertain to
working with the media, managing a crisis, engaging in effective communication, increasing
community support, and becoming responsive to community needs. The Governance Integration
portion incorporates all concepts of trusteeship and governance with the responsibilities of the
36
school board governance team. Each member who takes this last model is recognized as a leader
who is committed to the community and education (CSBA, 2018b).
Accountability
In 1987 the National Academy of Education (as cited in Jacobson & Rothstein, 2008)
forewarned educators that they would soon measure what was valued but unmeasurable (e.g.,
courage, resilience, commitment, dedication, etc.). As such, they would begin to value what was
measurable more than what was not measurable (Jacobson & Rothstein, 2008). Today, there is
much emphasis on testing and the quantitative data that show the academic performance of
students. In relation to other countries, the academic performance of students in the United States
has declined since 2000, specifically in math, reading, and science. The data have demonstrated
that “large and persistent achievement gaps remain among students by income, language
background, and racial and ethnic group” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014, p. 4).
The web-based reporting system known as DataQuest provides the California public with
a variety of reports including school performance known as the California School Dashboard
(CDE, 2019b), test results (e.g., CAASSP, the Physical Fitness Test, etc.), student demographics
(e.g., enrollment, English learners, special education, graduation and dropout rates, etc.), school
staffing, postsecondary enrollment, absenteeism, student misconduct, and intervention data
(CDE, 2020). These data, which are readily available to all citizens, provide the information to
assess whether a district and/or school is meeting expectations.
The overall decline in student achievement coupled with public reporting systems have
increased accountability for all those in education and has mandated that educators track student
achievement in order to support a student’s growth. In the article by Darling-Hammond et al.
(2014), the authors contend that genuine accountability rests on three pillars that must constantly
37
be monitored for continuous improvement: meaningful learning, professional capacity, and
resource accountability. A school board member plays a role in each of the three pillars and is
often held accountable at a higher level than in years past.
Many citizens look at the success or failure of a policy within a school district as the
result of the efforts made at the local school board level (Danzberger et al., 1987). Fueled by the
concern and uncertainty of the role of the school board member as well as the need for
accountability and effectiveness, it is of utmost importance to ensure that board members receive
training (Renz, 2007). Although there was no single accountability definition that resulted in
organizational gains, there was an increase in test scores when a school board agreed to hold
others accountable (Ford & Ihrke, 2017). Thus, paramount to meeting the district’s goals is
ensuring that there is a shared vision between the superintendent and the school board members
on what their common definition of accountability looks like. There is a great demand for school
boards to have greater accountability; as such, it should be noted that more than half of all school
boards (60%) did not assess themselves in regard to their own performance (Danzberger et al.,
1987). It appears that accountability through the election process is no longer adequate as
citizens want regular assessments of their school board’s performance as well as their plan for
effectively improving their performance (Danzberger, et al. 1987).
Regardless of whether a school board member is in a low- or high-performing district,
board members want to ensure that all students engage in high levels of learning. As such, an
accountability measure to implement would be classroom observations, which ironically was not
done by school board members in either the low- or high-performing districts, according to
Plough (2014). What has been found, however, is that board members from low-performing
districts spent more time “monitoring student learning progress, adopting long-range and annual
38
goals” (Plough, 2014, p. 47), and ensuring that teachers are on target with the pacing guidelines
that will guarantee that all the essential standards are covered.
Conceptual Framework
The three theoretical frameworks that guide this study are the CSBA’s (2019)
Professional Governance Standards, the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000), and
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Reframing Organizations. These theoretical frameworks provide a
beneficial conceptual guide for the processes that school board members and their
superintendents may encounter as they work collaboratively to govern their respective school
districts. Each of these theoretical frameworks works to assist district leadership in excelling in
their roles and responsibilities, governance authority, and leadership capacity.
CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards
The foundation of American democracy lies in the public oversight of local government.
One such apparent example of this public oversight is with how local school boards are charged
by their community to “uphold the Constitution, protect the public interest in schools and ensure
that a high-quality education is provided to each student” (CSBA, 2019, Public Oversight
section, para. 1). The CSBA (2019) has recognized that local boards of education must govern
responsibly and effectively. As such, the CSBA (2018b) offers governance education for school
board members and superintendents. Adopting the Professional Governance Standards informs a
community that the governing board not only understands their roles and responsibilities but also
is dedicated to focusing on learning as well as achievement for all students (CSBA, 2018b). The
Professional Governance Standards provide a clear framework for school board members and
their superintendent to work effectively as a governance team. Commitment toward standards is
demonstrated when school boards incorporate them into their bylaws and then communicate
39
them to their community (CSBA, 2019). “The Professional Governance Standards describe the
three components vital to effective school governance: the attributes of an effective individual
trustee, the attributes of an effective governing board, and the specific jobs the board performs in
its governance role” (CSBA, 2019, para. 2).
The MIG training program offered by the CSBA (2018b) is designed to equip board
members and superintendents with the appropriate knowledge and skills necessary to
collaboratively build and support an effective governance structure for their school districts.
MIG training is at the center of the present study, as the purpose was to determine whether
school board training has improved relationships through the benefits of MIG training, as well as
the implications for effective governance and student achievement. With this concept in mind, it
is logical to utilize the CSBA’s (2019) Professional Governance Standards as one of the
theoretical frameworks that guided the study.
The Lighthouse Inquiry
In 2000–2001, the IASB conducted a research project whose goal was to identify the
“links between what School Boards do and the achievement of students in schools” (Rice et al.,
2000, p. 4). Delagardelle (2008) found that the study also included the perceptions of school
board members regarding their roles, responsibilities, knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. The
goal of the Lighthouse research study was that its results would “serve as a “lighthouse to guide
other school boards in their efforts to improve student achievement and to guide a state-level
association in our efforts to help them do so” (Rice et al., 2000, p. 4). Specifically, Delagardelle
noted that the Lighthouse study compared school boards in districts that did well with those in
districts that did less well and discussed the differences between boards that were related to
bringing about positive change and improvement. The Lighthouse study is most commonly
40
referenced because it deals with many areas in which school board members could find
themselves getting stuck in a rut and provides information for those who desire to move
progressively forward. Additionally, it was found that many of those surveyed expressed having
the knowledge and beliefs that were later articulated to be the seven conditions for school
renewal and productive change:
1. Emphasis on Building a Human Organizational System
2. Ability to Create and Sustain Initiatives
3. Supportive Workplace for Staff
4. Staff Development
5. Support for School Sites through Data and Information
6. Community Involvement
7. Integrated Leadership (Rice et al., 2000, p. 7)
In the above seven conditions, it is important to note that each of the conditions can be
fostered and learned by ensuring that all school board members receive professional
development training. It is also important to note that MIG training covers the seven conditions
for school renewal and productive change.
The IASB’s study identified five key principles that are necessary to create a positive
board and superintendent relationship:
• Principle 1: Clarify roles and expectations for board members and superintendent.
• Principle 2: Establish and implement a clear process for communication between
board members and administration.
• Principle 3: Actively work to build trust and mutual respect between the board
and administrative team.
41
• Principle 4: Evaluate the whole team.
• Principle 5: Actively work on improved decision-making. (Hanover Research,
2014, p. 5)
Each of these five principles that are necessary to create positive relationships can be
found as topics covered in the MIG training program modules (CSBA, 2018b).
In 1996 the New England School Development Council developed a study to attempt to
learn why some school district board–superintendent teams work smoothly together to improve
their schools while others are mired in conflict (as cited in Rice et al., 2000). The findings
supported the work of the IASB’s Lighthouse report in that the researchers noted commonalities
among school districts that were considered “high” or “low”:
• Build a foundation for teamwork.
• Get the best and most capable team players.
• Ensure that team players know their roles and responsibilities.
• Get into team training.
• Adopt good team strategies.
• Convince others to support the team. (Rice et al., 2000, p. 34)
Again, it should be noted that these commonalities among “high” and “low” school
districts are all areas that are covered in the MIG training (CSBA, 2018b). Given that the present
study focused on the impact that MIG training has on both school governance and student
achievement, it is important to use the Lighthouse Inquiry’s findings to guide school boards as
they work toward improving student achievement.
42
Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames
Bolman and Deal (2017) contended that leaders fail to make sense of complex situations
because they become clueless. This state occurs when a leader is unaware of what is truly
occurring within the organization. When leaders are clueless, they do not see a better solution;
therefore, they continue to ineffectively have the organization function in the same manner. As a
result of this cluelessness, leaders who wish to be effective must reframe their thinking by
looking at situations from various angles. The ability to look at a situation through multiple
lenses is known as reframing. Reframing allows leaders to develop alternative diagnoses and
strategies that will result in organizational effectiveness. Bolman and Deal (2017) noted that
every scenario that leaders will face can be viewed within four distinct frames that will allow
them to see a complete, comprehensive picture of what is going on and what the next steps
should be. Bolman and Deal’s (2008, 2017) four-frame model for effective leadership is a set of
ideas and assumptions through which leaders can mentally understand and navigate when a
situation requires them to negotiate a particular territory. Framing a situation allows this mental
map to guide leaders to the proper destination by allowing them to combine key bits of
information to match situational clues that make a coherent pattern meaningful as it pertains to
that frame. The ability to frame also lessens the chances that a leader will lock into the first
answer or solution that fits, as framing helps leaders to define the questions mentally asked and
the solutions to consider. Bolman and Deal’s (2008, 2017) four frames are the following:
structural, human resource, political, and symbolic.
In an organization the structural frame is the organizational chart that depicts how things
fit within the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The structural frame focuses on such areas as
professional formal relationships, planning, structures, division of labor, and policies. The
43
structural frame is often supported by sociology and the management sciences and views
organizations as factories or machines. This frame emphasizes goals, structure, formal
relationships, rules, systems, and hierarchies.
In contrast to the structural frame, the human resource frame looks at scenarios through
the lens of its people because their energy, motivation, attitude, skills, and the like are vital to the
success of the organization. This lens requires the leader to acknowledge both the requirements
of the organization and the needs of its employees. The human resource frame is supported by
the psychology disciplines and views organizations as families. This lens centers around what an
organization and its people can do for one another while employees feel good about themselves.
The world of political science supports the political frame, which requires the leader to
consider that employees compete for power and scarce resources. Members of the organization
have a difference in values, beliefs, interests, behaviors, and skills and create coalitions to further
their political needs. The political frame often sees organizations as jungles or contests where
individuals are often interested in vying for power as they deal with bargaining, negotiations, and
so on.
Finally, the symbolic frame requires the leader to acknowledge the cultural and symbolic
aspects of the organization when thinking of the next steps in decision making. The symbolic
frame focuses on the organization’s core through the issues of meaning and faith in ritual, story,
play, and culture. Within the symbolic lens, symbols and spirit are looked upon as keys to an
organization’s success. This lens draws upon social and cultural anthropology as it focuses on
the symbolism of the organization’s culture. There is more value in the organization’s myths,
rituals, stories, and heroes as opposed to policies and procedures.
44
Working knowledge of each of these leadership frames provides superintendents and
school board members with another effective tool that will allow them to utilize a new lens to
assist them with navigating through a process when making decisions that impact school
governance and/or student achievement. These frames provide leadership with multiple ways
through which to view any scenario.
Chapter Summary
With increased accountability for student performance, parents, local government leaders,
and community members are more aware of the need for educational quality and are therefore
holding not only teachers and site administration accountable but also school districts,
superintendents, and school board members. The increased accountability toward district school
board members and their superintendent increases the need to determine how professional
development training encourages and equips school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective school governance. Further research is needed in this area, as a majority of the states do
not mandate professional development and the majority of districts in California do not mandate
MIG training. As such, identifying which factors impact whether a school board member decides
to participate or not participate in MIG training is important to leaders who wish to encourage
their school boards to participate in MIG training. Finding how MIG training encourages and
equips school board members to exhibit behaviors of effective school governance is beneficial to
provide data that supports why a board member should attend training. Studying the barriers to
participating in MIG training is beneficial, as it will assist school district superintendents with
information about being proactive in providing solutions to these barriers.
This research study looked at the factors that impact whether school board members
participate in MIG training and how MIG training equips school board members with the
45
information needed to exhibit behaviors of effective school board governance and affect student
achievement.
46
Chapter Three: Methodology
Much research has been done regarding the relationship of school board members and
superintendents. This research has often focused on the importance of effective communication,
collaboration, shared vision, beliefs and mission, trust, and clarity of roles. Although literature
stresses the importance of relationships among school board members and superintendents, it
also has focused on the importance of the superintendent as leader. As leaders, superintendents
are no longer just responsible for managing the day-to-day activities (i.e., managing the budget,
accounting books, and buildings) but also for being leaders who promote collaboration,
communication, community building, and curricular choices (Hendricks, 2013).
Purpose of Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researcher examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its impact on school
governance and student achievement.
As such, for the purpose of this study, the following research questions guided the present
study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
47
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
This chapter discusses the research design; population and sample; and research
procedures including instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. The chapter also deals
with ethical considerations.
Thematic Work Group
This study was conducted as part of a 20-member thematic dissertation work group at the
University of Southern California (USC). In collaboration, the thematic work group developed
the purpose of the study, designed the problem statement, formulated the research questions and
research surveys, recruitment emails, and selected the appropriate qualitative methodology. The
thematic dissertation work group also examined and discussed the three conceptual frameworks
that were the basis for the study. Although completed individually, there may be portions of the
study that will be very similar. While individual team data were shared with the thematic work
group, team members individually wrote their own findings.
Research Design
Qualitative Research Instrument
The design used for this research study was a general qualitative approach to answer the
three research questions. The general qualitative approach was used for seeing the world in terms
of people, situations, and events (Maxwell, 2013). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that
researchers who wish to learn more about their own practice and to improve upon their practice
must ask researchable questions. Research that is “focused on discovery, insight and
understanding from the perspectives of those being studied offers the greatest promise of making
a difference in people’s lives” (p. 1). The qualitative method approach allowed the thematic
dissertation group to understand whether school board training had improved the relationship
48
between school boards and superintendents. Specifically, the qualitative method allowed the
researchers to examine the benefit of the MIG training and its implications for school board
members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance. Moreover, the qualitative
approach allowed the researcher to understand and examine the perceptions of school board
members and superintendents regarding MIG training and its impact on school governance and
student achievement.
Interviews for both school board members and superintendents were chosen as an
instrument because the questions crafted better assisted the research team with discovering
participants’ views of MIG training. Specifically, the interview protocol allowed the researcher
to see how MIG training had affected how participants governed their school districts, the role
that MIG training had played on strengthening the collaborative process, the perceived
importance of the modules, how MIG training has impacted student achievement, and how
learned knowledge from MIG training was being utilized in their role as school board member
and/or superintendent.
As Agee (2009) discussed, when writing questions, it is best to frame the words so that
the question will link to the initial research questions. Thus, each research question for the study
was designed to link back to one of the three research questions. Maxwell (2013) stated that
research questions are at the center of a study because they link all components of the study back
to the research design. In a qualitative study it is important to note that focused questions are a
result of an interactive design process as opposed to a starting point for the research design
(Maxwell, 2013). The questions were finalized after the literature review was conducted and
empirical data from various research studies were reviewed.
49
With this concept in mind, when creating the interview guides, a conscious effort was
taken to frame each question appropriately. Maxwell (2013) provided three important reasons
why framing questions is essential for a research study: avoiding generalization; recognizing the
diversity among individuals; and focusing on beliefs, actions, and events as they pertain to the
actual context. The thematic dissertation research study team members chose to structure the
research questions with the focus of what they want to learn by structuring the beginning of each
question with such words as “how,” “what,” and “which” instead of designing close-ended
questions that would require a yes or no answer. Creswell and Creswell (2018) advocated for
research questions to begin with the words “what” or “how,” as they assist with conveying an
open-ended and emerging design that allows participants to freely express their views as opposed
to a “why” question that often asks for participants to apply probable cause–effect thinking.
Quantitative Research Instrument
Quantitative data were gathered through a survey tool link that was emailed to each
participant. The survey design answered three types of questions: descriptive, relationships
between variables, and predictive relationships between variables over time. The primary
purpose of the surveys for both school board members and superintendents was to allow the
research team to identify trends, attitudes, and opinions with respect to MIG training. In
designing the surveys, it was important for the research team to ensure that the survey questions
for the school board members and the superintendents were identical in content, in format, and in
sequencing of the questions. A wave analysis was performed on a weekly basis to determine
whether response items had changed (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
50
Triangulation
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), triangulation means that three independent
measures agree, or at least do not contradict one another; and it uses multiple sources of data to
compare and cross-check the data that are collected. Methodological triangulation involves the
use of multiple methods to analyze and study a single program (Patton, 2002). Because
triangulation has different foci, it is important to have different kinds of measurements that
require multiple opportunities for verification (Miles et al., 2014). Investigator triangulation
strengthens a study when multiple investigators collect and analyze data. A researcher who uses
triangulation utilizes a powerful strategy that makes “use of more than one data collection
method, multiple sources of data, multiple investigators, or multiple theories” (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 245). This process, in turn, increases the credibility and validity of the research.
For the purpose of this study, triangulation was done through the use of interviews and research
guides, literature reviews, and the use of previously discussed conceptual frameworks: Bolman
and Deal’s (2008) four-frame model for effective leadership, the CSBA’s (n.d.) Professional
Governance Standards, and the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Rice et al., 2000).
Triangulation is also used as a way to establish validity, reliability, and trustworthiness.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) outlined research strategies that help to establish credibility, validity,
and trustworthiness. Patton (2002) noted that validity is enhanced when multiple instruments
measure the study. Ensuring validity and reliability in a research study involves conducting the
study in an ethical manner. Trustworthiness is gained when rigor and ethical practice in a study
exist. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that in research, “validity and reliability are concerns
that can be approached through careful attention to a study’s conceptualization and the way in
which the data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted, and the way in which the findings are
51
presented” (p. 238). Therefore, for the purposes of this research study, peer debriefing during the
data collection process occurred as a way to cross-check the data received. Transcriptions of the
interviews were checked to assist with establishing reliability. Data were regularly compared
with codes to ensure consistency and uniformity in coding. Triangulation assisted with
establishing trustworthiness and with developing emerging themes, as well as with identifying
and explaining any researcher bias.
Population and Sample
Due to the fact that the CSBA would not delineate which school boards in California
school districts had completed MIG training, the thematic dissertation team had to randomly
select which districts to contact to inquire about their participation. The criteria for determining
the sample population were based on the need to gather as much data from districts located in the
following counties: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Ventura.
The nonprobability sampling method discussed by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) was
chosen for this study because the data were used to discover the implications and relationships
that linked participation in MIG training. Specifically, convenience sampling and purposive
sampling were chosen. Convenience sampling was used as the research methods team initially
determined which districts they themselves would sample based on the geographic region in
which the researchers lived or worked. Additionally, the sample included those who were willing
to participate in the study (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Thus, this study involved a “type of
nonprobability or nonrandom sampling where members of the target population that meet certain
practical criteria, such as easy accessibility and geographical proximity are included for the
purpose of the study” (Etikan et al., 2016, p. 2). It was imperative to utilize purposive sampling
52
because groups of individuals were identified as necessary to either interview or survey to gain
knowledge about their participation in MIG training. As such, those identified for participation in
this study were selected based on being knowledgeable about and having attended MIG training.
In order to select the participants who met certain criteria, the research study team then discussed
the specific selection criteria that a potential participant had to meet to sufficiently answer the
research questions of the study. In selecting the superintendents and school board members to
both interview and survey, it was decided that the following relevant characteristics would be
identified:
1. The superintendent and school board members had attended the CSBA’s MIG
training.
2. The majority of the school board members had attended the CSBA’s MIG
training.
3. The individuals were currently serving in California school districts.
The research study team wanted to ensure that all participants had attended MIG training
so that they could share their perceptions of the training modules’ impact on school governance
and student achievement. It was also important for the participants to serve in a California public
school district because they would be serving in the same state that did not mandate training and
because MIG training is offered only to those school board members who serve in California.
Given the time frame in which to conduct the research as well as the current pandemic’s stay-at-
home restrictions, it was extremely important to have flexibility in participants’ availability to
take the survey and be interviewed via Zoom.
With the desired selection criteria in mind, the research study team began to seek data
from counties and districts. After ascertaining the requested data, the dissertation thematic
53
research team had divided into groups of six or seven. Each individual within each group had a
total of three districts from which to gather data.
Research Procedures
Initial contact with potential participants was made via email by using an initial inquiry
email, which was sent to determine whether a majority of school board members in the district
had received MIG training. Once the districts were identified where the majority of school board
members had completed some modules within the MIG training program, the members of the
thematic dissertation research group followed up with each superintendent and provided a
recruitment and informational letter to seek their support to participate in this research study
(Appendix A). With the superintendents’ support, the data collection was via a school board
member survey (Appendix B), a superintendent survey (Appendix C), a school board member
interview guide (Appendix D), and a superintendent interview guide (Appendix E). Erickson
(1986) pointed out that trust and rapport are essential in gaining as unlimited access to the setting
as possible. If the superintendent consents to the participation of his or her district in the study, in
accordance with Glesne’s (2011) discussion on research practices, informed consent personal
emails were sent to each potential participating school board member with information to seek
their participation and consent (see Informed Consent in Appendix F). This information
explicitly stated the purpose of the study, the commitment to confidentiality, transparency in that
the interview would be recorded, and advising individuals that they could cease participation at
any time in the process. Potential participants were advised what information was being sought,
how interviews would be conducted, and approximately how long the interview would take (up
to 45 minutes). The detailed information assisted individuals in making informed decisions about
participating in the study.
54
The researcher followed up each email with several check in emails to inquire whether
the school board member had received the initial email or had any questions. Once participants
agreed to an interview and survey, an email with the survey link was sent to each individual
participant. After the survey was received, arrangements were made regarding the date and time
of the interviews. Due to the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews had to
be conducted remotely (via Zoom) rather than in person. As Erickson (1986) noted, the
negotiation regarding entry is a vital, complex process that continues throughout the course of
the data collection. This process allowed researchers to build rapport and further establish mutual
trust that would then assist them in obtaining the data for the parameters of the research study.
Data Collection
For the purposes of this research study, four main components were taken into account
when collecting data for this research study (Maxwell, 2013):
• The research relationships that you establish with those you study
• Selection: what settings or individuals you decide to observe and what other
sources of information you decide to use
• Data collection: how you gather information you will use
• Data Analysis: what you do with this information to make sense of it (p. 90)
Deciding on the protocol for each component allowed the thematic dissertation research
team to develop a design in which components went well together. It also allowed the thematic
research dissertation team to sharpen the focus on the direction of who, where, and how
participants would be surveyed and interviewed. This protocol provided a starting point, a goal,
and specified an order for the thematic dissertation team members to conduct the tasks necessary
55
for the research study. Both the survey and interview questions were aligned with the research
questions, as shown in the Question Alignment Matrix in Appendix G.
Surveys
Survey links were emailed to school board members and superintendents (Appendices B
and C, respectively) who worked in districts that met the above-mentioned criteria. The surveys
for this research project were created collaboratively by the research study team. Twenty
questions were created to specifically answer the three research questions. To eliminate possible
bias in the nature of questioning, the sequencing of all 20 questions was identical. The focus of
the superintendent’s survey was to gauge superintendents’ perceptions on the influence that MIG
training had on school board members’ effective governance and impact on student achievement.
The focus of the school board member survey was to gauge members’ personal perceptions on
the influence that MIG training had on their ability to effectively govern and impact student
achievement.
Interview Guides
Each participant was offered several dates and times in which the interview could
possibly take place remotely. The interviews lasted up to 45 minutes. The ability to record and
immediately review notes after the interview was important as the pertinent details of the
interview would be accurately noted when the interview was still fresh in the researcher’s mind.
Each interview was audio recorded via Zoom or speaker phone. This procedure allowed the
transcription process to be easier so that the researchers did not have to be concerned about
writing copious notes while conducting a remote interview. The researcher utilized the Rev.com
transcription service to assist with transcribing each interview. The transcribed data were then
coded and run through Atlas.ti. In accordance with the USC research policy guidelines, all
56
transcriptions, recordings, and survey responses will be kept in a locked drawer located in this
researcher’s home office for 5 years.
Data Analysis
The research dissertation team elected to follow Creswell and Creswell’s (2018) model
for qualitative data analysis and interpretation, which entailed the following five steps:
• Organize and prepare data for analysis.
• Read and reflect on the data to identify emerging patterns.
• Label and code the data into chunks to create meaning.
• Utilize the codes to generate themes from the data.
• Represent the emerging themes into a descriptive narrative. (p. 193)
Once all data were collected, they were analyzed as results pertained to answering each
of the research questions. Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) process to ensure open coding was
carried out by means of the ATLAS.ti software. Specifically, a code list was developed from
segments of data that appeared to be a theme, from some of the literature, and from other data
segments that appeared frequently during the interviews. Upon reviewing the transcriptions of
the audio recordings of the interviewees, the data segments were converted into codes. Each data
segment contained open codes with precise categories that assisted with analytical coding
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All interviews were transcribed and then highlighted by colors to
align with corresponding codes, as outlined in the codebook. If any clarification was needed
from the interview notes, the recordings were utilized to seek clarification. All color-coded items
were then put into a matrix according to their code to assist with seeing patterns in the data. This
process was important in seeing smaller pieces of information and how they fit into the bigger
picture of analysis that occurred. In looking at the patterns, the ability to categorize themes; to
57
look for causes and explanations; and to see patterns, relationships, and theoretical constructs
becomes easier (Miles et al., 2014).
The two-step coding process of Miles et al. (2014) was used to code the data. The first step
allowed researchers to summarize segments of data as they looked for threads to tie together; the
second step allowed the researcher to summarize data in smaller categories, themes, and
constructs. The data were then analyzed as Creswell and Creswell (2018) suggested: The overall
findings were summarized; the findings were compared with the literature; and each researcher’s
personal view of the findings was discussed with the thematic research dissertation team.
Limitations of the research and future research possibilities were also discussed among the
thematic dissertation team members.
Ethical Considerations
All members of the thematic dissertation research study team completed USC’s IRB
process. The Collaborative IRB Training Initiative (CITI) is a program that promotes research
enterprise through training. The training provides participants with web-based educational
courses that educate researchers in research protocols. Specifically, training topics cover such
areas as ethics, regulatory oversight, responsible conduct of research, research administration,
and the like. As such, each member of the thematic dissertation research team completed all
modules for Human Research and Social Behavior of Human Subjects courses and received a
certificate of completion. As part of this study, the research dissertation team anticipated and
followed all ethical issues that might arise in this study, including the informed consent, data
collection, data analysis, data reporting, data sharing, storing data, and confidentiality (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). Therefore, the research team protected the rights of the participants through
58
the dissemination of a variety of documents with pertinent information related to the study (see
appendices):
• Built trust and conveyed the extent of anticipated disruption in gaining access to
participants and stakeholders;
• Informed participants of their ability to withdraw from the study at any time
during the study;
• Assigned pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of participants;
• Shared the data with others on the research team;
• Reported honestly; and
• To eliminate bias, used the agreed-upon selection criteria for which participants
would receive a survey.
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to outline the particular research methodology utilized to
research the problem of the study. This chapter discussed the research design of the study that
focused on the theoretical frameworks that guided the study, the details of the thematic work
group, and how triangulation was used to address the validity of the study. Sampling strategies,
access and entry, and ethical considerations were also discussed. The chapter described the
process that was used to answer the three research questions posed for this qualitative case study.
Additionally, this chapter provided an overview on the particulars for identifying the sample
population, developing the instrumentation, and the procedures for data collection and analysis.
59
Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on performance
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researcher examined the benefit of the MIG
training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of
effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of
school board members and superintendents regarding MIG training and its perceived impact on
school governance and student achievement.
This chapter presents the extensive analysis of the data collected individually and
compares them to the data for the whole thematic work group. Each thematic cohort member
interviewed individuals in three school districts whose superintendent and a majority of their
school board members had participated in MIG. The total participant pool consisted of 180
school board members and 62 superintendents. For the purpose of this study, research literature
was reviewed, surveys were collected via Qualtrics, interviews were conducted remotely and
transcribed via Rev.com, and coded via Atlas.ti. All coded data were analyzed for common
themes and patterns that will be discussed in detail in this chapter. All data were triangulated
with the conceptual frameworks presented in this study. The chapter concludes with a summary
of the significant findings of the following three research questions that were used as a guide and
as the basis to analyze and discuss the data that were collected:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
60
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Participants and School Districts
Several attempts were made to seek which districts had participated in MIG training, but
the release of the data from the CSBA was never actualized. Mass emails and phone calls were
made to various southern California districts to determine whether they possessed the minimum
criteria necessary to be eligible to participate for this study:
1. The superintendent and school board members had attended CSBA’s MIG
training.
2. The majority of the school board members had attended CSBA’s MIG training.
3. The individuals were currently serving in California school districts.
If all three criteria were met, then the superintendent was asked whether he or she would
show support of the study by participating in it. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some districts
chose to drop out of this research study; thus, districts in northern California were also
prescreened to see whether they met the minimum criteria for this study. This process yielded 62
districts in the following 12 California counties: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey,
Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and
Ventura.
Table 1 shows that a total of 186 school board members, and 62 superintendents were
identified as meeting the criteria to participate in this study. Of the 186 survey links sent out, 180
of completed school board member surveys were received and 177 interviews were conducted.
One hundred percent of the superintendent surveys and interviews were completed. Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, all interviews were conducted remotely for this study. This researcher
specifically worked with three districts and gathered interview and survey data from three
61
superintendents and nine school board members. The total number of individual and combined
cohort data encompassed such a large database that the research findings are generalizable to the
state of California.
Table 1
Summary of Participants
Participants
n
%
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses
62
100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses
180
97
Interviews 177 95
62
For the purpose of this case study, districts were assigned pseudonyms to protect the
identity of the participants. As such, the superintendent and school board members for District A
will hereafter be referred to as SDA Sup1, SDA SBM1, SDA SBM2, SDA SBM3. Likewise, the
superintendent and school board members for Districts B and C will respectively be referred to
in a similar fashion (Table 2).
Table 2
Summary of Pseudonyms Used in Study
District Pseudonyms Participant Pseudonyms
School District A (SDA) SDA Sup1
SDA SBM1
SDA SBM2
SDA SBM3
School District B (SDB) SDB Sup2
SDB SBM1
SDB SBM2
SDB SBM3
School District C (SDC) SDC Sup3
SDC SBM1
SDC SBM2
SDC SBM3
Note. SD = school district; Sup = superintendent; SBM = school board member.
63
District A
District A was a mid-size union high school district serving 13, 695 students at the time
of this study. This ninth to 12th-grade school district was led by a superintendent who had sat in
the seat for 6 years. SDA Sup1 was a superintendent for 7 years at another school district; he had
a total of 36 years of work experience in the field of education. District A was located in Orange
County, served a 50-square-mile area, and had six comprehensive high schools. There were a
total of five school board members on this governance team.
Demographically, District A possessed 57.2% Hispanic, 15.4% White, 18.5% Asian,
1.9% African American, and 3.7% Filipino students. There were 51.7% socioeconomically
disadvantaged students, 10.4% English Learners (ELs), and 0.6% foster youth. According to the
California School Dashboard data (CDE, 2019b), both their California Assessment of Student
Performance and Progress (CAASSP) scores in Math (21.4 points below standard, increased 5
points) and English Language Arts (ELA; 39.9 points above the standard, increased 3.9 points)
were in the green. Ninety-three point 9% of students graduated (1% decline) in 2019, which
placed them in the yellow
1
.
District B
District B was a mid-size unified school district that served 5,442 students. This
transitional kindergarten (TK) to 12th-grade school district was led by a superintendent who had
served in this role for 8 years and possessed a total of 35 years of work experience in K-12
education. District B was located in Los Angeles County. It had one early learning center, five
1
As depicted in the California School Dashboard (CDE, 2019b), schools and districts
receive one of five color-coded performance levels on the state indicators. The highest
performance level is blue, followed by green, yellow, orange and red (lowest level) schools that
served kindergarten through fifth grade, four middle schools serving Grades 6–8.
64
elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools. There were a total of five school
board members on this team.
Demographically, District B had 64.6% Hispanics, 18.9% Whites, 5% Asians, 5.3%
African Americans and 2.7% Filipino students. There were 58.3% socioeconomically
disadvantaged students, 10.2% ELs, and 0.6% foster youth. According to the California School
Dashboard data, both the CAASSP scores in Math (24 points below standard, increased 5 points)
and ELA (17.2 points below the standard, increased 4.5 points) were in the green. Ninety-two
point 8% students graduated (4.6% increase) in 2019, which placed them in the green.
District C
District C was a large, unified school district that served 21,012 students. This
kindergarten through 12th-grade school district was led by a superintendent who had served in
this capacity for 4 years. SDC Sup3 was an assistant superintendent for 14 years at a previous
school district and had a total of 31 years of work experience in the field of education. District C
encompassed 147 square miles and was located in San Bernardino County. This district has 16
elementary and three comprehensive high schools. There were a total of five school board
members on this team.
Demographically, District C had 50.4% Hispanic, 26.8% White, 8.6% Asian, 6.1%
African American, and 2.4% Filipino students. There were 59.8% socioeconomically
disadvantaged students, 8.8% ELs, and 0.6% foster youth. According to the California School
Dashboard data, the CAASSP scores in Math were in the yellow (21.1 points below the standard,
decline of 4.9 points); ELA scores were in the green (14.9 points above the standard, decline of
4.2 points). Ninety-two point 5% students graduated (2.1% increase) in 2019, which placed them
in the green.
65
Presentation of the Data
Each research question for the study sought to discover whether MIG training had a
perceived impact on school governance and student achievement. School governance team
members require a vast amount of expertise in a variety of areas as they make complex and
critical decisions that impact student achievement. Research has demonstrated that school boards
can influence academic achievement outcomes in a variety of ways. Those ways are through
positively influencing a school’s culture, by becoming united through establishing good
relationships with their superintendents, and by taking the necessary time to monitor student
achievement on an ongoing basis (Maranto et al., 2017).
In order to track the answers for each essential research question, the interview questions
were coded in Atlas.ti under three overarching categories (Concepts, Frames, and Standards) that
included the three theoretical frameworks used for this study. Concepts encompassed IASB’s
Lighthouse Inquiry study (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000). Frames represented Bolman
and Deal’s (2017) four frame model of leadership. Standards constituted CSBA’s (2019)
Professional Governance Standards. Each of the overarching categories was assigned specific
colors to assist with determining the trends and patterns. All survey data were analyzed through
the use of Qualtrics.
The research results will be presented by each research question. Three sources of data
(i.e., structured school board member and superintendent interviews, school board member and
superintendent surveys, and the theoretical frameworks) were triangulated to articulate the major
themes.
66
Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “What factors impact the decision of school board members
to participate in the MIG training program?” Per the literature, professional development is
essential in the development of effective school boards as training provides the skills and
information necessary to efficiently and effectively run a school district (Roberts & Sampson,
2011). As such, this question was designed to better understand the motivation behind why a
school board member decided to participate in MIG and to ascertain what obstacles (if any)
would hinder California school board members in participating in the MIG training. This
knowledge should assist with understanding how to motivate future school board members to
participate in MIG and to eliminate barriers for increased participation in MIG. Three themes
were identified from both the interview and survey data. First, respondents stated that their desire
to attend MIG stemmed from self-motivation and a deep desire to gain a different perspective
through learning their role as school board members. Second, the desire to increase effective
governance and to gain role clarity was another reason why school board members found
themselves attending MIG. Finally, in the third theme, school board members recognized the
value in communication and collaboration with fellow participants at locally hosted or hybrid
trainings, and the elimination of these would decrease the desire to participate in MIG training.
Self-Motivation and Desire for Learning
Data analysis of the surveys completed by both the school board members and
superintendents revealed that self-motivation and desire to learn as the primary indicators as to
why they attended MIG training. Survey participants were asked to identify the primary factor
that influenced their participation in the MIG training. They were allowed to check all options
that were applicable to them. Forty-seven percent (n = 7) of the school board members stated that
67
the number one reason that they participated in MIG training was self-motivation.
Superintendents indicated that four reasons—board expectation, 25%; self-motivation, 25%;
increasing effective governance, 25%; and being encouraged to attend training by a board
member, 25%—were all factors in their school board members attending MIG training. These
statistics were supported by the broader cohort data as both superintendents and school board
members ranked self-motivation as the primary factor in influencing participation in MIG
training (see Table 3).
Table 3
Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in the Masters in
Governance Training
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f f
School board expectation 33 84
Self-motivation 37 133
Encouraged by board members 35 71
Increasing student achievement 9 53
Increasing effective
government
31 128
Unable to determine 0 0
Other 3 10
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
68
Interview data further suggested that self-motivation and the desire to gain a different
perspective through learning how to view the role as a school board member were motivating
factors that contributed to the desire to attend MIG training. SDA SBM3 acknowledged that she
was motivated to attend MIG because the role of being a school board member requires learning
a different perspective when looking at things:
Although I’m an educator by trade, I have my special education credential, a full
counseling credential, and an admin credential in California. So, I was not unfamiliar
with the system and how it works. Being on a school board is such a different role, and
you look at things from such a different perspective that it made sense for me to take the
Masters in Governance classes, because the idea was to gain a better perspective of how
to look at these systems from the perspective of a school board member rather than a
school district employee.
Additionally, SDC SBM3 revealed how she was motivated to attend MIG as she desired
the knowledge to assist her with how to work, look, and approach things in a different way:
I’ve been in for 9 months. I feel like I need to learn a different way to approach things
and a different way to do it. I was the fixer of everything. People would call me...and I
would fix it—I would know exactly who to call and get it done...the training helped me
understand where my parameters are and how to go about it now.
Further analysis of the survey supported school board members and superintendents in
their belief that the learning acquired from MIG is beneficial for school board members to attend.
Forty-four percent (n = 4) of the school board members strongly agreed and 33% (n = 3) agreed
that MIG training should be mandated in the state of California. The results were supported by
superintendents, as 67% (n = 2) strongly agreed and 33% (n = 1) agreed that MIG training
69
should be mandated in the state of California. This opinion was supported by the thematic
research work group data, as 64.5% of the superintendents and 40.6% of the school board
members strongly agreed to mandate MIG training (see Table 4).
Table 4
Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Should Be Mandated in California
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 40 64.5 73 40.6
Agree 17 27.4 65 36.1
Disagree 5 8.1 37 20.6
Strongly Disagree 0 0 5 2.8
70
School District A SBM3 believed that mandating training is a good idea as not everyone
possesses a background in education and the learning received at MIG is beneficial, because
running a school board is not like running a business:
Not every person who runs for and gets elected to school board has a background in
education. And school districts are not businesses. So, you can’t approach them like
they’re a business, even though some people like to think of it that way. So, I think an
idea of a standardized training that everyone should go through upon being elected to a
school board is not actually a bad idea.
Specifically, one superintendent (SDB Sup2) explained her belief in mandating training
because school board members are not aware of the “breadth” and “depth” of the position. She
also elaborated on the idea that it should be mandated as part of being a school board member
candidate:
I think that’s a great idea. I do. I think that that’s a great idea, because there’s so much to
learn and so much to do that any kind of training would be beneficial. I don’t think any
board member, really, when they get on the board, realizes the breadth and depth of what
they will be doing and the voyage upon which they’ve embarked...If they’re earnest about
what it is they’re doing, they should know what it is they will be doing and know the
kinds of decisions and the kinds of actions that will be expected of them. So, to say that
it’s good enough for them to enroll and engage once they become a board member is
great, but if they want to be a real candidate, they should have gone through it already.
The theoretical framework that supported school board members receiving training to
provide a blueprint for “expectations and exchanges: among the internal players” (Bolman &
Deal, 2017, p. 51) is the four-frame leadership model, specifically the structural frame. The
71
structural approach in Bolman and Deal’s (2017) leadership model focuses primarily on the
design of the organization: the rules, roles, goals, and policies that are essential for the
organization to perform well. This frame provides the structure that can enhance or provide a
constraint on what an organization can or cannot do. MIG assists school board members with
“understanding more clearly what’s going on in the world around” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 43)
them. As such, it supports the MIG structure and training to educate its participants.
Increasing Effective Governance and Role Clarity
A school board governance team encompasses raising student achievement, providing
effective governance, and gaining community involvement to assist with the goal of raising
student achievement (Gemberling et al., 2000). Unfortunately, although effective school boards
and governance are vitally important, the average school board member has little or vague prior
knowledge of the work and responsibilities of a school board member (Renz, 2007).
Hanover Research (2014) found that actions and the success of an effective governance
team impact both student achievement and the overall success of the district. School board
members stated that the secondary factor that influenced their attendance at MIG was that they
wanted to increase effective governance in the role of school board member. Thirty-three percent
(n = 5) of the school board members stated that they participated in MIG training due to their
desire to increase effective governance. This statistic was supported by the broader cohort data,
as 128 of the 479 responses (27%) of the school board members identified increasing effective
school governance as the secondary factor that influences attendance at MIG. Twenty-five
percent (n = 1) of the superintendents stated that their board members chose to attend MIG due
to a desire for increased effective governance. Interesting, however, was that superintendents in
72
the whole group cohort data did not agree with their school board members because they ranked
it as the fourth most important factor (Table 3).
In addition to the above data, school board members and superintendents were in
agreement with how MIG impacted governance. Specifically, 66% (n = 6) of school board
members and 67% (n = 2) of superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that MIG training
impacted their ability to govern effectively. These data were supported by the whole cohort data
whereby 86% (n = 86) of school board members and 90% (n = 90) of superintendents strongly
agreed or agreed that MIG impacted their ability to govern effectively (see Table 5).
Table 5
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Impacted Their
Ability to Govern Effectively
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 20 32 72 40
Agree 36 58 82 46
Disagree 6 10 20 11
Strongly Disagree 0 0 6 3
73
School District C SBM1 explained that being a school board member is a role that
requires individuals to learn their jobs well and that MIG teaches both the technical and political
sides of their roles— which, in turn, leads to effective governance: “It’s a job. And in order for
you to do your job with any sort of competency, you need to know what the expectations are for
that job.” In the explanation of the benefits of MIG training SDA SBM2 shared how attending
MIG increases effective school governance:
After taking the MIG training, I do believe that all first-term board members should take
it. So, it’s a good way for them to know what, number one, to meet other board members
throughout the state. Number two, to learn what effective governance is. And from the
experience of some of the second-term, third-term board members that were taking the
quizzes and from the instructors, you actually get a bit of a feeling of “Okay, if I’m faced
with this situation, how do I approach this?”
School District B Sup2 shared the impact that MIG training had had on her school board
members’ ability to govern as well as to understand their role: “I will tell you, the Governance
provided them with a firm hold on how to govern, how to communicate, and what was especially
powerful was that three of them attended together, and I joined them.” Later in the interview
SDB Sup2 acknowledged that learning the complexity of education as it pertains to diversity also
impacts the ability to govern:
Learn the complexity of running a school district. It helps them really understand that
there’s not just black and white answers in our world, because you’re dealing with a
diversity of kids, diversity of thinking—just different things that are hitting the district at
once.
74
According to the CSBA (2019), school boards that desire to operate effectively must
adhere to board-adopted policies and procedures. Data gathered from surveys have demonstrated
that it is important for school board members to attend MIG training. Eighty-eight percent (n =
8) of school board members strongly agreed (55%) or agreed (33%) that local district policy
should encourage MIG training for school governance teams. These data were supported by the
whole group’s survey data, whereby 94% (n = 169) of school board members strongly agreed or
agreed that local district policy should encourage MIG training for school governance teams.
One hundred percent (n = 3) of superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that local district
policy should encourage MIG training for school governance teams. These data were supported
by the whole group’s survey data in that 100% (n = 62) of superintendents and over 94% of
school board members strongly agreed or agreed that district policy should encourage MIG
training for school governance teams (see Table 6).
Table 6
Participants’ Responses Regarding Survey Statement That Masters in Governance Training
Should Be Encouraged for School Governance Teams by the Local District Policy
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 46 74.0 116 64.5
Agree 16 26.0 53 29.5
Disagree 0 0.0 11 6.0
Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0
75
In her interview, SDC SBM 2 explained why it should be encouraged by local school
district policy for school board members to attend MIG training. SDC SBM2 shared how MIG
courses increase effective governance as well as role clarity (especially if one is new to the seat
and is unfamiliar to the educational system):
Everyone can always use professional development or training in any business of what
you’re in or doing. To me, it just reassures your commitment to what you’re doing, and
I’d say each topic was different. I think there’s six MIG courses, and they cover almost
everything, especially if you’re a new board member and not familiar with the
educational system.
Specifically, one superintendent (SDB Sup2) reminded the researcher of why it is
important for school board members to attend MIG training by sharing why she personally
encouraged her school board members to attend. In her interview, she was clear about how MIG
increases role clarity:
We had two new board members and thought that it would be beneficial to provide them
with a little more of the technical knowledge necessary to complete their responsibilities
to the best of their ability. They both wanted to do a great job and were unclear
about…Whether it’s the Brown Act
2
or the process of anything else, it’s always nice to
have those explained in advance, so that there are no surprises. And on-the-job learning is
hard enough.
2
The Brown Act requires local government entities to conduct their meetings in an open
and public manner. The requirements to notify the public, run the meetings, and personally
communicate must be adhered to. This act allows the public the right to attend and participate in
meetings (Eisenstein, 2018).
76
The IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry report (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000) and the
CSBA (2019) report support school board members receiving training in order to gain
competency in their role so that they can increase effective governance. The report notes that a
commonality among school districts that were considered “high” or “low” was to ensure that
team players know their roles and responsibilities and that these team players get into team
training. Additionally, the CSBA (2019) purposely outlined the school board’s responsibilities
and provided core governance principles that are ideal for professional development training,
because the organization recognized the need for school board members to govern effectively
and responsibly. MIG training received by participants provides role clarity and impacts their
ability to govern effectively.
Collaboration and Communication at Locally Hosted and Hybrid Training
Devarics and O’Brien (2011) identified eight indicators of school board effectiveness and
characteristics of effective school boards. Among those indicators were participation in learning
activities and working collaboratively as a team. During the interviews, school board members
shared that MIG training was expensive and time consuming in that they spent large amounts of
time away from their families. School board members further shared that the collaboration and
learning that transpired during MIG training provided an invaluable networking experience. As a
result, school board members advocated for locally hosted and hybrid training (i.e., some
sessions done remotely via Zoom and some being held locally) to ensure that physical interaction
continues and collaboration and learning are fostered.
Specifically, 77% (n = 7) of school board members stated that the hybrid training
platform would increase their chances of participating in MIG, and 55% (n = 5) of school board
members indicated that the locally hosted training platform would increase their chances of
77
participating in MIG. One hundred percent (n = 3) of superintendents stated that the locally
hosted and/or hybrid training model would increase their school board members’ chances of
participation in MIG. These statistics were supported by the broader cohort data. Table 7 shows
that both superintendents and school board members believed that locally hosted and/or a hybrid
training model would increase their school board members chances of participation in MIG.
Table 7
Participants’ Responses Regarding What Platform(s) of the Masters in Governance Program
Would Increase Chances of Participation
Response Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Online 14 54
Hybrid 29 105
Locally hosted 45 125
Other 2 4
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
78
School District A SBM2 elaborated on how in-person training is the most ideal for
communication, collaboration, and learning to occur: “No Zoom. Building friendships with other
school board members and some others, throughout the whole state. So, by taking that away, that
wouldn’t work.” SDB SBM1 shared her thoughts on her discovery of local training being
nonexistent and how the district would have to pay more money for her to participate in training:
I know it’s all changed now because of COVID—it’s all virtual. But there were definitely
some classes that I wanted to take that were too far or they would cost the district money.
One in particular—was it the Brown Act—breaking down the Brown Act. And it seemed
to be either offered in San Diego, Imperial Valley, or somewhere in central or northern
California. I never saw anything in Los Angeles. Being such a large geographical area, I
never saw anything that would preclude the district from incurring major costs, hotel or
flight or anything like that.
The survey data indicated that the current cost did not hinder school board members from
attending MIG training. Sixty-seven percent of school board members (n = 6) and 67% of
superintendents (n = 2) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that the cost of MIG
training would impede their attendance. This opinion was supported by the whole group’s data in
that 57.5% (n = 104) of the school board members and 77% (n = 48) of superintendents
disagreed or strongly disagreed that the current cost of MIG would prohibit someone from
attending (see Table 8). However, it should be noted that although cost would not hinder most
school board members from attending MIG, it was a concern noted in the interviews and
recognized in the survey results among school board members, as 42.5% (n = 76) strongly
agreed or agreed that current costs would impede participation in the MIG training program.
79
Table 8
Participants’ Responses to Whether the Current Cost of the Masters in Governance Training
Program Impeded School Board Members From Participating
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 3 5.0 14 8.0
Agree 11 18.0 62 34.5
Disagree 35 56.0 89 49.5
Strongly Disagree 13 21.0 15 8.0
As indicated through the interview data, the current cost of MIG training was a concern
among board members but not something that deterred school board members from attending
MIG. SDA SBM1 expanded on this thought when she shared how MIG is not cost effective and
how the time commitment away from the family causes hesitation to participate in MIG training:
I think one of the factors why some of the board members are hesitant about taking it, is
because you’re really talking about 5 days a week from family, for training. And
sometimes it’s not cost effective for some of the districts with a small budget. The reason
is that they would have to send the board member on a plane or drive...they put them up
[in a] hotel, a meal...those add up. And so, all this could be done via cutting it down to 4
days. You would still have the interaction that you need and then yet, at the same time
though, it might cost the district money for that, but it’s saving them for the third
additional trip.
The theoretical framework that best supports school board members receiving in-person
or hybrid training for collaborative purposes can be seen in Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four
80
frame model. In every organization, alliances form due to the common interests and the belief
eventually transpires that more can be accomplished together than apart. To accomplish a task,
power is necessary and can be ascertained from multiple perspectives of those in the group. The
human resource frame focuses “on the influence that enhances mutuality and collaboration. The
implicit hope is that participation, openness and collaboration substitute for sheer power” (p.
190).
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
The purpose of Question 1 was to better understand the motivation behind the decision to
participate in MIG and to ascertain what obstacles hindered California board members from
participating in the MIG training. The data gathered should assist with understanding how to
motivate future school board members to participate in MIG when it is not a state mandate and to
eliminate necessary barriers for increased participation in MIG. The school board members in
this study had the self-motivation to attend MIG training because it was an opportunity to learn a
new perspective of education that would allow them to effectively govern as school board
members. They felt that attending MIG not only showed their commitment but also provided the
necessary knowledge that would benefit them in their current job. This new knowledge showed
them how to effectively govern in such a way that it would meet their needs for viewing their
role and the matters at hand in a different perspective. Data demonstrated that both school board
members and superintendents agreed that the collaboration that occurred in MIG training was so
beneficial that both advocated for hybrid or local training; the thought of providing only remote
training would not be well attended or effective.
81
Results for Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, “How does the MIG training program encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?” Per the
literature, effective school governance is vital to the success of any school district. As referenced
in Bolman and Deal (2017), Druskat and Wheeler found that effective leaders of self-managing
teams “move back and forth across boundaries to build relationships, scout necessary
information, persuade their teams and outside constituents to support one another, and empower
their teams to success” (p. 176). When superintendents encourage school board members to
attend MIG training, they are empowering their governance team for success. Question 2 was
designed to provide insight as to whether MIG training encourages and equips board members to
adopt the skills of effective school governance teams. Understanding what knowledge would be
gained from attending MIG will assist superintendents and school board members with
understanding what their anticipated expected outcomes will be as a result of attending the
training program. Additionally, knowledge of what MIG can provide to the governance team
could be used as a motivator to attend a non-mandated training. There were three themes found
in the interview and survey data. First, respondents stated that the MIG training program
provided the opportunity for themselves to build relationships with their district teams as well
with those in other districts. Second, respondents shared that MIG training provided professional
development opportunities and reference materials that assisted with effective collective
governance. Finally, in the third theme, MIG provided a solid foundation for school board
members to effectively understand and execute their roles and responsibilities.
82
Building Relationships
Professional development and training can assist with building trust and meaningful
relationships among school board presidents and their superintendents that are more effective
and productive (Weiss et al., 2014). Political leaders build linkages to key stakeholders and focus
their attention on building relationships as well as networks. Political leaders recognize the value
of personal contact and face-to-face conversations (Bolman & Deal, 2017). MIG provides a
prime opportunity for school board members to build relationships through networking
opportunities brought forth through the collaboration and communication portions of MIG. As
such, it is imperative to encourage school board members and district teams to attend MIG
training. The survey data indicated that 56% (n = 5) of the school board members strongly
agreed and 22% (n = 2) agreed (a total of 79%) that they would recommend MIG training to
governance teams. Sixty-seven percent (n = 2) of superintendents strongly agreed and 33% (n =
1) agreed (total of 100%) that they would recommend the MIG training to school governance
teams. These data were supported by the whole group’s data (see Table 9). One hundred percent
of superintendents and 97% of school board members indicated that they strongly agreed or
agreed to recommend the MIG training to school governance teams.
83
Table 9
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Would Recommend Masters in Governance
Training to School Governance Teams
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 48 77 128 71
Agree 14 23 46 26
Disagree 0 0 6 3
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
One reason that MIG is recommended to governance teams is because of the invaluable
experiences and learning that occur. School board members indicated that the time spent talking
with members from other districts about what they currently were dealing with and learning from
one another constituted an invaluable learning experience. Breakout sessions allowed school
board members to be exposed to various ideas, best practices, and solutions. SDB SBM1
elaborated on her thoughts regarding the value of the breakout sessions in MIG training:
I think continue to have breakout sessions so that you can have discussions and network
with other districts. It’s one thing to sit there with your own fellow school board
members, which I did. Not all of them, but a percentage of them. And then kind of make
sure you have a rotation within that session so that you get exposed to other ideas, other
best practices, and that networking opportunity. I also think another important thing that
they missed the boat on is sharing of—whether it’s your Twitter handle, your email
address—I felt like I left there and I didn’t have any of that information. I might’ve
84
exchanged a couple of business cards, but I think a directory or something would be
really great.
Ability to dialogue with those in the room was invaluable as it provided a different lens in
which to look at things. SDA SBM2 expressed his beliefs that building relationships on the
foundations of MIG and creating long-lasting friendships posed as an additional resource when
problem solving arose. He noted how beneficial relationship building was for the team when
they attended together. All of these points were reasons why he would encourage others to attend
MIG training:
I think the biggest one to me is getting to know some of the other board members in the
state. I’d love to get like a text chat group where everyone just borrows over each other
with current events, and different things like that. It’s just a force. And it’s really the
friendship that you built out of the MIG training that is a 10 . . . MIG training is, it should
be done in person because we eat lunch together, and afterwards we go to dinner
together. You really get to talk to them, and you really get to—the friendship you build
out of it. It’s very helpful.
The CSBA (2007) noted that school board members’ “relationships with each other, with
the superintendent and other staff, and with the public have a profound impact on a board’s
effectiveness” (p. 7). A way to build relationships among all stakeholders is to attend MIG
training together. Eleven percent (n = 1) of school board members strongly agreed and 44% (n =
4) agreed (total of 55%) that it was important to attend MIG training with the superintendent,
whereas 33% (n = 1) strongly agreed and 33% (n = 1) agreed that superintendents should attend
training with their school board members. This opinion was supported by the whole group’s data,
85
as 66.5% of school board members and 92% of superintendents either strongly agreed or agreed
that it was important to attend MIG training with their district colleagues (see Tables 10 and 11).
Table 10
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether It Was Important to Attend Masters in
Governance Training With Their Superintendent
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 53 29.5
Agree 67 37.0
Disagree 53 29.4
Strongly Disagree 7 4.1
86
Table 11
Superintendents’ Responses to Whether It Is Important to Attend Masters in Governance
Training With Their School Board Members
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 38 61
Agree 19 31
Disagree 5 8
Strongly Agree 0 0
School District A SBM1 shared her personal experience in attending MIG by herself and
explained why she felt it was important to attend MIG with one’s team:
None of my other board members are with me. And there were teams there from districts
that included all their board and the superintendent. And then there were some that were
singletons, as I. And I observed that it was much more effective when they were there as
a team. So, I think you could do it individually, but at some point after individuals have
done it, I think there needs to be a coming together of the team to share and coalesce
around the components of the governance.
Superintendents acknowledged that it was important for them to attend MIG with their
school board members because doing so provided the structural time to get to know their board
members better, to develop trust, and to see friends from other districts. Specifically, one
superintendent, SDB Sup2, shared how beneficial to building relationships by attending MIG
was to her team:
87
It was a bonding experience. We spent time together. We spent the day together. We
learned together. We ate together. I think if you’re going to spend this kind of time and
trust the person next to you to do the right thing, you need to know who the person is
sitting next to you...Part of the advantage of participating in one of these events is also
that you’re hearing the stories of other districts, and ideally, you’re saying, “Great, it’s
not just us.” I got to see some friends I hadn’t seen in a while, because they were
attending with their board members. And you do hear from other districts, and learning
from others is always helpful. Whether it’s from their mistakes or their great ideas, you’re
always learning.
The theoretical framework that supports this theme is Bolman and Deal’s 2017 four
frame model. Bolman and Deal (2017) agreed with the idea that school board members and their
superintendents attend MIG training to build relationships. In looking at leadership through the
human resources lens, human resources leaders communicate a strong belief in people, are
visible and accessible, and empower others. The human resource frame focuses on the needs,
skills, and participation of employees, as well as providing alignment and clarity within the
structure. Essential strategies that a human resource leader must do is encourage training to
develop new skills, encourage participation and involvement among all stakeholders, and
provide psychological support (Bolman & Deal, 2017). MIG training meets the essential
strategies found in the human resource frame. Attending MIG training together as a governance
team provides an opportunity for the team to create and build effective relationships.
Professional Development: Application of Skills and References
Per the data analysis for this study, MIG training provided participants with professional
development that fostered collective governance by the way information was disseminated as
88
well as with the reference materials that were provided. Research has shown that professional
development training is vital to the successful impact that school boards have on student
achievement. Professional development training provides participants with the skills and
information required to efficiently and effectively run a school district (Roberts & Sampson,
2011). Bolman and Deal (2017) noted that through the human resource approach, a leader
emphasizes dealing with issues by changing people through coaching, training, rotation,
promotion, or dismissal.
Devarics and O’Brien (2011) found that “effective school boards take part in team
development and training, sometimes with their superintendents, to build shared knowledge,
values and commitments for their improvement efforts” (p. 7). A training is seen as effective
when one sees positive changes in one’s team. Eighty-nine percent (n = 8) of the school board
members and 100% (n = 3) of the superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that MIG training
encourages school governance teams to contribute to the effectiveness of their school board
meetings. The idea that MIG encourages effectiveness during school board meetings was
supported by the whole group’s data as over 96% of both superintendents and school board
members strongly agreed or agreed (see Table 12).
89
Table 12
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Encouraged
School Governance Teams to Contribute to the Effectiveness of Their School Board Meetings
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 30 48.5 104 58.0
Agree 30 48.5 72 40.0
Disagree 2 3.0 4 2.0
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
School District B SBM1 shared that the training and reference materials were beneficial
because it built her confidence with respect to speaking more intelligently about the information
that MIG gave to her that would allow her to make decisions in school board meetings:
Increased confidence level. Again, I was a newbie. So, going into the Masters in
Governance was very timely for me, and it gave me the reference material; it gave me the
information that I needed at the time to be able to go into the meetings and speak a little
more intelligently about what’s going on, the topics and then make decisions based on
that.
School District C SBM2 explained how MIG training assisted her with contributing to
school board meetings:
My community skills were already there. HR [human resources]. I’m not going to go hire
anyone, I mean, unless it’s a superintendent, obviously. I also—my number two, if I have
a choice to do that as well, would be finance, because that was something that I really
needed assistance on. So, for me, learning budget, learning everything, what we can do,
90
helped me in my school board meetings when we …having that as a background when
we went over the annual budget, semi-annual budget, et cetera.
Education has historical roots in a political culture. This political culture encompassed
local policy, local management, and local financial control (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). According to
Renz (2007), school board governance teams provide strategic leadership to their communities
by doing such acts as setting direction, developing policy, making strategy decisions, overseeing
and monitoring performance, and ensuring accountability. It is important for school board
members to understand how policy, leadership, and management impacts their governance role.
Fifty-five percent (n = 5) of school board members indicated that they strongly agreed and 22%
(n = 2) indicated that they agreed that MIG training helps school board members to differentiate
policy, leadership, and management. Superintendents were also in agreement; 33% (n = 1)
strongly agreed and 67% (n = 2) agreed. These data were supported by the whole group’s data in
that 98% of superintendents and school board members agreed or strongly agreed about the
impact that MIG has on differentiation of policy, leadership, and management (Table 13).
91
Table 13
Participants’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Helped School Board
Members to Differentiate Among Policy, Leadership, and Management
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 26 42 100 55
Agree 35 56 75 42
Disagree 1 2 5 3
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
School board members indicated that the professional development training provided by
MIG was impactful. In particular, substantial learning occurred from scenarios that were given
throughout the training as well as from the materials that were distributed to each school for their
reference. SDC SBM1 explained the impact MIG had had on how to govern, including the
reference materials that helped school board members to differentiate policy, leadership, and
management:
Well, I keep my binder of information, so I do reference it every once in a while,
especially when it comes to judicial review and some policy information and the finance
information. So, I think having that reference material is important. That’s really the gist
of it. I sometimes share some of the information with my fellow board members. So,
when I would return from my class, I’m like, “Hey, I just learned about this. Maybe we
can apply this.” And so forth.
92
School District A SBM2 further shared how the scenarios were mentally referenced when he
found himself to be in a similar situation. The ability to draw upon his mental reference
information assisted with understanding policy, leadership and management:
The scenarios… It’s used during MIG training—is very, very effective because multiple
times what we came across a scenario…that was very similar…And it’s almost like,
“Okay, this is one of those scenarios that was talked about. Let’s approach it this way.”
And it’s throughout the whole—even in close sessions, or the general sessions, you could
actually use that type of scenario.
School board members revealed that MIG training also allowed school board members to
apply learning from reference materials distributed at the MIG training that ensured effective
school governance. In particular, SDC SBM2 noted:
that if we’re trying to build a team, I’m going to use that as my guideline and my
resource. The governance handbook that they gave you… well, we did it on our own; but
the guidelines that they give you to make sure that we’re effective, and so it could work
for you…
The CSBA’s (2019) governance standards support school board members participating in
non-mandated professional development training. The CSBA (2019) recognizes that local boards
of education must govern responsibly and effectively. As such, their training modules were
designed to positively impact the governing process among California school districts. The
framework allows for school board members and their superintendents to learn how to work
effectively as one cohesive governance team. Additionally, IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry study
supports the idea of governing boards attending professional development training, because staff
development was identified as one of the seven conditions of success (Rice et al., 2000).
93
Roles and Responsibilities
As cited in Mountford (2004),
The most commonly cited reason for difficult school board–superintendent relationships,
both historically and currently, is role confusion between school board members and
superintendents (Danzberger & Usdan, 1992; Education Commission of the United
States, 1999; National School Boards Association, 1996; Petersen & Fusarelli, 2002). (p.
705)
The survey data indicated that MIG training provided a solid foundation for school board
members to effectively understand and execute their roles and responsibilities. Fifty-five percent
(n = 5) of school board members strongly agreed and 33% (n = 3) agreed that the MIG training
clarified the differences between their roles and responsibilities as school board members and
those of the superintendent. One hundred percent of the superintendents strongly agreed that
school board members who were MIG trained exhibited a clearer understanding of the difference
between their roles and responsibilities and those of the superintendent. These findings were
supported by the whole group’s data, which showed that 85% of the school board members
strongly agreed or agreed that MIG clarified the differences between roles and responsibilities
(see Table 14).
94
Table 14
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether Masters in Governance Training Clarified the
Differences Between the Roles and Responsibilities of a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 117 65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly Disagree 1 1
School District B SBM1 discussed how in the infancy of her role, various MIG training
modules were most impactful for knowing her role as a school board member and in having the
knowledge to make better decisions:
I’m in a year and a half now as a school board member. And the Foundations was
important, Policy and Judicial Review was important—but that finance part, I think that
was really key, especially right now it’s going to come, really come into play to have that
knowledge.
School District B Sup 2 surmised that the Policy and Judicial Review module was least impactful
to her board members as it is more the responsibility of the Superintendent. However, she did
note how beneficial it is when school board members have a good understanding of the inner
workings of the subject matter and how important it is for this information to come from a third
party:
95
Probably Policy and Judicial Review, because every one of them is our job. To inform, to
make sure that we’re following up to date and providing the information. But I’ll tell you,
it’s nice when they have an understanding of how budgeting works in a school district.
It’s helpful to understand how much is negotiated and getting that in advance and from a
third party is even better, because they really need to hear it.
The IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry study (Rice et al., 2000) pointed out that shared decision
making is one of the seven conditions of school renewal. Shared decision making is difficult to
do when school board members are unaware of their roles and responsibilities. Those districts
that were moving expressed the internal desire to do better as they discussed the importance of
improving education for the sake of their students. As a result of MIG training, 44% (n = 4) of
school board members strongly agreed and 33% (n = 3) agreed that they understood the
importance of aligning the decision-making process to the district’s vision and goals. Thirty-
three percent (n = 1) of superintendents strongly agreed and 67% (n = 2) agreed that they
understood the importance of aligning the district’s decision-making process to the district’s
vision and goals. These data were supported by the whole group’s data in that 92% (n = 166) of
school board members agreed or strongly agreed regarding the impact MIG training has had on
the importance of aligning the decision-making process. Table 15 shows that superintendents
were in agreement as well as 96% indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed.
96
Table 15
Superintendents Responses to Whether School Board Members Who Are MIG Trained
Understand the Importance of Aligning-the Decision Making Process to The District's Vision
and Goals
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Agree 1 2
The interviews revealed that the MIG training modules educated school board members
in ways that allowed them to ask better questions and to become better decision makers. SDC
SBM1 revealed how the MIG training provided adequate knowledge for school board members
to fully understand their roles and responsibilities so that they were able to ask the right
questions:
The general public, or a person who wins a school board seat, they might not be aware of
all of the layers of student achievement and the things that impact that. So yeah, I think
that absolutely affects student achievement in the fact that board members become more
knowledgeable and know how to ask the right questions.
School District A SBM3 explained how the MIG modules had assisted in her familiarity with
and understanding of processes pertaining to her role so that she was able to ask fewer questions
to gain a better understanding:
97
I got a lot out of the budget one, and I got a lot out of the human resources one. So, for
example, this year we’re going into negotiations with our school districts on top of the
fact that our bargaining units are working with the district on bargaining for the
reopening of school. Understanding the process they’re going through, understanding the
development of MOUs [memorandums of understanding] and things like that, I learned
about that stuff in those Masters in Governance modules, and so as it’s coming up…I
may ask a few questions, but I at least am familiar with the basics of it.
Bolman and Deal (2017) noted the “the structural perspective argues for putting people in
the right roles and relationships” (p. 47). MIG impacts the understanding of the roles of school
board members and superintendents because the training assists with building common practical
knowledge of governing by policy. The data indicated that the team-building portion of MIG was
an effective way to show the importance of governing by policy. The knowledge of their roles
and responsibilities assisted them to better understand that governing by policy was a way to
view issues through a policy perspective, as there is a need to look at things through a policy
lens. School board members had various answers pertaining to the MIG module that they found
to be most beneficial. The interviews indicated that the modules and lessons provided a generally
solid foundation of what to do and not do regarding such subjects as the Brown Act, Policy and
Judicial Review, and Budgetary Finance were extremely beneficial. In the survey school board
members indicated that Foundations of Governance (55%, n = 5) and Policy and Judicial Review
(44%, n = 4) were the two most important MIG modules, as they assisted with learning their role
and how to budget. The whole cohort’s data on the superintendents showed that the top two most
important modules were Foundations of Governance (88%) and School Finance (41%). The
98
same data for school board members showed the top two most important modules as being
Foundations of Governance (66%) and Policy and Judicial Review (35%; see Table 16).
Table 16
Board Members’ Ranking of the Five Masters in Governance Modules in Order of Importance to
Their Role as a Member of the Governance Team (N = 180)
Ranking
Module #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Foundation in Governance 119 34 9 10 8
Policy and Judicial Review 21 63 48 27 21
School Finance 30 56 57 26 11
Human Resources 2 10 33 67 67
Community Relations 8 17 33 50 72
99
One school board member (SBM1) from SDA shared her view on the importance of
running a school from a policy perspective:
I believe in the team, and I believe in governing by policy, and I’m sure sometimes my
board members—current and past—have said, “Oh my gosh, why is she saying that
again?” Because I’ll often be in the middle of…Not often, but sometimes in the middle of
an interesting discussion, say, “Well, looking at it from the policy perspective, this is
what I think we need to do.” I know in the training, there’s that wiggly line between
administration and governance. And there is always this push between the two. … We
should not be trying to run the schools other than from a policy perspective. So again, I
think that we need to do the job according to the way governance teams are established
and intended to operate.
School board members recognized the impact that MIG training had had on the overall
learning of their role as well as how the field of education operates. School board members
conveyed that MIG assisted them with learning ways in which to govern. Another school board
member (SBM2) from SDA shared how all-encompassing and impactful MIG was on his
learning the roles and responsibilities that would give him the ability to effectively govern:
But overall, though, everything else, it relates to the training. The Brown Act, the
collaborative budgeting aspect of it, the HR aspect of it, the way how to govern. All these
things from the MIG, I think, really reduce the amount of time that a new board member
has to be ready. I really personally feel that. Towards the end of my 2nd year here, and
I’m feeling a little bit better now. That a lot of it is, I think, the MIG training allows the
coming-down time of it. So instead taking a whole 4-year cycle could be, really, I think,
MIG reduces that time down to about 50%.
100
School District B Sup2 explained how MIG assisted school board members in
understanding the complexity of a school board member’s role, and asking more questions
enabled school board members to be more effective:
I think there’s a better understanding of the complexity of the role that the board
members have and of the organization that they are meeting. We haven’t necessarily
refined our practices, but individuals are asking more questions and making sure that they
are in line with what the requirements are. So, it helps you ask better questions as a board
member.
The theoretical frameworks that support the theme of school board members learning and
understanding their roles as well as the superintendent are the IASB Lighthouse Inquiry study
(Rice et al., 2000) and CSBA’s (2019) professional governance standards. Role clarity is
supported by the IASB Lighthouse Inquiry study, as it was found that there were seven
conditions for school renewal. The first condition is “emphasis on building a human
organizational system” (p. 7). This emphasis is on a continuous focus to improve education
through high levels of involvement and shared decision making. The CSBA (2007) clearly
outlined the roles and responsibilities of effective boards. The CSBA (2018c) defined the school
board member’s role as one that is “responsive to the values, beliefs and priorities of its
community” (p. 1). In order to be responsive and to fulfill their responsibilities, the CSBA
(2018c) stated that school board members must work with their governance team and
superintendent to make decisions that will best serve all of their students.
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
The purpose of Question 2 was to provide insight as to whether MIG training encouraged
and equipped board members to adopt the skills of effective school governance teams. The data
101
gathered should assist superintendents and school board members with what the expected
outcomes will be as a result of attending MIG. Additionally, knowledge of what MIG can
provide to the governance team could be used as a motivator to attend a non-mandated training.
The data in this study demonstrated that MIG training is essential to learning. MIG training
provides participants with an opportunity to build relationships with their own school board
member team, their superintendent, and also with others who held their positions in other school
districts. Data further indicated that the professional development training provided learning that
extended beyond the time period during which individuals participated in their training. The
learning that took place was so valuable that school board members often found themselves
referencing their MIG resources or a scenario that was given by one of the presenters. Finally,
the data highlighted how school board members and superintendents agreed that MIG training
laid a solid foundation of what the roles and responsibilities of all participants are. MIG training
also extends foundational knowledge to various aspects that are pertinent to the field of
education and governance.
Results for Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, “Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth?” Four major categories and conclusions were found as a result of a
phenomenological study that examined the beliefs that school board presidents had on how
school boards develop the capacity to work together to create results. The four major categories
and conclusions were (a) school boards develop the capacity of their teams through acquisition
and sharing of knowledge, balanced board composition, and board president leadership; (b)
boards interact as a team through communication, adhering to governance structures,
understanding of roles, and mutual respect; (c) boards are confronted with challenges to address,
102
including personal agendas, micromanagement, and time; and (d) school boards create results by
establishing students as the highest priority and continually reflecting on performance (Coughlin,
2017). Local school boards not only oversee the implementation of state and federal mandates
but are also responsible for ensuring academic excellence for all students (Hendricks, 2013).
Research has shown that professional development training is a vital component to the successful
impact that local school boards have on student achievement (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Positively influencing a school’s culture can be achieved by local school boards. School boards
can influence academic achievement by establishing good relationships with their
superintendents and by spending time consistently monitoring student achievement (Maranto et
al., 2017).
Research Question 3 was designed to investigate the perceptions of superintendents and
school board members regarding the impact that MIG training had on student achievement and
growth. This knowledge should assist the CSBA in the indirect perceived impact they have on
student achievement as well as encourage the participation of school governance teams in MIG
training. There are three themes that were found in the interview and survey data. First,
respondents indicated that the MIG training affected student achievement as it provided board
members with the necessary knowledge to engage in purposeful, powerful, honest conversations.
Second, respondents shared that MIG training affected student achievement because it had taught
them practices that allowed them to create conditions of success through their ability to sharpen
focus, set priorities, establish policies, and focus on evaluations. Finally, in the third theme, MIG
afforded school board members with the opportunity to understand the importance of
accountability and leadership when it comes to students’ achievement.
103
Communication and Purposeful Discussions
MIG training equipped school board members with a solid foundation to fulfill their roles
and with the required knowledge for them to engage in purposeful, powerful, honest, healthy
conversations about student achievement. Through the sophisticated conversations about student
achievement that could occur as a result of the increased knowledge gained from attending MIG
training, school board members began to ask purposeful questions. School board members
perceived these conversations to have an indirect impact on student achievement.
Plough’s (2014) study on achievement found that high-achieving districts agreed that
school board members are responsible for high levels of student learning and must be committed
to closing the achievement gap. In Roberts and Sampson’s (2011) mixed-methods study, the
authors noted that directors felt that the professional development of school board members had
an effect on student achievement. Twenty-two percent (n = 2) of school board members strongly
agreed and 33% (n = 3) agreed that as a result of MIG training, their focus was on achievement.
One hundred percent (n = 3) of superintendents agreed that their school board members had an
increased focus on student achievement as a result of earning MIG certification. These data were
supported by the whole cohort’s data in that 23% (n = 49) of superintendents strongly agreed and
71% (n = 49) agreed that school board members who had earned a MIG certification
demonstrated an increased focus on student achievement. A majority of school board members
agreed or strongly agreed that their focus on achievement was a result of MIG training (see Table
17).
104
Table 17
School Board Members’ Responses to Whether as a Result of Masters in Governance Training,
Their Focus Was on Achievement
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 49 27.2
Agree 91 50.6
Disagree 39 21.7
Strongly Disagree 1 .6
School District C SBM1 confirmed that MIG impacted student achievement because
governance teams were more organized, there was a solid understanding of their roles, they
looked at data more often, and knew the right kind of questions to ask—all of which led to
meaningful conversations that impacted achievement:
Okay. So, Masters in Governance, well, it’s going to impact student achievement and the
overall…Well, just addressing student achievement. The board is going to become more
organized and focused, I think, if you have that training. Especially the way that the
presenters came in and said, “Here’s your roles and responsibility about assessing student
achievement, reading the data,” doing all of those kinds of things. I think then you know
the right kind of questions to ask the superintendent. So, if you have a superintendent
that’s not a big data-driven superintendent—I don’t know who that would be—but
anyway. But as a board, you would be able to ask more direct questions and informative
questions to get informative answers. That really means something. It’s not just the
superintendent giving you a bunch of numbers. I mean, you can have some meaningful
105
discussions. Because as a board member, you’re going to know more about interpreting
student data, what the expectations are.
School District C SBM1 reflected on how the MIG training was impactful to a member on his
governance team because he noticed her focus on achievement when she came back from
training:
So suddenly, one of our newest board members—she is asking some really great
questions. Actually, I think the meeting that she came back from when they talked about
student achievement—she had all sorts of questions. Which was kind of cool.
The IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry study (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000) investigated
whether some school boards create higher student achievement than others and identified best
practice tools and processes that improve board–superintendent leadership skills for higher
student achievement. The findings indicated that “an understanding of how to build a human
resources development component (staff development) for the improvement of the knowledge
and skills of personnel” (Rice et al., 2000, p. 42) allows a school district to move forward. In the
Lighthouse study, school board members discussed the team mentality and their desire to address
student achievement by looking at and discussing data. It was noted that those districts that
moved forward were “policymakers who saw themselves and their staffs as co-equals in the
struggle to educate students” (Rice et al., 2000, p. 42).
Creating Conditions for Success
Evaluation as drama assures spectators that an organization is responsible, serious, and
well managed. It shows that an organization takes goals seriously and cares about
performance and improvement. The evaluation process gives participants an opportunity
to share opinions and have them recognized publicly. (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 290)
106
MIG provides school board members with the focus imperative to set priorities. Setting
the right priorities, such as how to budget appropriately, paying attention to evaluations, and
making data driven decisions, all indirectly impact student achievement and create a condition
for success.
One hundred percent (n = 3) of superintendents believed that one result of the MIG
training was that it encouraged governance team members to consistently use data to make
informed decisions regarding student achievement. Thirty-three percent (n = 3) of school board
members strongly agreed and 55% (n = 5) agreed that as a result of the MIG training, they
encouraged governance team members to consistently use data to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement. These data were supported by the whole group’s data, as over
86% of both superintendents and school board members strongly agreed or agreed that the
consistent use of data is a result of MIG training (see Table 18).
Table 18
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Encouraged Governance Team Members to
Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions Regarding Student Achievement
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 31 50 69 38
Agree 28 45 88 49
Disagree 3 5 21 12
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1
107
School District C Sup3 shared how MIG had positively impacted student achievement by
his school board members through studying and talking about data that, in turn, made them more
powerful and informed:
In our district it’s been very impactful because…they never talked about kids. They never
highlighted kids. They never talked about test data. They never had workshops to
understand what the LCAP [Local Control and Accountability Plan] is. What is
standardized testing? What does it tell us? How do you read it? … So, we spent a lot of
time talking about student data, analyzing it. We spent almost 2 months together as a
board, working with the cabinet on finalizing the LCAP after …like I said, they are an
informed group and that’s what makes them powerful.
School board members could benefit from MIG training as it set up governance teams
with the conditions of success due to their ability to govern effectively. One hundred percent (n =
3) of superintendents believed that all California school board members could benefit from MIG
training; 33% (n = 3) school board members strongly agreed and 55% (n = 5) school board
members agreed that MIG training was something from which all governance teams can benefit.
These data were supported by the whole cohort’s data, as 100% (n = 62) of both superintendents
and 95% (n = 171) of school board members agreed that the MIG training is beneficial to all
California school board members (see Table 19).
108
Table 19
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether They Believed That All California School Board
Members Could Benefit From Masters in Governance Training
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 47 76 124 69
Agree 15 24 47 26
Disagree 0 0 7 4
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1
According to SDC SBM2, MIG indirectly impacted student achievement because it helps
with creating a condition of successful governance by sharpening one’s focus, setting the right
priorities, and managing finance more effectively:
It’s like the invisible hand. It helps in some way because if we’re getting training and that
training goes back to giving to staff or learning what we can, so then it directly goes
down. It’s like a domino effect—then it’ll go down to the students eventually. Maybe
managing financing better will help us to be able to buy more equipment, more laptops,
so then it obviously helps the kids. Governance, you do your areas of focus, and you put
your priorities for the year. So, one of them obviously is testing.
School District C Sup3 pointed out how the MIG ideology creates a condition for success as it
helps school board members to become more efficient and thus better for students and teachers:
I think we’re more efficient because we don’t spend time arguing and contradicting. We
spend a lot of time learning, learning together, and getting to the final product a lot faster.
So, it’s like anything else, you run a business—your business has to be efficient. The
109
Masters in Governance ideology helps us be much more efficient with them, makes us
better for kids and our teachers. Now there are times that we hit bumps in the road, and
I’m not going to tell you everything’s been rosy . . . in this since we have started—that
we’ve had to stop and take two steps back again, do some more learning and start again.
The theoretical frameworks that support this theme are IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry study
(Rice et al., 2000) and Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames. The Lighthouse Inquiry study
identified the fifth condition of school renewal as being “support for school sites through data
and information” (Rice et al., 2000, p. 7). Districts that were moving received several forms of
information that was shared with the governance team. Moving districts possessed school boards
that referred to student needs per the data they saw; they were clear regarding their “decision
making process in terms of study, learning, reading, listening, receiving data, questioning,
discussing and then deciding and evaluating” (Rice et al., 2000, p. 42). Bolman and Deal (2017)
also pointed out that in
an effective organization, individuals understand their responsibilities and their
contribution. Policies, linkages, and lines of authority are straightforward and accepted.
With the right structure, the organization can achieve its goals, and individuals can see
their role in the big picture. (p. 315)
The MIG training provides participants with the necessary education and training that
fosters many positive aspects to effective governance that sets up conditions for student success.
Accountability and Leadership
A group of individuals does not constitute a team; rather, successful teams (boards)
perform as a unit and are accountable for a collective performance (Coughlin, 2017).
Accountability comes in many forms. MIG allows school board members to understand the
110
importance of accountability by showing them how holding themselves as well as others
accountable with meeting expected behaviors and protocols impacts student achievement.
According to Bolman and Deal (2017), members of high-performing teams hold themselves
collectively accountable. High-performing teams pinpoint individual responsibilities that are
crucial to well-coordinated efforts and find ways to hold the collective group accountable.
Sixty-seven percent (n = 2) of the superintendents agreed that MIG training positively
impacted student achievement in their district. In the survey, 22% (n = 2) of school board
members strongly agreed and 78% (n = 9) disagreed that MIG training had positively impacted
student achievement. However, during the interviews, 77% (n = 7) of school board members
indicated that MIG training had had an indirect impact on student achievement. The whole
cohort’s data showed that more than 87% of superintendents and 71% of school board members
strongly agreed or agreed that attending MIG training had positively impacted student
achievement in their district (Table 20).
111
Table 20
Participants’ Responses Regarding Whether Attending Masters in Governance Training Had
Positively Impacted Student Achievement in Their District
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 8 13 39 22
Agree 46 74 89 49
Disagree 8 13 50 28
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 1
School District A SBM3 discussed how MIG training had had more of an impact on
student achievement for those school board members who were noneducators. SDB SBM2
shared that the growth in achievement came through equity with understanding implicit bias and
sharing of the information learned. SDA SBM1 explained how operating as trained in MIG had
influenced student achievement through the policies established because the board would pay
attention to evaluations and hold people accountable:
We establish the format in which it works and then hold people accountable…it was
actually a lot dealing with student achievement and trying to set the evaluation instrument
so that it reflected, really, what we needed to do in the district. So, I don’t know that…I
guess I could say Masters in Governance was the basis of that, because evaluation is
certainly a part of it. Well, again, if board members operate the way they’re supposed to
operate, according to the training in the Masters in Governance, I think it would influence
student achievement…The board, through the policies, establishes the educational
format, if you will. I’m not using the right term. And then hold those in leadership
112
responsible for the outcomes. So, I think I’m stumbling on this, but I think
holding…Going back to that whole Masters in Governance process, you establish the
format, and then you set the people in place to carry this out, and then you hold people
accountable for the outcome…But that accountability piece is what allows things to take
place.
School District A SBM2 elaborated on how a school board member’s leadership and ability to
govern well positively impacts student achievement:
It’s by allowing the board members to be better at governance. I think it does increase
student achievement, simply just by the board members are leaders in the…district. And
so, I think an effective leader, in turn, you are bettering student achievement…And using
the MIG training seminars, you go, “Yeah. Now I get to see all of these, and you can see
the growth of the students’ achievements being obtained by the actions of the board
members.
School District B Sup2 pointed out how leadership traits such as honest conversations about
what was in the best interest of students had indirectly impacted student achievement:
I have not seen that impact it directly. I would imagine that indirectly, because it allows
the organization to move forward. Because it allows for deep conversation about what is
truly in the best interest of kids. Because it promotes and fosters discussion around
student learning and achievement and opportunities within the district. Then students are
more successful. So, it’s not an A-B impact, but effective organizations support kids, and
students are more successful as a result.
The theoretical frameworks that support this theme are the IASB’s Lighthouse Inquiry
study (Rice et al., 2000) and CSBA’s (2019) professional governance standards. The seventh
113
condition for school renewal that the Lighthouse Inquiry study identified was integrated
leadership. Districts that were moving found themselves focusing on “student learning through a
shared clear vision, high expectations and dynamic leadership among all levels” (Rice et al.,
2000, p. 11). Board members in the study were knowledgeable about the learning conditions
among schools in their district, mentioned specific current initiatives, described a clear direction
and focus on specific goals, and were also able to describe the work regarding staff goals. As
pertaining to students, board members had the ability to describe what was instructionally
occurring in classrooms, they expressed their focus for finding various ways to reach all students,
and they possessed high expectations for all of their students (Rice et al., 2000).
The CSBA’s (2019) governance standards supported the idea of accountability among
school board governance teams. The CSBA (2018b) contends that strong local school boards are
essential to ensure a high-quality education for all students. The mission of the CSBA is for
participants to strengthen and promote school board governance by defining and driving “the
public education policy agenda through advocacy, training and member services” (CSBA,
2018b, p. 1). With regard to school governance, the CSBA (2018b) states that “to fulfill these
responsibilities, boards must have maximum autonomy and flexibility. CSBA is unswerving in
its commitment to ensuring that ultimate authority and accountability for K-12 education always
remains with the locally elected governing board” (p. 1). As such, the CSBA does advocate for
school board members to pay attention to and to hold others accountable.
Summary of Research Question 3
The purpose of Research Question 3 was to provide insight on the perceptions of
superintendents and school board members with respect to the impact that MIG training has had
on students’ achievement and growth. The data gathered should assist superintendents and
114
school board members with understanding and being able to anticipate receiving a broad range of
information that will assist their governance team in asking purposeful questions while engaging
in purposeful conversations, led by data that impacts student achievement. Knowledge of what
MIG can provide to the governance team can be used as a motivator, should the team wish to
increase student achievement or with teams that are having difficulties with honest, respectful
conversations among themselves.
Chapter Summary
This chapter addressed three critical questions regarding the perceived impact of MIG
training:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Data analysis included the review of the data derived from the surveys of school board
members and superintendents, surveys and interviews, as well as the theoretical frameworks that
were discussed in Chapter Two. To test the consistency of the findings, the data generated by all
instruments were triangulated. Analysis of responses to the survey items, interview questions,
and the theoretical frameworks with respect to the study’s three research questions revealed just
how beneficial MIG training is to becoming an effective governance team and indirectly
impacting student achievement.
This study revealed that individual motivation and the desire to learn another perspective
to their role as a school board member were the primary factors that influenced the decision for
115
school board members to attend MIG training. Along with the desire to learn, participants who
attended MIG had the desire to effectively govern and to better understand their jobs as school
board members. Findings in this study showed that school board members gained role clarity in
how to govern, because they learned more of the technical knowledge that provided them with
the parameters and laws within which to live and operate. It is important to note, especially
during these COVID-19 social distancing times, that this study found that providing only virtual
online training would diminish the participation rate in MIG training. Data supported locally
hosted training or a hybrid model of training as being preferential, because the building of
relationships and networking through collaboration and the opportunities to communicate would
be lost if training were done only virtually. These themes are important to governance teams, as
the implication is that increased participation in MIG training will lead to lessening role
confusion, raising student achievement, and increasing effective governance.
The findings of this study revealed that MIG training provides an environment that
fosters increased opportunities (through collaboration and communication) to build relationships,
to create networks, and to increase shared decision making. Data indicated that MIG training
nurtures collective governance in the way that module information is disseminated to its
participants as well as with the reference materials that are provided to them. The analysis of the
data showed that MIG training clearly defines the roles and responsibilities necessary to
understand and effectively execute them. Attending the MIG training meets many of the criteria
that are necessary for successful school governance teams, because participants are given the
knowledge and skills necessary for behaviors and practices that lead to effective governance.
Finally, analysis of the data for this study revealed that attending MIG training indirectly
impacts student achievement. Data showed that the MIG training provided school board
116
members with the necessary knowledge to engage in purposeful, direct, powerful, respectful,
honest conversations about student achievement. Analysis of the data confirmed that MIG
training created conditions for success, because the participants subsequently knew how to set
the right priorities (e.g., how to budget appropriately, setting goals etc.), how to focus their
attention on those matters that were most important (e.g., evaluating student achievement), and
how to look at and understand data. Data further indicated that MIG training educated school
board members on the importance of accountability as it pertains both to student achievement
and by holding others accountable for the expected behavior and protocols. This factor is
important to governance teams and local districts that they themselves are being held
accountable for the achievement of all of their students. MIG provides the tools for teams to
positively impact student achievement.
The themes identified related to the three research questions and suggested the following
findings:
1. There is great value in the content and format of the MIG training program. The
MIG training module structures should be kept the same, but the training
locations offered should be locally hosted or in a hybrid model.
2. The MIG training program provides governance teams with a solid governance
model that educates and enables them to effectively govern.
3. The MIG training program positively affects school board governance and
indirectly impacts student achievement.
117
Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapters One to Three provided an expanded view of the contextual framework,
qualitative methodology, and literature review to illuminate the emergent themes presented in
Chapter Four. This chapter provides a summary of the statement of the problem, the purpose of
the study, the design overview, the research questions, and the key findings. It then concludes
with implications for practice, followed by limitations, delimitations and recommendations for
future research.
Statement of the Problem Restated
The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of
informed decision making that influences the quality of public education. In order to improve
the public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School
board members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective
governance, policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community
relations.
Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improved the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affected the impact on
performance indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit
of the MIG training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the
characteristics of effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the
118
perceptions of school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its
impact on school governance and student achievement.
Research Team: Description and Process
Twenty doctoral students from the USC’s Rossier School of Education worked under
the guidance of Dr. Michael Escalante. The thematic research team worked collaboratively to
create the interview protocols and survey questions for both the superintendents and school
board members, as well as the problem statement and the research questions for the study. The
strong data collection of superintendent and school board member interviews and surveys,
combined with relevant research, allowed for triangulation. The three theoretical frameworks
that guided this research study were the CSBA’s (2019) Professional Governance Standards,
the Lighthouse Inquiry study conducted by the IASB (Delagardelle, 2008; Rice et al., 2000);
and Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four-frame leadership model.
Participants, Sample, and Instruments
The study sought to explore the perceived impact of MIG training on increasing
effective school governance and student achievement in California school districts. The team
initially identified southern California school districts where a majority of the school board
members and their superintendents had attended CSBA’s MIG training but later expanded the
geographic area to include northern California to obtain a larger sample size. Researchers
sought to interview and survey the superintendent and three school board members in each
qualifying district. The targeted sample for this study was California school districts in which a
majority of the school board members and their superintendent had participated in MIG
training. The research team interviewed and surveyed 62 superintendents. Of the 180 school
board members surveyed, 177 school board members were interviewed remotely. The
119
researcher focused on three superintendents and nine school board members from three districts
in southern California. Using interview transcripts that were transcribed through Rev.com and
coded through Atlas.ti, as well as survey responses that were analyzed through Qualtrics and
the relevant literature, the researchers triangulated the findings.
Research Questions Restated
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Summary of Key Findings
The key findings of this study came from the themes that arose when analyzing the
research data. Three themes emerged from each research question. Each of the major themes
contained important elements that are beneficial to the school governance teams who seek to
increase their effective governance and who desire to increase student achievement. The
themes identified related to the three research questions and suggested the following findings:
1. There is great value in the content and format of the MIG training program. The
MIG training module structures should be kept the same, but the training
locations offered should be locally hosted or offered in a hybrid model.
2. The MIG training program provides governance teams with a solid governance
model that educates and enables them to effectively govern.
3. The MIG training program positively affects school board governance and
120
indirectly impacts student achievement.
Findings Related to the Research Questions
Guiding and leading change requires board members to be aware of educational
innovations, best practices, and breakthroughs occurring in other districts and settings—
knowledge that only can be gained through a wide array of training, networking, and
professional development opportunities. (Dillon, 2010, p. 1)
As such, MIG training provides a place where learning opportunities arise, networking
occurs, and knowledge is gained.
The findings for Research Question 1 were that school board members possessed an
innate desire to learn a new perspective of education, they yearned to do their job well (through
effective governance) and found that participating in locally hosted hybrid training influenced
the motivation for school board members to participate in MIG training. The findings for
Research Question 2 were that MIG training builds relationships among the members of the
governance team, equips participants with the necessary skills and resources essential to
effectively govern, and provides a solid foundation of effective governance as it outlines the
roles and responsibilities of school board members and their superintendent. The findings for
Research Question 3 were that participants aligned MIG training with their ability to engage in
purposeful, powerful discussions on student achievement; in their ability to create conditions for
success as it pertained to student achievement; and in the accountability and leadership necessary
to impact student achievement.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 explored the motivations behind the decision in which a school
board member chose to participate in MIG training. The three themes that emerged from the
121
interviews, surveys, and relevant literature were self-motivation and desire for learning,
increasing effective governance and role clarity, and collaboration and communication at locally
hosted and hybrid training.
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) human resource lens emphasizes understanding people: “their
strengths and foibles, reason and emotion, desires and fears” (p. 23). As shared by Bolman and
Deal (2017), Herzberg’s 1966 “two-factor” theory supports the “broad agreement that people
want things that go beyond money, such as doing good work, getting better at what they do,
bonding with other people, and finding meaning and purpose” (p. 120). The desire to gain a
“better perspective of how to look at systems from the perspective of a school board member
rather than a school district employee” (SDA SBM3), the desire to “gain as much knowledge as
possible” (SDB SBM1), and the desire to “learn different aspects of being on a board” (SDB
SBM3) were some of the reasons that school board members revealed as motivators in attending
MIG training. The desire to learn about how a school board is supposed to function and to gain
knowledge was so overwhelming that school board members chose to participate in a training
that was not mandated.
When a board uses effective governance strategies, it has more time and energy during
and outside of meetings to focus on the factors that support better student outcomes—
improving student achievement, engaging the community, and setting a collaborative
relationship with the superintendent and other district staff. (CBSA 2017, p. 39)
School board members also cited that MIG training affected school governance through
gaining knowledge of their roles and that, consequently, they would support MIG training to
either be mandated or highly recommended. The belief in school governance as it pertained to
doing the job right (SDA SBM1), being competent in and having knowledge of the job (SDC
122
SBM1) and receiving standardized training that everyone needed to take upon being elected
(SDA, SBM3) validated that the MIG training program positively impacted fulfilling their role as
school board members. The positive impact made among the participants could be used to
motivate future board members to attend MIG training.
“If boards are facing more changes in their jobs as district leaders, it makes sense that the
traditional modes of training must change as well” (Dillon, 2010, p. 2). School board members
cited cost, time, and location as some of the reasons that might deter them from wanting to attend
MIG training. Board members shared how it was hard to be away from their families and to give
up their weekends, but they did find MIG beneficial and felt that MIG training should be either
mandatory or highly recommended. As such, school board members advocated for more locally
hosted or hybrid training locations. It was also found that the ability to communicate and
collaborate with other school board members was an integral part of the training that would not
be achieved if the training was completely online.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 examined the exhibited skills, abilities, and behaviors of an effective
governance team. The three themes that emerged were building relationships, professional
development, application of skills and resources, and roles and responsibilities. The data in this
study demonstrated how MIG training is essential to learning as well as necessary in the
preparation for successful governance. The data supported the building of relationships among
board members, their superintendent, and with other MIG training participants. Data further
showed how the knowledge gained at MIG training was taken beyond the training and put into
practice as board members found themselves referencing scenarios presented or materials
distributed at a MIG training module. Finally, the data highlighted how MIG training provided
123
the necessary foundational knowledge for the participants not only to understand their roles and
responsibilities as elected school board members but also to distinguish their role from that of
their superintendent. Training afforded its participants also to better understand the nuances in
the field of education and what components are necessary for effective school governance. The
data from this study should affirm educators in their belief that attending a MIG training module
will provide lessons to them that will contribute to their lifelong learning as they pursue effective
governance, will assist with building team relationships and will lessen ambiguity as it pertains
to their roles and responsibilities.
The Lighthouse Inquiry study found that effective school boards led with their
superintendent as a united team, each from their respective roles, with strong collaboration and
mutual trust (Rice et al., 2001). This building of trust and strong collaboration begins with
attending training together. A product of attending MIG is that school board members left the
training having built relationships among their governance team and/or with other attendees from
various other districts. It was found that MIG was valuable to the team because it created a time
for members to get to know one another not only through the interaction they had during MIG
but also after hours, as they ate dinner together and then later came back from training and
continued to have deep discussions “in a team arena” (SDA SBM1). School board members also
stated that through their learning and their team building, they had learned skills that allowed
them to exhibit skills necessary for effective governance.
“Effective school boards participate in team development and training, sometimes with
their superintendents, to build shared knowledge, values and commitment for their improvement
efforts” (CSBA, 2017, p. 40). School board members indicated that through the learning and
resource materials received from MIG, they had acquired the skills and information required to
124
effectively govern as a team in their districts. Through the interview data it was revealed that the
foundational knowledge obtained through MIG helped board members to develop a new
confidence level that allowed them to ask better questions that assisted with making decisions.
Furthermore, it was found that school board members relied on their resource materials as a form
of reference when they were encountering similar scenarios. School board members felt that the
teachings within the modules, the scenarios given, and the resources that they were given all
assisted them with a shared foundational knowledge that made them feel better equipped to
govern more successfully.
The key for school board members to positively impact student achievement is through
the relationships built. A key to establishing good relationships is when board members
understand their “roles as policy-makers and vision-setters, while respecting the roles of the
superintendents and staff” (CSBA 2017, p. 36). MIG training provided participants with a solid
foundation of the roles and responsibilities essential for them to differentiate between their role
and that of their superintendent. It was found that MIG provided the education for school board
members to effectively understand and execute their roles as they made better decisions through
the various modules that were provided. School board members also stated that MIG provided a
foundation of expected behaviors and protocols (SDC SBM1). The data found that an informed
board is an effective board, as the knowledge gained in MIG training apprised participants of the
parameters to which they were expected to adhere, the laws within which to operate, as well as
the duties expected of them and their superintendent (SDC, Sup3).
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 sought to identify the linkage between the MIG training and student
achievement. The three themes that emerged were communication and purposeful discussions,
125
creating conditions for success, and accountability and leadership. Argyris and Schön (1974,
1996) argued that individual behavior is controlled by personal theories for action. They
distinguished two kinds of theory: espoused theories (Model II advocacy and inquiry) and
theories-in use (referred to as Model I). In Model II, “openness carries risks, and it is hard to be
effective when you are ambivalent, uncomfortable, or frightened. It gets easier as you become
more confident that you can handle others’ honest responses” (as cited in Bolman & Deal, 2017,
p. 164). In alignment with understanding a school board member’s roles and responsibilities, this
knowledge, coupled with the knowledge gained from the MIG training modules, enabled school
board members to effectively engage in purposeful, powerful, honest conversation surrounding
various matters, including student achievement. Although these conversations might have
stemmed from reading data, interpreting data, discussing evaluations, and so forth, it was noted
that the foundations that MIG provided to its participants was what gave them the confidence to
engage in high-stake conversations.
A culture of continuous improvement in which data informs decisions starts with the
support and example of school district leaders, including the board, superintendent, and
central office staff. Data should help the district or county become a learning organization
that uses reliable information to develop goals and strategies and measures progress
toward meeting them, with an emphasis on improving practices and internal
accountability. (CSBA 2017, p. 18)
Attending MIG created conditions of success for the governance teams because the
training provided them with the skills that positively affected effective governance. These skills
ranged from how to read data to make informed decisions, talking about standardized testing,
and sharpening one’s focus on the issue at hand to setting the right priorities for the district,
126
managing finances effectively, and increasing efficiency. School board members spent more
time analyzing, discussing, learning together and less time “arguing and contradicting” (SDC
Sup3).
The Lighthouse Inquiry study found that boards are successful at setting goals, providing
support through professional development, and holding the system accountable in high-achieving
districts (as cited in Dillon, 2010). If a board fails to carry out those responsibilities, it can lead to
uneven results, disjointed operations, and a disillusioned staff (Dillon, 2010). In this study the
MIG program allowed school board members to understand their role as leaders as it pertained to
accountability for achievement. This study found that a majority of superintendents and school
board members believed that MIG training had positively but indirectly impacted student
achievement in their districts. MIG enlightened school board members with respect to the need
to establish a format, setting evaluation instruments to measure student achievement and holding
others accountable for the outcome. It was also learned through this study that increasing student
achievement was achieved when school board members effectively governed. Effective leaders
indirectly impacted student achievement (SDA, SBM2).
The data in this study showed how MIG training indirectly impacted student
achievement, because the knowledge gained assisted school districts in creating conditions for
success. These conditions ranged from governance teams possessing a sharpened focus on their
roles, goals, and student achievement to setting priorities, establishing policies, evaluating and
making data-driven decisions that indirectly impact student achievement. Finally, data
highlighted how MIG training assisted participants with understanding the importance of
accountability. Not only was this accountability geared to evaluating such factors as their
leadership as it pertained to holding others accountable for their expected behaviors or protocols
127
(i.e., superintendents or programs), but it also extended to the evaluation of student achievement.
The data from this study should assist educators in knowing that they are attending a training that
will leave them with the necessary skills and knowledge to function as an effective governance
team while indirectly impacting student achievement.
Implications for Practice
The goal of this research study was to explore the perceptions of school governance
teams regarding the impact of CSBA’s MIG training program on effective school governance
and increasing student achievement. Researchers sought to determine the factors that led a school
board member to participate in MIG, the influence of MIG training on the exhibited behaviors of
school governance, and the impact of MIG on student achievement and growth. The findings
advocate for district governance teams to attend training together—and if they are unable to do
so, to ensure that the MIG training is discussed with the governance team when they return to
their local arena. Although there were many benefits to attending MIG, the findings of the study
also revealed several implications for practice, as follows:
1. State mandate: Mandate attendance at MIG training among California school
board members to increase effective governance and affect student achievement.
2. MIG training location: Include more locally hosted and hybrid online training
programs to increase accessibility.
3. MIG training structure: Presenters need to instruct the way that K-12 teachers are
asked to teach their students.
4. Networking opportunities: Create opportunities that encourage participants to
build relationships and to network beyond the MIG training modules.
5. Evaluative tool: Create a pre and post achievement evaluation tool.
128
State Mandate
Due to the fact that the state of California does not mandate training and that not all
school board members have a desire to learn, it has proven difficult for superintendents to get
their school board members to attend MIG training. This study revealed the many benefits of
attending MIG. Unfortunately, the positive benefits may not be enough for a school board
member to attend training. Thus, the recommendation is to create a state mandate where all
candidates who wish to run for school board are mandated to participate in the Effective
Governance module prior to submission of their name. This mandate will give candidates a
realistic idea of what their anticipated role entails, as well as what the expectations are for
themselves and their superintendent. Mandating training will discourage those candidates who
are not fully committed or who have political agendas from following through with their
candidacy. The mandate should also include that all school board members must participate in
one module per academic semester until they have completed MIG certification. This process
will ensure that school board members complete all five modules by the end of their 2nd year,
thereby strengthening their governance team in leading effectively and subsequently impacting
student achievement.
MIG Training Location
The COVID-19 pandemic has opened the nation’s eyes with respect to the feasibility of
working and learning in a remote fashion. The data in this study indicated that school board
members felt guilty about the money spent on MIG but did feel that the experience was valuable.
School board members shared that the time commitment away from their families was also a
hindrance for them; thus, they requested more locally hosted and/or hybrid MIG training
modules. An increase in these types of training should mitigate their negative feelings about both
129
the cost and the time away from their families. Participants stressed the value of attending MIG
training in person, as it allowed them to build relationships among their respective teams and
with other school board members and superintendents in the room. School board members cited
the ability to communicate, to get to know others, to freely discuss scenarios with various
participants, and to learn how other districts were problem solving issues as being so beneficial
that MIG should never be offered as a remote-only option.
MIG Training Structure
Additionally, school board members shared that although they were appreciative of the
ability to network, with the time to interact with one another, and for the resources received, not
all of the trainers were dynamic. It was noted that some trainers were dry and not as engaging.
As such, some board members recommended that the trainers are not only individuals who are
currently sitting in the seat, but that they teach their audiences in the same fashion that teachers
are asked to teach and engage their students. Some school board members who were former or
current teachers stated that not only would the use of various instructional strategies be helpful to
increase engagement but also the trainers should model the good teaching that is expected in the
classroom each and every day.
Creating Networking Opportunities That Extend Beyond Training
Due to the fact that many school board members and superintendents discussed the
benefits of in-person instruction as it pertained to networking, building relationships and trust, it
was found that connections beyond the training were desired. School board members found value
in speaking to both districts similar in demographics to themselves and to those that were
different. They also developed a desire to communicate outside of the MIG training and wished
that there was either a directory with the contact information of each participant or that they were
130
given the opportunity to create group texts so that they could keep in touch to communicate and
bounce ideas off of one another at any time.
Pre and Post Achievement Evaluation Tool
Although school board members believed that they had an indirect impact on student
achievement and superintendents believed that there was an impact on student achievement and
growth, it would be helpful to create a pre and post achievement evaluation tool that could assess
the true impact of MIG training on increasing effective school governance and impacting student
achievement and growth.
Limitations of the Study
This study was limited in scope as the findings are of little use to states other than
California because the MIG training program is offered only in the state of California. As such,
the findings cannot be generalized to other states. Data were initially pulled only from select
southern California school districts but then had to be expanded to northern California,
consequently incorporating a smaller sample size from northern California than that of the
sample size taken from southern California. The responses were subjective and reflected the
personal opinions of those surveyed and interviewed; therefore, personal bias could not be
controlled. The study was limited by time and resources because this research was conducted
over a 3-month period in the summer. This particular period made it increasingly difficult to
secure interviews because district leaders were dealing with issues stemming from the pandemic
as it pertained to how they would be opening for the school year. Additionally, interviews were
conducted virtually via Zoom instead of the more desirable in-person interviews due to the
restrictions imposed by the global coronavirus pandemic. Finally, the study was limited only to
those superintendents and school board members who volunteered to participate in the study, as
131
it was not possible to mandate all those who participated in CSBA’s MIG training to complete a
survey and participate in an interview.
Delimitations of the Study
The selection criteria was a delimitation of the study as it required that a majority of
school board members were CSBA MIG trained. As anticipated, it was a challenge to find a
large enough sample size to have enough data to conduct a valid research study. This situation
was due to the cohort’s decision to exclude all other types of school board governance training;
many school board members had received training but not all from CSBA’s MIG program.
Another delimitation was the difficulties in collecting the data necessary for the study.
The data were collected during the summer when many superintendents and school board
members would normally be taking vacation and planning for their new academic year. The
COVID-19 pandemic curtailed the plans of school board members and superintendents to leave
on vacation; however, gathering the data was difficult as these individuals were extremely busy
in deciding how they would open for the new school year in light of the pandemic. Many
participants were working more than they normally would have during their summer months and
had numerous remote meetings. Thus, it was difficult to secure interviews and thus required
much persistence and careful planning to collect all the necessary data.
Recommendations for Future Research
Although the findings in this study were triangulated from the surveys and interviews of
superintendents and school board members and from the relevant research (including the
conceptual frameworks), this study introduced opportunities for further research.
Recommendations for future study pertain to studies that encompass large urban versus small
suburban counties, MIG training versus other board training, and MIG training versus no
132
training.
Further research should include districts located in large urban counties versus districts
located in small suburban counties. This process would allow researchers to measure the
perceived impacts of MIG training on schools with those who are from districts with large,
densely populated areas with diverse populations against smaller, less populated areas whose
locations are in the outer edges of a metropolitan city and are not as diverse. This study would be
significant in that it would assist with identifying the true impact of MIG training on various
types of communities. If the study finds that the impact is equal in both urban and suburban
communities, then it strengthens the case that MIG training is good for all students in California.
If the findings show a disparity, then that would be an indicator that more research had to be
done in meeting the needs of both types of communities.
Further research should include school board members who have not participated in MIG
training but who have received some kind of governance training. This procedure would allow
researchers to determine whether MIG training is the key to increasing effective governance and
impacting student achievement or if any training is key to the positive effects pertaining to
effective governance and increasing student achievement. This type of study would also be
helpful regarding accessibility. If the findings showed that hiring an independent contractor to
train school board members on effective governance is just as beneficial as attending MIG
training, then perhaps it would be more cost effective and less hectic to make arrangements to be
away from the family for the weekend. The trainer could easily train on site and thus eliminate
the need to travel long distances and accrue unnecessary costs.
Further research should include school board members who have never participated in
any type of training. This would provide researchers with the opportunity to determine whether
133
no governance training had the same impact on governance teams and student achievement as
this study showed MIG to have. This type of study would be beneficial in that if the findings
showed that no training adversely impacted effective governance and/or student achievement,
then it could be an external motivator to encourage school boards that desired to improve their
current state of being by attending MIG training.
Conclusion of the Study
This study sought to discover the perceived impact MIG training had on increasing
effective governance and impacting student achievement by attempting to understand the
perceptions of school board members and their superintendents. The data showed that MIG
training impacted school governance teams in a plethora of advantageous ways. The study
revealed that MIG training had been found to provide its participants with what research and the
theoretical frameworks advocated for when it came to increasing effective governance, building
relationships, and indirectly impacting student achievement and growth. The knowledge that is
gained during MIG extends beyond the time sitting in the seat to learn. Knowledge of roles and
responsibilities assists participants with role clarity that further increases effective governance,
communication, and collaboration. It is the hope of this researcher that the present study will
assist in serving as a catalyst for others to continue to research the impact that training has on
effective school governance and student achievement.
134
References
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431–447. https://doi.10.1080/
09518390902736512
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness.
Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice.
Addison-Wesley.
Bell, T. H. (1988). Parting words of the 13th man. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(6), 400–407. Berkman,
M. B., & Plutzer, E. (2005). Ten thousand democracies: Politics and public opinion in
America’s school districts. Georgetown University Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (4th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (6th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bridwell-Mitchell, E. N., & Mezias, S. J. (2012). The quest for cognitive legitimacy:
Organizational identity crafting and internal stakeholder support. Journal of Change
Management, 12(2), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.645053
Briggs, M., Buenrostro, M., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2017). The school board role in creating the
conditions for student achievement: A review of the research. California School Boards
Association.
Brodinsky, B. (1977). Defining the basics of American education. Phi Delta Kappa Educational
Foundation.
135
California Department of Education. (2018). Local control—districts and counties.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/cl/localcontrol.asp
California Department of Education. (2019a). California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress (CAASPP) system. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ca/
California Department of Education. (2019b). California School Dashboard and system of
support. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/
California Department of Education. (2020a). About DataQuest.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/dataquest.asp
California Department of Education. (2020b). California Assessment of Student Performance
and Progress (CAASPP). http://www.caaspp.org/administration/about/testing/index.html
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards.
https://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrdLeadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2018a). Masters in Governance: Governance education
for school board members and superintendents. https://www.csba.org/TrainingAnd
Events/MastersInGovernance.aspx
California School Boards Association. (2018b). Mission, vision and equity statement.
https://csba.org/en/About/AboutCSBA/MissionAndVision#:~:text=CSBA%20strengthen
s%20and%20p romotes%20school,every%20student%20in%20every%20commu
California School Boards Association. (2018c). Roles and responsibilities.
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/RoleandRes
ponsibilitiesofSBMs
California School Boards Association. (2019). CSBA professional governance standards for
136
school boards. https://www.csba.org/-/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/
ProfessionalGovernanceStandards/CSBA_PGS_Brochure.ashx?la=en&rev=5fc78a303c5
b45 c4a6d89d519f991e56
Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. (1918). Cardinal principles of
secondary education (ED541063). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541063.pdf
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Coughlin, M. K. (2017). School boards and team learning: A phenomenological study of the
beliefs of school board presidents in central New York. Education Doctoral, Paper 301.
https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/education_etd/301
Danzberger, J., (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring the local
school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 67–73.
Danzberger, J., Carol, L., Cunningham, L., Kirst, M., McCloud, B., & Usdan, M. (1987). School
boards: The forgotten players on the education team. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(1), 53–59.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college and career
readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(86), 1–
38. https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1724/1334
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership
in the improvement of student achievement. In T.L. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school
board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 191–224). Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
Devarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards: Full report.
https://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/nyssba_pdf/Events/nsbma-buffalo-
137
07152016/Eight- characteristics-of-effective-school-boards_-full-report.pdf
Dillon, N. (2010). The importance of school board training. The American School Board
Journal, 197(7), 1–7.
Education Writers Association. (2003). Effective superintendents, effective boards: Finding the
right fit (ED526911). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED526911.pdf
Eisenstein, L. (2018). The Brown Act and school boards. https://insights.diligent.com/laws-
compliance-public-education/the-brown-act-and-school-boards
Erickson, F. (1986). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). Collier Macmillan.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.
file:///Users/bellabee/Downloads/Comparison_of_Convenience_Sampling_and_Purposiv
e_S%20(1).pdf
Ford, M. R., & Ihrke, D. M. (2016). Understanding school boards and their use of different
models of governance. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 2(2).
https://doi.org10.20899/jpna.2.2.67-81
Ford, M. R., & Ihrke, D. M. (2017). School board member definitions of accountability: A
comparison of charter and traditional public school board members. Journal of
Educational Administration, 55(3), 280–296. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.2.2.67-81
Gemberling, K., Smith, C., & Villiani, J. (2000). The key work of school boards: A guidebook.
National School Boards Association.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson
Education.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. McGraw-Hill.
138
Goodman, F., 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.
Great Schools Partnership. (2014). Local control. In The glossary of education reform. https://
www.edglossary.org/local-control/
Guthrie, J. W. (1996). Reinventing education finance: Alternatives for allocating resources to
individual schools. National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/finance/98217-5.asp
Hadderman, M. L. (1988). State vs. local control of schools (ED291164). ERIC
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED291164.pdf
Hanover Research. (2014). Effective board and superintendent collaboration.
https://www.hanoverresearch.com/media/Effective-Board-and-Superintendent-
Collaboration-Featured.pdf
Hendricks, S. (2013). Evaluating the Superintendent, the Role of the School Board
(ED1105391). NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 14(3), 62–72. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/EJ1105391.pdf
Hess, F. (2002). The dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of district governance.
National School Boards Association.
Hess, F. M., & Meeks, O. (2010). Governance in the accountability era (ED515849). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED515849.pdf
Honingh, M., Ruiter, M., & Van Thiel, S. (2018). Are school boards and educational quality
related? Results of an international literature review. Educational Review.
https://doi.org.10.1080/00131911.2018.1487387
139
Jacobson, R., & Rothstein, R. (2008). Educational goals: A public perspective. In H. F. Ladd &
E. B. Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 78–86).
Routledge.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th Edition). Sage Publications.
Kirst, M. W. (2010). The political and policy dynamics of K-12 education reform from 1965 to
2010: Implications for changing postsecondary education. Research Priorities for Broad
Access Higher Education.
Lee, D. E., & Eadens, D. W. (2014). The problem: Low-achieving districts and low-performing
boards (EJ104888). International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 9(3), 1–13.
ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1045888.pdf
Maranto, R., Trivitt, J., Nichols, M., & Watson, A. (2017). No contractual obligations to improve
education: School boards and their superintendents. Politics and Policy,45(6), 1003–
1023.
Maricle, C. (2014). Governing to achieve: A synthesis of research on school governance to
support student achievement. California School Boards Association. http://www.mikemc
mahon.info/CSBAGoverningAchieve2014.pdf
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
McClellan, J. L. (2007). The advisor as servant: The theoretical and philosophical relevance of
servant leadership to academic advising. NACADA Journal, 27(2), 41–49.
https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-27.2.41
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
140
Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school
board–superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(57), 704–
741. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X04268843
National Center of Education Statistics. (2012a). Table 98. Number of public school districts and
public and private elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1869–70 through
2010–11. Digest of Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_098.asp
National Center of Education Statistics. (2012b).Table 108. Number and enrollment of public
elementary and secondary schools, by school level, type, and charter and magnet status:
Selected years, 1990–91 through 2010–11. Digest of Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_108.asp
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: Findings and
recommendations. U.S. Department of Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk .html
National School Boards Association. (2019). About us. https://www.nsba.org/about
Neiman, D., & Levin, C. (Producers). (2019). Only a teacher: Schoolhouse pioneers [TV series]
PBS.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.), 1-15. Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Plough, B. (2014). School board governance and student achievement: School board members’
141
perceptions of their behaviors and beliefs (EJ102887). Educational Leadership and
Administration: Teaching and Professional Development, 25, 41–53. ERIC.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/EJ1028871.pdf
Qualtrics
XM.
(2020). Home page. https://www.qualtrics.com/uk/what-is-qualtrics/
Ramaley, J. (2002). Moving mountains: Institutional culture and transformational change. In R.
Diamond (Ed.), Field guide to academic leadership (pp. 59–73). Jossey-Bass.
Renz, D. O. (2007). Nonprofit governance and the work of the board. Midwest Center for
Nonprofit Leadership.
Rev.com. (n.d.). Fast, quality, on-demand services. https://www.rev.com/
Rhodes, R. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity, and
accountability. Open University Press
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Joyce, B., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2000, April10–14). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School
board/superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in
student achievement (ED453172). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453172 .pdf
Richter, L. (2013). The impact of the Masters in Governance training program on California
school board governance (Publication No. 3563990) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Roberts, K., & Sampson, P. (2011). School board member professional development and effects
on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(7), 701–
713. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
142
Sell, S. (2006). Running an effective school district: School boards in the 21st century. Journal
of Education, 186(3). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002205740618600309
University of Southern California. (n.d.). Atlas.ti. https://software.usc.edu/atlas-ti/
Webber, D. J. (2010). School district democracy: School board voting and school performance.
Politics & Policy, 38(1), 81–95. 10.1111/j.1747-1346.2009.00229.x
Weiss, G., Templeton, N., Thompson, R., & Tremont, J. (2014). Superintendent and school
board relations impacting achievement through collaboration of roles and responsibilities.
School Leadership Review, 9(2), Article 4. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol9/iss2/
4?utm_source=scholarworks.sfasu.edu%2Fslr%2Fvol9%2Fiss2%2F4&utm_medium=PD
F& utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.)
McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
143
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails
School Board Member Recruitment Email
Date___________________
Dear School Board Member ______________________,
Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school
governance teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board has completed the
MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in completion of the Ed.D.
program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will
be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training
on effective governance. You will be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom™ interview
at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded with your permission
and will include questions about effective governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time.
Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.
IF you agree to participate in this study, please complete the School Board Member Survey via the
following link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation, you may contact me or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University
of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
144
Superintendent Recruitment Email
Date___________________
Dear Superintendent ______________________,
Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school
governance teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board members have
completed the MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in completion
of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this
study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact
of MIG training on effective governance. You will be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual
Zoom™ interview at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded
with your permission and will include questions about effective governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time.
Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.
Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the Superintendent Survey via the following
link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation, you may contact myself or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the
University of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance
for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
145
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your chances of participation?
(check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced my
participation in the MIG training was . . . (check
all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Unable to determine
❏ Other
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
As a result of MIG training, my focus is on
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
146
8
As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek
community input through a variety of methods
(email, town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
As a result of the MIG training, I understand the
importance of aligning the decision-making
process with the district’s vision and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
The MIG training clarified the differences
between my roles and responsibilities as a school
board member and those of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
147
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data
consistently to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
As a result of the MIG training, my ability to
accept the majority decision constructively, even
if I hold the minority view, has improved.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board
members could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
Attending MIG training has positively impacted
student achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
148
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your school board members’
chances of participation? (check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced school board
members to participate in MIG training was . . .
(check all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Other
❏ Unable to determine
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
School board members who have earned MIG
certification demonstrate an increased focus on
student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
149
8
School board members who are MIG certified
actively engage the community and utilize a
variety of communication methods (email, town
hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
School board members who are MIG trained
understand the importance of aligning the
decision-making process with the district’s vision
and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
School board members who are MIG trained
exhibit a clearer understanding of the difference
between their roles and responsibilities and those
of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
school board members.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
150
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the school governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data consistently
to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
The MIG training has improved school board
members’ ability to accept the majority decision,
even when they hold the minority view.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members
could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
MIG training has positively impacted student
achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
151
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3
Some people believe that school board training should be mandated in California. How
do you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has the MIG training affected how you govern your school district, if at all?
8
What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if at all?
9 What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a board member, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?
152
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school governance teams to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3 Some people argue that school board training should be mandated in California. How do
you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to your board members and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has MIG training affected how your school board members govern your school
district, if at all?
8 What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if any?
a What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make MIG training more accessible to all superintendents?
11 How does MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a superintendent, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?
153
Appendix F: Informed Consent
Date: _______________
Dear _______________,
My name is _______________ and I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a research study under the guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F.
Escalante. The purpose of the study is to examine school board members’ and superintendents’
perceptions of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training and its impact on school governance
and student achievement. I will interview and survey superintendents and school board
members.
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) MIG training program on school
board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of school districts.
This study may serve as a source of the benefits of MIG training for school governance teams.
Your participation is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw at any time. The information
collected will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher and members of the
dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no individual or
district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
me at _______________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California.
Thank you, in advance, for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
Dr. Michael F. Escalante, Dissertation Chair mescalante@usc.edu (xxx) xxx-xxxx
( ) I have read this form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent to my
participation in the research described above.
Participant’s Signature: _________________________________________________________
Participant’s Printed Name: ______________________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________________________________________
154
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument RQ 1
What factors impact
the decision of school
board members to
participate in the MIG
training program?
RQ 2
How does the MIG
training program
encourage and equip
school board
members to exhibit
the behaviors of
effective school
governance?
RQ 3
Does MIG training
have an impact on
student achievement
and growth?
School Board
Member Survey
1-6 7-16,18-19 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
Superintendent
Survey
1-6 7-14 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
School Board
Member Interview
Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Superintendent
Interview Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study sought to examine the perceived impact Masters in Governance (MIG) training offered by the CSBA had on effective school governance and student achievement. The study found that MIG participation built trust and relationships by providing opportunities that fostered increased collaboration and communication amongst participants and district teams. Participants found the content disseminated via the training modules as well as the real-world applicable scenarios given to be indispensable in understanding the decisions they would be faced with as they fulfilled their respective roles and responsibilities. MIG modules provided learning that increased role clarity, confidence and effective decision making. MIG indirectly impacted student achievement as participants learned best practices that allowed for conditions of success through the ability to hold others accountable, set priorities, look at data and focus on achievement. This study provides the necessary data to superintendents in supporting formal training for their school board member teams, as the findings demonstrate that training positively impacts a school board member’s school governance as well as increases student achievement. This study should enhance the scholarly body of work that currently exists on the impact of MIG training upon district school governance teams. The research can be expanded to include a comprehensive analysis of the perceived impact of MIG training on effective governance practices of school board members in California, on the perceived impact on student achievement in school districts located in both large urban and small suburban counties, and by examining the case for potential mandates to attend training in the state of California.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
School board governance training and student achievement
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
The influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Effective governance: the impact of the Masters in governance training on school boards in California
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
PDF
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
PDF
Impact of the Masters in governance training program on effective school board leadership and governance
PDF
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school districts
PDF
Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness
Asset Metadata
Creator
Brenes, Isabel Elisabeth Fernandez
(author)
Core Title
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/08/2021
Defense Date
01/29/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
accountability,analyzing data,building mutual trust,building relationships,commitment,conditions for success,Decision making,effective communication,effective governance,evaluation,goals,improvement,increased collaboration,mandated training,Masters in Governance training,OAI-PMH Harvest,positive impact,professional development,role clarity,roles and responsibilities,setting priorities,student achievement,Training,vision
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael F. (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy (
committee member
), Hinman, Charles (
committee member
), Thorossian, Katherine (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ibrenes@usc.edu,isbrenes@verizon.net
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-439312
Unique identifier
UC11666571
Identifier
etd-BrenesIsab-9430.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-439312 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-BrenesIsab-9430.pdf
Dmrecord
439312
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Brenes, Isabel Elisabeth Fernandez
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
accountability
analyzing data
building mutual trust
building relationships
commitment
conditions for success
effective communication
effective governance
evaluation
goals
improvement
increased collaboration
mandated training
Masters in Governance training
positive impact
professional development
role clarity
roles and responsibilities
setting priorities
student achievement
Training