SCHOOL BOARD SERVICE: HOW MODERN SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ENGAGE

AND UNDERSTAND THEIR LEADERSHIP ROLE

By

MICHAEL C. DUNN

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY College of Education

MAY 2009

ii

To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of MICHAEL C.DUNN find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. Paul E. Pitre, Ph.D., Chair Lenoar Foster, Ed.D. Joan U. Kingrey, Ph.D.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This impetus of this work came from a desire to better understand the citizens who

volunteer for school board service – the life and career backgrounds and motivations that lead to

their desire to serve and the specific hopes they carry to the position. As a long-time educator

and current superintendent, I have my own perspectives on both the joys and frustrations of the

profession of education, and wanted to better understand the perspectives and experiences of

those elected as policy makers amid the complexity of modern public education.

I am indebted to the eleven men and women who participated in the study for all they

were willing to share about their lived realities as board members, as well as to the board

members with whom I have worked directly as a superintendent. Public education is very well-

served by each of these volunteer citizens.

I also owe specific thanks to Dr. Paul Pitre and Dr. Joan Kingrey for their support,

encouragement, wisdom, and oft needed prodding along the way. Dr. Kingrey, in particular, has

been a treasured mentor for more years than either of us may care to admit, and were it not for

her I would have long ago abandoned the pursuit of this goal. I am deeply grateful.

Finally, I have been inspired throughout my career by outstanding and diverse young

people and professional colleagues, from whom I have and continue to learn so much. It is

through all that each has taught me that my desire to keep learning about educational practice,

policy, and impact is nurtured.

iv

SCHOOL BOARD SERVICE: HOW MODERN SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ENGAGE

AND UNDERSTAND THEIR LEADERSHIP ROLE

Abstract

by Michael C. Dunn, Ed.D. Washington State University

May 2009

Chair: Paul E. Pitre Until the final two decades of the twentieth century, American public education and its

outcomes were not scrutinized as closely as is true in the twenty-first century. In the prior

context school boards had greater local autonomy than now exists. With ratcheted interest and

intervention in public education at both the federal and state government levels, and with

increasing demands from the business community and various interest groups related to district,

school, teacher, and student performance, the foundational concept of local control upon which

the American school board was based has been fundamentally impacted.

The purpose of this study was to describe the experiences and realities of current, sitting

school board members in a modern context, and it targeted understanding the motivations and

expectations that current school board members bring to the inception of their board service;

their perceptions of the effects their service and leadership has on policy and practice in their

local school districts; and an understanding of both the satisfactory aspects and frustrations of

such service in light of contextual changes which have affected the scope and impact of

historical school board roles and influence.

v

Through a collective case study, data collected for the study consisted of individual

interviews conducted with eleven current board members from eleven different school districts,

all located within one of the State of Washington’s nine Educational Service Districts. The

participants in the study generously and honestly shared their experiences as elected school

board members, and highlighted both possibilities and limitations associated with service on a

contemporary school board.

Tallerico (1991) asserts that as school governance becomes increasingly complex yet is

still “locally controlled,” local policy actors continue to warrant the attention of educators based

on the premise that “who those individuals are, what they bring with them, and how they develop

over time can be critical variables in local educational policymaking processes” (p.94). The

study addresses these important factors of contemporary school board members.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................2 A Short History of American School Boards .............................................................2

A Foundation of Local Control .............................................................................3 School District Consolidation and Effects on School Board ................................4 State and Federal Government Intervention in Local Education ..........................4 Impediments to Public Trust .................................................................................5 Criticisms of School Boards .................................................................................6 Role Confusion .....................................................................................................7 Key Relationships .................................................................................................8 Changing Expectations .........................................................................................9 The School Board-Superintendent Relationship .................................................10 New Opportunities ..............................................................................................11

Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................11 Significance of the Study ..........................................................................................12 The Study ..................................................................................................................12

Limitations of the Study............................................................................................14

vii

2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................16

Historical Perspective of Public Education Governance Systems ............................17

Local Control ......................................................................................................17 Education as a Right of the States ......................................................................18 Evolution of the School Board Structure ............................................................18 Governance Concerns .........................................................................................19

Background of the School Governance System ........................................................19 Representation of the Public’s Interests..............................................................19 Dissatisfaction with Local School Boards ..........................................................20 External Influences on Local School Boards ......................................................20 Schools and Democracy......................................................................................22

The Effects of Reform on School Governance .........................................................22 Challenges to Local Control ...............................................................................22 Challenges to School Board Powers ...................................................................23 Criticisms of School Boards in an Era of Reform ..............................................23 Citizen Access to the Local School Board ..........................................................25

Future Challenges for School Boards .......................................................................26

External Threats ..................................................................................................26 School Board-Parent Relationship ......................................................................27 School Board-Superintendent Relationship ........................................................27 The Policy Role ..................................................................................................28 Teaching, Learning, and Accountability .............................................................30 Representing Changing Communities ................................................................30

viii

Summary ...................................................................................................................31

3. RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................................................33

Qualitative Methodology ..........................................................................................34 Case Study Method ...................................................................................................35 The Research Participants .........................................................................................36

Small School District Participants ......................................................................36 Medium-Sized School District Participants ........................................................40 Large-Sized School District Participants ............................................................43

Data Collection .........................................................................................................45 Limitations ................................................................................................................46 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................48 Ethical Considerations ..............................................................................................49 Conclusion ................................................................................................................50

4. FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................52

Case Study Sample ...................................................................................................52 Case Study Findings .................................................................................................54 Who Serves on Contemporary School Boards? ........................................................56

Backgrounds of Service Orientation ...................................................................56 Family Legacy ....................................................................................................60 Involvement with Youth .....................................................................................60 Community and Civic Leadership ......................................................................61 A Desire to Help .................................................................................................63 A Few Specific Intents ........................................................................................66

ix

Learning the School Board Role ...............................................................................68 Initial Training ....................................................................................................68 The Important Role of the Superintendent in Board Member Induction ............73

Engaging as a School Board Member.......................................................................75

Issues Faced By Contemporary School Board Members ...................................75 Facility Concerns ................................................................................................80 Superintendents are Key in Helping Board Members Understand Their Role ...81 Engaging with the Community ...........................................................................82

Serving as a School Board Member .........................................................................88

The Demands of School Board Service ..............................................................88 Sources of Satisfaction ........................................................................................92 Frustrations Associated with School Board Service ...........................................97 Lived Realities of Contemporary School Board Members ...............................101

Conceptual Framework ...........................................................................................108

Summary .................................................................................................................109

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION..............................................................................110

Discussion and Insights...........................................................................................111 Becoming a School Board Member ........................................................................112

Backgrounds of School Board Members ..........................................................112 Motivations of School Board Members: Why They Serve...............................114 Initial Training of School Board Members: How They Learn to Serve ...........116

Engaging as a School Board Member.....................................................................118

Issues Faced By School Board Members .........................................................118

x

The Demands of Community Engagement .......................................................121 The Demands of the School Board Role ..........................................................123

Serving as a School Board Member .......................................................................125

Satisfactory Facets of School Board Service ....................................................126 Frustrations Associated with School Board Service .........................................127 Focusing the Work of the School Board ...........................................................129 The Importance of the Board-Superintendent Relationship .............................130

Practical Implications .............................................................................................133 Training and Education for School Board Members ........................................133 Communicating and Connecting with the Public .............................................134 The Key Role of Superintendent ......................................................................135 School Board Members as Advocates ..............................................................136

Summary .................................................................................................................137 Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................................137

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................139 APPENDIX

A. INTERVIEW GUIDE ......................................................................................................147 B. PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION/INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM ...........................149 C. OVERVIEW OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS...................................................................150

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................109 2. Nine Phase Model of Contemporary School Board Service ............................................110

xii

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my wife and fellow educator, Teresa, and to our sons Chris and

Aaron. At every turn throughout the course of my career and graduate studies each has sustained

and supported me, and has reminded me of why the work of public education is so important. It

is also dedicated to my mother and father, each of whom was the first in their respective families

to earn baccalaureate and professional degrees. The examples they set and trails they blazed

made my own journey possible.

1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

In an era in which both the federal and state governments play an increasingly larger role

in public education at the local level, the local school board remains an established public

institution. While its impact may not be as broad as was true in the 19th and much of the 20th

centuries, school board service still includes significant opportunities to impact educational

policy and practice.

Growing accountability for assuring all children achieve clear, high standards has

increased the public scrutiny of local school districts and the school boards that lead them. An

understanding of factors that lead citizens to serve on contemporary boards, and of the hopes and

intent they bring to such service – particularly in the face of increased influence of both federal

and state governments – is important. The relationship between the school board and its

administration, staff, and community is central to the belief systems and practices necessary to an

assurance of high levels of achievement from each child, though in the eyes of some critics

school boards fail to be effective based on a belief that lay people may not fully understand

educational issues well enough to form policies and manage schools (Sell, 2005).

According to both the National School Boards Association and the Washington State

School Directors Association, school boards are vested with broad policy making powers and

responsibility, and superintendents and staff are charged with implementation and execution of

programs and practices aligned with such policies. This basic delineation of roles has not

changed fundamentally over the past twenty-five years, yet American public education has

undergone considerable changes in that time period. Such changes have affected all players in

the educational enterprise, importantly including school boards and superintendents. Discerning

how contemporary board members view such changes, and how the changes impact the complex

2

psychological and social forces that motivate citizens to seek school board positions, can help

both board members and the superintendents they employ be more effective.

This first chapter provides the background of the study including a history of the

traditional public school board and contemporary forces and changes which influence current

school board service. It presents a statement of the problem of the study; the significance of the

study; a concise overview of the study methodology; and concludes with cautions for limitations

in applicability to school board members in different areas of the state and nation.

Statement of the Problem

Increased interest and intervention in public education has affected pressures on and

expectations of local school boards and school districts. American business, and various and

insistent interest groups, along with federal and state (and local) governments, have increasingly

made greater demands of the system. Further, the outcomes of the educational system have

become more specifically defined and more closely scrutinized and assessed. These changes,

while not without benefit including more children achieving at higher levels than before, have

led to challenging realities for school boards and superintendents; criticisms of each; and also

opportunities for meaningful change toward a better future for children and adults in the

educational system. It is important to understand how those who hold school board positions

understand and live their role as board members amid the pressures and challenges of modern

public education.

A Short History of American School Boards

The elected public school board is an institution in American culture. Dating back to

1642, Massachusetts established laws designed to impact educational requirements and

3

opportunities. The first law required certain men of each town to determine if parents or masters

were attending to their educational duties and training in learning and labor. While the law was

generally ignored, it was a precursor for legislation that followed (First & Walberg, 1992). The

Old Deluder Satan Law, passed in 1647, mandated that a teacher be appointed in any town with

fifty or more families. Towns with one hundred or more families were required to employ a

teacher of Latin (Castallo, 2003). Though the growth of private schools at the time limited the

effect of the legislation, the underlying premise that it was the responsibility of the local

government to provide education made it historically significant (Castallo, 2003).

A Foundation of Local Control

According to Feuerstein (2002) Americans have long been fond of the concept of local

control in democratic governance, and in education such control is vested in the collective hands

of elected boards of directors. A foundational belief about democracy is that decisions are best

placed at the level nearest those whom such decisions will affect, a concept with historical roots

dating to de Tocqueville, Jefferson, and Dewey (Cunningham, 2003).

Following passage of initial laws in the mid 17th century, local control over education

was further established in 1683 through the enactment of a law that required towns and their

selectmen to jointly maintain schools and mandated the imposition of a tax to support the schools

(First & Walberg, 1992). Similar laws spread throughout the New England colonies and by 1721,

the first permanent school committee was appointed in Boston to oversee the governance of

schools (First & Walberg, 1992; Danzberger & Usdan, 1992). The colonial practice of local

control of schools progressed after the Declaration of Independence, and the pattern continued

4

into the new territories. The tradition was handed down and formalized in most of the state

constitutions of the United States.

School District Consolidation and Effects on School Boards

It was toward the latter part of the 19th century that governance of towns/cities and

schools were separated, followed by consolidation of school districts from approximately

128,000 at one time to currently about 15,000 school districts (Danzberger, 1994). This

separation and consolidation often resulted in business and professional people elected to school

boards, whose backgrounds were oft times significantly different from many of those they were

elected to represent.

Urban and Wagoner (1996) discussed concerns that have long existed about the ability of

a more elite group to accurately represent a broader population with dissimilar backgrounds.

Even so, school boards continued and benefited from autonomy from outside forces as well as

from within local districts and communities, and it was only when they wandered too far from

the interests and desires of the mainstream that significant numbers of citizens became involved

in board politics or issues (Iannacconne and Lutz, 1994; 1970). Land (2002) shared that the

broader public has largely been uninvolved in school board governance and that often only a

small percentage of the public even votes in board elections, let alone demonstrate an interest in

running for board office.

State and Federal Government Intervention in Local Education

A hallmark report, A Nation at Risk, released by the National Commission on Excellence

in Education in 1983, included harsh criticism of American public education and its outcomes.

The report initiated a reform movement in public education that continues to the present. In the

5

report school boards did not specifically come under criticism, and in fact were largely ignored

(Danzberger, 1994). To that point in the history of American public education, the president,

state governors, city and town mayors, and other elected officials had largely stayed out of

educational policies and politics (Usdan, 2006). Yet, with the report’s chronicling of perceived

failures of the system and consequent frustration, intervention in the system from the state and

the federal level began and continues, and more concerted public interest at the local

community/district level also eventuated (Plank and Boyd, 1994).

Until the final two decades of the 20th century, American public education progressed

largely as a sorting and sifting endeavor, and its successes and failures were not scrutinized as

closely as is true today. In the previous context, school boards had greater local autonomy than

now exists. Though the concept of elected school board oversight of local schools is based on the

foundational democratic belief that the best decisions are made at the level closest to the

individuals those decisions will impact, and that elected representatives of a given populace are

best able to make such decisions (Feuerstein, 2002; Davies & Hosler, 1949), in fact some

challenges with such a concept have long existed.

Impediments to Public Trust

Throughout the majority of the 20th century, in which public education essentially

prepared a fairly small percentage of students for college and genuine economic success, those

who served on school boards were often reflective of the students advantaged by the system,

while students and parents from less advantaged groups often had little legitimate and effective

voice in school governance. Iannacconne and Lutz (1994; 1970) noted that it was often only

when citizens became so frustrated with the failure of a board to represent overwhelming

community interests that those citizens found themselves sufficiently dissatisfied (Dissatisfaction

6

Theory) to actually get involved and advocate for desired changes. Land (2002) studied and

criticized the lack of genuine public involvement that led to school boards exercising power and

influence in ways that promulgated the continuation of a sorting/sifting system which

progressively increased the gap between “haves” and “have nots.”

Cunningham (2003) described some of the challenges, following the advent of school

reform efforts, which a changed context and environment created. Schools boards are more

frequently criticized for their undue responsiveness to business, interest groups, and other

unofficial players in educational policy. A greater lack of trust in the school board as a

representative democratic institution has developed, and school boards are accused of falling

back on bureaucratic responses rather than sharing an openness and willingness to address

fundamental issues and concerns.

Carol, et al. (1986), and Olsen and Bradley (1992) noted that apathy grew in the latter

part of the 20th century, concurrent with the reality that the nation’s schools were serving a more

diverse student population; social problems were becoming more pervasive; and government

itself continued to become more complex, replete with multiple layers of decision making

(Danzberger, 1994).

Criticisms of School Boards

In the midst of educational reform, buffeted in the first decade of the 21st century by the

definitive requirements and expectations of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act, No Child Left Behind, criticism of school boards has grown. Danzberger (1994)

cited three studies of the Institute of Educational Leadership in which boards were criticized for

a variety of reasons, including micromanagement of and interference in the operational side of

7

schools and districts; over reliance on bureaucratic policy responses without willingness to

confront real issues of concern; in-fighting with respect to responding to various unofficial

players in education; and a lack of commitment to monitoring themselves and their own actions

and decisions. Wong (1995) and Goodman and Zimmerman (2000) similarly chronicled

criticisms of school boards related to blurred roles which result in micromanagement and

interference.

Plank and Boyd (1994) describe that growing frustration with less than desired results of

quality achievement by all students in the late 20th and into the early 21st centuries led to new

forces impacting public education and new players in the process. Boards were increasingly

criticized for falling back on bureaucratic responses and for a lack of genuine engagement with

the public they were elected to represent (Cunningham, 2003). As such criticism increased

pressures on school boards grew, especially from interest groups, business, and from elected

official at the local, state, and federal levels who had, as already described, previously stayed out

of the operation of the public school system.

Role Confusion

In a context of ratcheted demands and expectations, role confusion for many school

boards and their members resulted (Danzberger & Usdan, 1992). Bjork (2000) notes this leads to

difficulties with school district decision-making and unfortunate power struggles between boards

and superintendents and staff, as well as between individual board members themselves. Also,

Mountford (2004) shared that in a board’s quest to hold or develop power against so many

conflicting demands, some have fallen trap to using power in oppressive ways that actually

detract from a re-visioned goal of serving all students well.

8

The challenges and difficulties for school boards – and for the superintendents and staff

they employ – over the past twenty-five years have been considerable. At the same time,

revitalized interest in public education has created the opportunity for new ways of thinking and

doing to assure that all children can and will truly benefit from the work of the system and the

skill and dedication of its professionals.

Key Relationships

Numerous researchers have paid close attention to key relationships in the educational

enterprise which, when successfully forged and developed, can have immensely positive benefit.

Caruso (2006) espouses that the most important of those relationships is between teacher and

student, rendering it imperative that school boards understand and deeply value teachers, and the

learning and teaching process. Blumberg and Blumberg (1995) assert that the most important

relationship in a school district is between the board and superintendent and, like Peterson and

Short (2002), and Danzberger (1992) describe that a poor relationship between the two weakens

stability and morale, and impedes needed restructuring and reform efforts. Usdan (2006) notes

that to meet the needs of children in their entirety, non-instructional needs must be addressed

which require dialogue between school boards and districts and the larger community and

various agencies – and in order to foster such communication boards and superintendents need a

clear and united vision, and a strong sense of teamwork in order to effectively engage the larger

public (Carter & Cunningham, 1997).

In the wake of change and reform, the school board remains an embedded educational

institution. Current challenges and demands can lead to open and collaborative representation

around clear and shared goals that are developed with and include the support of stakeholder

9

groups, and that address an outcome of schooling that entails social justice and academic

achievement for and from each student served (Waters & Marzano, 2002).

Amid a significantly altered environment in which local school boards operate, it is

valuable to understand how board members themselves view and make sense of their complex,

contemporary role; and from that important lens identify insights that can enhance their

effectiveness for students, the public they represent, with the superintendent and staff with whom

they work, and for the district they help lead.

Carol, et al. (1986), and Olsen and Bradley (1992) have described a lack of trust in school

boards that came to exist, often accompanied by apathy, which when mixed with a more diverse

student population being served by the nation’s schools and more controversial and pervasive

social problems, almost inevitably led to greater power struggles between school boards and the

superintendents and staffs they employed. Numerous researchers have addressed the troubles of

role confusion, leading to micromanagement and interference by board members in the operation

of schools (Wong, 1995; Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000; Carter & Cunningham, 1997); and

unfortunate and unhealthy power struggles which can result (Bjork, 2000).

Changing Expectations

As suggested by Waters and Marzano (2006), school districts are in need of clear visions

that include non-negotiable goals for student achievement and clear plans of action to monitor

and reach those goals. Noguera (1999) supports the need for coherence, for collaborations, and

importantly for the meaningful engagement of parents in the process. Others, including

Leithwood and Jantzi (2000), Shannon and Bylsma (2004), and Fullan (2001), advocate the need

to redefine new and shared school and district cultures in which effective leadership is defined

10

and provided, quality teaching and learning is the overriding goal, support for system-wide

improvement is constant, and clear and collaborative relationships are fostered and furthered.

Elmore (2000) described that schools are expected to do, today, what has never been

done before…educate all students to high standards. A needed shift from a system that

underserved many students, to one in which interest at the federal and state levels – augmented

by similar interest at the local level – has grown dramatically, and has led to difficult realities for

the institution of the school board in general, and between school boards and superintendents and

staffs. Such realities are costly to ignore.

The School Board-Superintendent Relationship

Peterson and Short (2001) assert the association of the school board and its

superintendent has far reaching effects on all parts of the educational system. Danzberger (1997)

has noted that a poor relationship between the two affects the overall health of a school district

and almost everything it attempts to do with and for its students and the staff members who serve

them. Blumberg and Blumberg (1995) say that the interplay between a school board and its

superintendent is the most important relationship in a school district. It also has a detrimental

impact on the ability of the local school system to engage its larger community, and Usdan

(2006) describes that it is imperative that schools forge open dialogues with the larger

community in order to meet the whole and complex needs of its children.

The realities and challenges for American public education in the first decade of the 21st

century, as the need to expect and assure success for all and not merely for some is embraced,

combined with the multi-faceted and complex demands on the system that come from many

11

different groups, has led to opportunities for superintendents and school boards to work in ways

that can create the coherence and unity of effort needed.

New Opportunities

An educational system that was largely unanalyzed by the Board members who oversaw

it and the practitioners who shepherded it throughout most of the 20th century, and one that now

is in the midst of an enduring reform effort, is in fact a very human endeavor; and is fraught with

challenges, role confusion, power struggles, and “fuzziness” that have been described by

Cunningham and Cordeiro (2003). Inherent in human challenges, however, are immense

opportunities. Though it would be inaccurate to assert that each opportunity has yet been fully

maximized, a deeper understanding of a need for clarity of purpose and collaborative goal setting

and consequent development of educational policies and programs has resulted. School boards

can no longer afford not to attend to the needs of the entirety of the student population served or

the greater needs of a democratic society for all to succeed, and superintendents and staff can ill

afford not to work closely with boards and communities in the development of goals – and action

plans to follow – which meet those needs.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to understand the experiences and lived realities of current

board members in a modern context. It targets understanding the motivations and expectations

that contemporary board members bring to board service; their perceptions of the effects of their

service and leadership on policy and practice in local school districts; and a delineation of both

the satisfactory and frustrating aspects of board service. Tallerico (1991) asserts that as school

governance becomes increasingly complex yet is still “locally controlled,” local policy actors

12

continue to warrant the attention of educators based on the premise that “who those individuals

are, what they bring with them, and how they develop over time can be critical variables in local

educational policymaking processes” (p.94). The study addresses these important factors.

Significance of the Study

Generally, the premise upon which school boards are intended to operate – according to

both the National School Boards Association and the state of Washington’s affiliate, the

Washington State School Directors Association – is that school boards are responsible for policy

direction, and superintendents and staff are responsible to put policies into actual practice. As

Cunningham and Cordeiro (2003) point out, however, this important demarcation of

responsibilities is, in reality, often problematic. This case study explores the experiences and

perspectives of eleven current school board members, and provides their lived reality in the

important and challenging role of elected school board member.

The Study

This qualitative study of the backgrounds, motivations, and purposes that lead current

school board members to an interest in school board service, and of their perceptions of the

importance and impact of their individual contributions and of the board in whole on educational

policy and practice in their school districts, illuminated lived realities of board members in a

modern context in which school board service and challenges have changed significantly.

With the intent to understand the experiences and realities of current board members in a

modern context; the motivations and expectations that contemporary board members bring to the

inception of their school board service; their perceptions of the effects their service and

leadership has on policy and practice in their local school districts; and of both the satisfactory

13

aspects and frustrations of such service, specifically in light of contextual changes which have

affected the scope and impact of historical school board roles and influence, this study provides

the needed perspective of those who hold the position. A deeper understanding of the lived

reality of contemporary board members can be useful to other board members, and the

superintendents and staff with whom they work, in clarifying how both can work together toward

substantive and positive impact on quality education for all students served.

To help understand and explain the lived experiences and realities of current school board

members, I conducted a case study of eleven school board members using qualitative interview

methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). To fully understand and portray an experience, it is helpful

to look at the relationships that exist within the experience. Stake (1995) suggested the use of

qualitative methods for “understanding the complex interrelationships among all that exists” (p.

37).

While numerous approaches exist to the conduct of qualitative research, Yin (2003) noted

the use of case studies as a preferred strategy when how or why questions are investigated. The

proposed study focused on experiences bound by time and place (Creswell, 1998, p. 61) so case

study methodology was appropriate.

The fifty-nine school districts in a seven county region of Washington State which

collectively comprise one of the state’s nine Educational Service Districts, range in size of

student population from the largest and most urban district of approximately 30,000 students, to

the smallest of only 8 students. Only three of the fifty-nine districts have more than 9,000

students; six districts have between 2,000 and 5,000 students; none have between 5,001 and

8,999 students; and fifty have less than 2,000 students which, in the State of Washington,

classifies each as a “second class” school district. The study included six board members from

14

among the fifty second class school districts; three board members from those districts which

have more than 2,000 students but less than 5,000; and two board members from among those

districts with more than 9,000 students. The sample of board members studied reflected the range

(by size, and urban/suburban/rural) of school districts that exist in the region. Each school board

member studied, and the respective school district each represents, is described in Chapter III in

order to reflect both differences and similarities among board members and districts served.

The study explored three crucial areas of contemporary school board service:

• The backgrounds and expectations citizens bring to the school board position and

the induction experience in the role;

• The issues and challenges board members confront and the satisfactory and

frustrating parts of the role; and

• The sum experiences that combine to form the lived reality of a contemporary

school board member.

Limitations of the Study

The qualitative interviews with school board members were conducted with board

members drawn from 11 of the larger region’s 59 public school districts which, in total, comprise

20% of the 295 school districts in Washington State, and which collectively enroll approximately

10% of the total public school students in the state. Bound by common state and federal

regulations, school districts across the state share significant similarities, yet also have important

differences based upon local realities including size of district, location, and student and

community demographics. Further, interviews were conducted in the early winter of 2008-09, a

time in which challenging economic realities predominated in the state and nation. These factors

15

impact the study’s findings, and it is not suggested that conclusions be generalized to the state or

nation in whole, nor to other periods in the first decade of the Twenty-First century. Indeed,

qualitative studies cannot be generalized in a statistical sense, though findings can be

transferrable (Marshall & Rossman, 1999).

16

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Throughout the state of Washington and across the United States public education is a

topic of widespread interest. Education reform, with a keen focus on standards-based student

achievement, includes opportunities and challenges for schools and communities. The leadership

in dealing with these issues falls, in part, to locally elected citizens who accept responsibility of

school board membership. However, while state education departments, local school boards,

superintendents and teacher groups have historically dominated decision making related to

education, political leaders increasingly recognize that efforts to improve students’ academic

achievement must be linked with efforts to improve the health and social conditions in which

children live (Usdan, 2006). The power of the state and federal government in educational

decision making has grown (Feuerstein, 2002), which has had a marginalizing effect on a local

school board’s influence on the character of its schools. According to Boyd (2003) the

governance of public education is on trial, and both policymakers and the public increasingly

embrace radical measures to alter or reform the governance and operation of the education

system.

The literature review describes both an historical and current context in which the

institution of the local school board can be understood. It chronicles substantive changes over the

past quarter century which have impacted the pressures on and criticisms of school boards and

their members. Such changes, pressures, and criticisms need to be understood through the

experiences and perspectives of current school board members, which this study investigated.

17

Historical Perspective of Public Education Governance Systems

Local Control

American citizens have long supported a concept of local control, derived from the ideals

of self-rule and democracy. The most obvious evidence of democracy in education is found in

the institution of the school board (Feuerstein, 2002). The unique institution of the American

school board is one of the few remaining examples of grassroots democracy. In The Challenge of

School Board Membership, Davies and Hosler (1949) recognized the value of the local school

board, and urged the resistance of any proposals to transfer power from the local board to the

federal government. These writers saw as a strength, what some critics of school boards found a

major weakness, that they are directed by well-meaning amateurs.

At the time of formation of what became the United States, colonists did not trust distant

government and preferred that decisions be made close to home, especially decisions regarding

education. In 1642 Massachusetts passed a law to oversee the education of children, and by 1647

town meetings administered education as a role of local government. As towns grew selectmen

were found to represent the desires of the whole. With increasing demands for local control of

education, the first permanent School Committee was appointed in Boston in 1721 (Russo,

1992). In 1826 the Massachusetts law was amended to ensure that members of school

committees were not members of other governmental bodies, aimed at eliminating political

influence on educational policies. The Massachusetts system of a separate educational

governance system for each local school district was the prototype for the current governance of

schools by local school boards (Carol et al., 1986).

18

Education as a Right of the States

The Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights reserved the rights of education to the states.

Kirst (2004) noted that even though the Tenth Amendment retained control of education with the

States, the States delegated that power to the local school board, and the States intervened only

rarely. It is only in more recent years that some large districts have been taken over by mayors

and State governments (Danzberger, 1992; Kirst & Bulkley, 2000). A principle of local control

of public schools has been a sacred American ideology (Boyd, 2003).

Evolution of the School Board Structure

School boards, as they are known today, did not exist until the latter part of the 19th

century. In urban areas in the late 1800s board members were elected in local ward elections that

were impacted by local ward politics and corruption (Danzberger, 1992). In 1895, the twenty-

eight cities in the country with a population exceeding 100,000 had school boards with an

average of 21.5 members (Howell, 2005). The board of education was modeled on corporate

boards with superintendents as the chief executive officers (Danzberger, 1992).

Through numerous reforms, school boards have declined to five or seven members. In

Washington State, only the largest public school district has seven board members; the other 294

public school districts elect five board members. Similarly, significantly more school districts

existed in the late 19th century than is the case today; currently there are approximately 15,000

school districts in the United States, with an average of a little over 3000 students each

(Cunningham, 2003; Howell, 2005). The consolidation of school districts, which increased

rapidly in the second half of the 20th century, placed greater pressure on school board members

to represent growing constituencies (Iannacconne & Lutz, 1994).

19

Governance Concerns

Today, in a time of growing concern about the performance of public education, the way

schools are governed has come under intense scrutiny. According to Plank and Boyd (1994),

growing frustrations with perceived failures of the public school system have led many policy

analysts to a repudiation of democratic control. In the final decade of the 20th century and in the

first of the 21st century, there are increased instances of greater state intervention, mayoral

control, and implementation of concepts including charter schools and vouchers – amidst a larger

climate of educational reform. Still, school boards continue to exist. In order to understand how

school boards can remain viable as the journey of public education proceeds, a review of various

impacts that have affected the institution is useful.

Background of the School Governance System

Representation of the Public’s Interests

Previously noted, the governance system of the nation’s schools evolved over time, and

began in Massachusetts when local selectmen determined that running both towns and schools in

growing communities was too great an administrative burden (Danzberger, 1994). There has

been a long allegiance to keeping school boards independent units of local governance. A

foundational democratic belief holds that through widespread participation and representation,

decisions are made that best represent the interests of diverse groups. The school board, as

constituted, is designed to assure representation of the public’s interests. Social institutions are

often impermeable to change, and public education is no different (Boyd, 2003). The ideology of

local control of public education provides belief structures about how it should be organized and

governed (Tye, 2000).

20

Cunningham (2003) notes the major agents of socialization in America include families

and peer groups, as well as schools and local communities. He asserts that schools have the best

chance of success when they are led by a representative, responsive governance group – and not

only administrators, teachers, and students (when mature); but parents and community members.

At its best, in such a system these individuals can be trusted to work toward the best interest of

children in setting policy, planning, establishing goals, mobilizing resources, developing staff,

and evaluating and modifying programs.

Dissatisfaction with Local School Boards

Throughout much of the 20th century, presidents, governors and mayors played

subordinate and relatively passive roles in shaping educational policy (Usdan, 2006). In many

states school board elections were held separately from general elections, and the isolation and

insulation of education from mainstream politics was reinforced. At various times, however,

local school politics influence the relationship between the community and local school boards.

Drawing upon the work of Iannacconne and Lutz (1970) and Dissatisfaction Theory, Alsbury

(2003) explained that as community members become more dissatisfied with the school, they

also become more active in trying to change representation on the school board. Thus,

dissatisfaction with a particular school policy can and has led to increased involvement by voters

at local school elections.

External Influences on Local School Boards

The judicial system has also had a significant effect on school governance, prominently

highlighted by the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education United States Supreme Court decision.

21

Howell (2005) describes that courts have set rules on student assembly, funding for boys’ and

girls’ sports, accommodations for students with disabilities, and more recently school vouchers.

While the institution of the school board came through the first phase of education

reform, following A Nation at Risk, relatively unscathed and even ignored (Danzberger, 1994),

by the end of the 1980’s it was increasingly clear that continuation of education as usual was not

producing desired improvements in the performance of schools. In the past two decades

governance of the nation’s schools, and the practices rooted in the schools, has come under

closer review. Even though decisions regarding a child’s education may be best placed as close

to the school, home and community as possible, criticism increased that schools were being

governed by school boards too far removed from their communities (Cunningham, 2003).

For forty years between 1930 and 1970, a consolidation movement aimed at efficiency

and economy significantly reduced the number of school districts in the nation (Danzberger,

1992). It has been asserted that the loss of the local neighborhood school caused a loss of

community and shared values with the school district (Meier, 2003). Though consolidation

resulted in some benefits to students including more course options and better competitive sports

options, it came at a cost to local governance of schools. Once, one of every five hundred

citizens sat on a school board. Today, as a result of consolidation, only one of nearly twenty

thousand is a school board member. In an earlier time most American citizens knew a school

board member personally; today, few do. Meier (2003) notes that many citizens no longer feel

connected to public education, and the lessening of public participation in school governance

represents a loss for public education, for the relationship of citizens with government, and for

democracy itself.

22

Schools and Democracy

Boyle (2004) asserts that the “public” in public schools is related to how the next

generation is prepared to assume responsible roles as citizens in society. The public school is

essential to the preservation of a democratic system of government. Tyack (2003) noted that

democracy in education and education in democracy are relevant to the current and future status

of American culture. All citizens share an interest in the education of future generations.

Cunningham (2003) observed that the public no longer feels that the schools are theirs.

Such disconnect may lead to abandonment of public education. Boyle (2004) suggested that

learning how to govern effectively in a representative democracy is the most critical issue in

board development. Since governing is a collaborative endeavor, individual board members must

learn to act cooperatively by establishing shared values. In a study of public participation in local

politics, including school district politics, Campbell (2001) noted a paradox. While participation

in local elections was fairly low, participation rates in local meetings, including school board

meetings, was fairly high. He found that participation was most likely to occur in smaller settings

of homogenous members.

The Effects of Reform on School Governance

Challenges to Local Control

Danzberger (1994) describes the governance system of public schools today as complex,

incorporating multiple layers and decision makers (including federal and state courts, the U.S.

Congress, state governors and legislators). He notes that policy makers often respond to the

unofficial players in public policy: special interest groups, the business community, and groups

of citizens who want their perspectives reflected in the policies governing schools.

23

The concept of “local control” has become increasingly diffuse. Cunningham (2003)

concurs and notes that today education suffers from an undue responsiveness to private interest

groups rather than a focus on the idea of the public good. The result is private interests,

politicians, and bureaucrats dominating policy making to the detriment of wider public interests.

Challenges to School Board Powers

Howell (2005) highlighted three trends in public education that have accelerated the

decline of local school board powers: mayors and states have taken over control of the

functioning of the public school district in their jurisdiction; there has been a federal and state

push for standards and accountability such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB); and reforms

through school choice have dominated education for over two decades. Viewed from a

constitutional perspective, it is ultimately the duty of the state to oversee education, yet state

legislators are less representative of local constituency needs and interests than local school

boards. This problem is only exacerbated with national educational reform, due to an inability to

address individual differences in communities.

The local school board is an advocate for a community, is accessible and accountable to

local residents of the district, and is a community’s educational watchdog (NSBA, 2003). Federal

intrusion dilutes the power of locally elected board members to design policies that meet the

specific needs of the populations they serve (Howell, 2005).

Criticisms of School Boards in an Era of Reform

Citing three different studies of the Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL),

Danzberger (1994) summarizes agreements among critics of school boards. The criticisms

include school board members too commonly:

24

Fail to provide far-reaching, politically risky leadership needed 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 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 developing decision making in 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.

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.

Other writers, too, espouse criticisms of school boards and their members. Wong (1995)

asserts that true school reform will remain elusive unless school boards stay away from

micromanagement and focus more on setting policy. Writing in his column in the St. Louis Post-

Dispatch about his personal experience as a school board member, Fox (1996) noted that the

concept he and fellow board members had of a school board was that taxpayers were entitled to

representation, but that board members were not set up to act as pseudo-educators. He criticizes

school boards being run by people who see themselves as educators, wanting to oversee

25

curriculum and decide on teachers; and argues that the job of the board is to hire competent

educators who should run the schools, while the board keeps an eye on the funds and assures that

administrators and teachers don’t get undue flack from voters and parents. Instead, it has too

often become the case that a primary source of superintendent frustration stems from school

boards micromanaging and/or interfering in what are administrative responsibilities (Goodman &

Zimmerman, 2000).

Arguing the need for a more community-oriented philosophy that is sensitive to local

conditions, Cunningham (2003) said that too often school boards have fallen back on

bureaucratic rules and policies rather than to support substantive responses. A key challenge is to

respect the democratic tradition of inviting every citizen to play an important role in policy

development and stewardship, while socializing young people for a broader society.

Citizen Access to the Local School Board

Access of citizens to their public schools can be restricted by the bureaucratic and

technocratic culture of school districts, and the democratic tradition of participation in American

education is threatened by a developing cynicism and distrust of government in general, and of

those who seek public office. The challenge of assuring that the school board can indeed be

representative of the citizenry on behalf of the greater good of children, and that it can work

effectively toward increased student achievement, warrants review.

Constituents often cite lack of representation when board members are elected in at large

elections, and Hess (2002) found that more than 56 percent of members are elected at large. Moe

(2006) found the power of the teachers’ union is too strong and has too much financial influence

to assure true democratic elections of candidates. The issue of ensuring an effective central

26

policy-making body for public education at the local level is important (Danzberger, 1994).

Howell (2005) describes the waning of school board impact in the governance of schools as state

and federal government funding (and influence) has grown, and argues that without changes it

could become an institution of little use.

Future Challenges for School Boards

External Threats

Today, the delicate balance between order and liberty that modern democracy seeks to

maintain is being threatened by the growing influence of politically powerful interest groups and

their impact on American education (Cunningham, 2003). Great concern exists over the end

results of a lack of participation and trust in government, and more recently there has been a

backlash against the domination of education by political interest groups and bureaucrats. An

effort has been noted, over the past quarter century, to rebalance the equation in favor of lay

citizens while diminishing the power of state and educational professionals. Some have argued

that the best way to return to local control in education is to eliminate central school boards and

replace them with local school councils, allowing for and encouraging broader participation and

ownership of schools.

Though the institution of the school board may endure despite increasing criticisms, there

are problems to be overcome. In studies conducted by the Institute for Educational Leadership

(IEL), school board members themselves confirmed the frequent observation that boards spend

too little time on major concerns and too much dealing with administrative trivia (Danzberger,

1994). Boards rated themselves least effective in the core areas of governing responsibilities –

areas in which boards are widely criticized – that include leadership, planning and goal setting,

27

policy oversight, involving parents and the community, relating to and influencing others, board

operations and board development. School board members often appear dysfunctional because of

conflicts between members and the resulting incapacity to chart a clear direction for their school

systems; conflict that results because individual board members lack a common definition of the

board’s role.

School Board – Parent Relationship

Devlin-Scherer and Devlin-Scherer (1994) describe the importance of school boards of

the future understanding the parent involvement activities that are associated with student

achievement. They cite a study of six school boards, conducted over more than four years, in

which only 1.5% of school board conducted tasks were related to parent involvement. They note

evidence that indicates parents’ active participation in teacher suggested student learning

activities can enhance children’s achievement and attitude toward a subject, especially reading.

School Board – Superintendent Relationship

Working together is especially important for those who serve public schools, and the

primary example of cooperation must come from the top – from school boards and

superintendents (Houston & Bryant, 1997). Those who govern public schools must share a

vision, clear expectations, and the ability and courage to lead. School boards and superintendents

must work as a team to engage the public, and to nurture a climate conducive to change since

education is not stagnant.

The roles expected of superintendents and school board members in American public

education, while often intertwined, are different by design with respect to policy development

and implementation. Both the National School Boards Association and the Washington state

28

affiliate, the Washington State School Directors Association, describe that elected school board

members are vested with policy making responsibilities, and superintendents and staff are

charged with implementation of policy decisions. Historically, in practice this delineation has not

always been clear or pure, and the lack of clarity has been both problematic and opportunistic –

for both board members and superintendents.

As chronicled by numerous researchers (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2003; Wong, 1995;

Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000; Carter & Cunningham, 1997; Danzberger & Usdan, 1997;

Bjork, 2000; Houston & Bryant, 1997) the fuzziness which surrounds the demarcation of board

and superintendent responsibilities can lead to real problems in school districts with detrimental

impacts for everyone – students and adults alike – affected by the system. Alternatively,

however, it can present opportunities for superintendents to work effectively with boards in the

development of policies that can effectively address important issues, including those associated

with social justice and equity.

The Policy Role

Marshall and Gerstl-Pepin (2005) make clear that public education policy development

and practice are political in nature. The politics of policy include both internal and external

pressures and interests, and entail the need to clarify both the actual purpose(s) toward which

policy is aimed and the real effects of its design, adoption, and subsequent implementation.

Superintendents and boards need to work closely and collaboratively in many areas in order to

assure high expectations of, and achievement from all students served, and such a relationship is

especially fundamental with respect to the policy and direction-setting responsibilities within a

school district.

29

In order for a superintendent and school board to have a positive impact as effective

policy advocates – at the local district level – a priori collaborative work with respect to goal

setting and the establishment of non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction (Waters &

Marzano, 2006) is vital. Through a clear definition of key district interests and goals, and via

work that can illuminate such goals in the most clear and simple form (Gladwell, 2000), a

framework can be identified which can serve as a needed filter for key decisions – especially

policy decisions.

Genuine involvement of all board members in a collaborative process to define and set a

course to achieve clear outcomes is advocated by Eadie (2003, 2006). Development of the

governing capacity of the school board is important, and allowing board members to participate

on standing district committees can broaden their knowledge and provide them ownership in the

direction of the district. Danzberger (1994) states that a board cannot and will not govern well if

its members cannot, through healthy debate, develop consensus about the role of the board and

the purposes of the district it leads. Attention must be given to the constituencies to which the

board is accountable; how the board will relate to those constituencies; and to the need for board

members to view themselves as moral and cultural leaders, rather than political leaders.

Clear school board codes of conduct can be helpful toward assuring the board maintains a

focus on its responsibility for establishing district policy and not venturing into day-to-day

district operations (Riede, 2004). Because proper board behavior is critical to a district’s success

or failure, confining board actions to the needed areas of policy making, planning, and appraisal

is important. Transforming local school boards into true education policy boards that focus on

development, implementation, and oversight of policies to improve the academic achievement of

students is needed (Danzberger, 1994).

30

Teaching, Learning, and Accountability

Caruso (2006) describes the most important connection in a school district as the one

between a teacher and a student; and that successful learning is dependent on quality teachers

and administrators. Thus, it is critical that board members deeply understand and value the role

of teachers and administrators in the educational process, and school boards must enable

effective teaching and learning. Specifically, the creation of a collegial environment in which

staff members are included in goal-setting discussions is a key. Through open communication

between the board and teachers and administrators, board members are provided the window into

how things can be and can then work to muster community support to embrace needed changes.

Reviewing a survey conducted of school board members and superintendents, Feuerstein

and Dietrich (2003) note that board members and superintendents view standards and testing in

similar ways, even as they differ with regard to their knowledge of standards; the ideological

positions they take with regard to testing; and the degree to which they believe testing has been

implemented in their districts. Houston and Bryant (1997) assert that both the role and goals of

board members need to be made clear, and clarity about standards and accountability for

reaching them is similarly critical. Once defined, the board must hold themselves and the

superintendent accountable for achieving the goals, and should expect the superintendent will

hold principals and teachers accountable. Importantly, the board must also embrace an advocacy

role in the message about standards and the significance of student achievement.

Representing Changing Communities

Because school districts in the 21st century must also respond to the non-instructional

needs of students, a need exists for board members to open dialogue in their communities about

31

the governance structure of education and the capacities of their institutions to provide

interrelated health, developmental, and educational services necessary for children to succeed in

contemporary society (Usdan, 1994). Since schools are often the core and most visible

institutions in many communities, and because a key element of a community’s prestige and

desirability as a place to live is the reputation of the local school system, leadership from local

school boards for multifaceted collaborative efforts is vital. As boards attempt to deal with

important issues, Elsberry (2005) cautions discussions and deliberations about such issues should

occur in ways that are transparent to the public, assuring a public voice in the outcome.

Overall, school board service can be both time consuming and stressful, especially as

board members engage constituents and attend district events as they work to gain knowledge,

build networks, and solicit support for the school system. McAdams (2006) advocates the

importance of developing district systems that afford board members an ability to remain

organized in the midst of multiple demands on their time as they seek to build relationships and

foster the power of ideas.

Summary

It has been asserted that a restructured school board is needed to address three goals that

are critical to the nation’s future: that all students meet world-class academic standards, that

schools are accountable for student outcomes, and that there is a closer collaboration between

schools and other services for children (Wong, 1995). Danzberger (1994) noted that systemic

reform in public schooling cannot be accomplished without a corresponding restructuring of

school boards. In the changed climate of public education, it is necessary to understand how men

and women who currently serve as elected school board leaders perceive their role amid the

32

challenges and pressures that exist. The following chapter provides an overview of the research

methodology for a qualitative case study of eleven local school board members which

investigates board member experiences, perspectives, and realities; and it includes the study

design, limitations, and ethical concerns.

33

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODS

The purpose of this study was to describe the lived realities of citizens who are currently

serving as school board members. The inquiry targeted understanding the motivations and

expectations that board members bring to the inception of their board service, as well as their

perceptions of the effects their service and leadership has on policy and practice in their local

school district. Additionally, an understanding of both the satisfactory aspects and frustrations of

such service was sought, particularly in light of the changes, pressures, and criticisms which

have impacted school boards and their members over the past twenty-five years. As the national,

state, and local landscape of education has evolved, it is important to understand how school

current school board members perceive the changed context of contemporary public education.

The institution of the local school board has long been susceptible to role confusion, and

is especially so in a current context in which school boards face greater competition for influence

and control; greater demands from a myriad of educational stakeholders; and greater criticisms

borne of increased public scrutiny of local schools and districts. Chapter III overviews the

methodology that was used to answer the following questions:

• What backgrounds and expectations do citizens bring to the school board position and

what is their induction experience in the role?

• What are the issues and challenges board members confront and what are the satisfactory

and frustrating parts of the contemporary school board role?

• What are the sum experiences that combine to form the lived reality of a contemporary

school board member?

34

Qualitative Methodology

Researchers make decisions about methodology – quantitative, qualitative, or mixed

methods – based on what the purpose of the study is and the questions that are asked. An

important distinction in educational research is the qualitative-quantitative dichotomy that

represents two distinct orientations to phenomena being studied (Wiersma & Jurs, 2005). Stake

(1995) outlined three major differences between the two broad types of research. The first is the

purpose of inquiry, whether it is understanding or explanation. Next is whether the researcher is

personal or impersonal and, finally, there is a difference in whether the knowledge is discovered

or constructed.

For the purposes of this study, I was interested in developing an understanding of the real

and lived experiences and perceptions of current school board members, and in discovering and

explaining how they perceive their important and challenging role in modern public education.

Krathwohl (1993) defines qualitative research as that which describes experiences in

words instead of numbers or measures. The design of qualitative research is based on purposeful

selection, and in such research primacy is given to the subject matter being studied. From a

qualitative perspective, reality is socially constructed and comes through direct experience in

which a search is made for meanings and symbols, and the sum understanding is more than the

individual parts. The qualitative researcher’s role is to represent what is learned and experienced

in the context in which it occurs, followed by the need for triangulation of the various data

sources in order to then reach valid conclusions (Denzin & Lincoln, 2004). Context sensitivity is

of fundamental importance in this research approach.

Qualitative research occurs in the natural world, uses multiple methods that are

interactive and humanistic, is emergent rather than prefigured, and is interpretive. The qualitative

35

researcher views social phenomenon holistically, systematically reflects on who he or she is in

the inquiry, is sensitive to his or her own personal biography and how it shapes the study, and

uses complex reasoning that is multifaceted and iterative (Marshall & Rossman, 1999).

Qualitative methodology offers a wide variety of options to researchers. Cresswell (1998)

and Tesch (1990) both note the myriad choices in qualitative research. Fitzpatrick, Secrist, and

Wright (1998) suggest that selecting a particular method depends on a good fit between the

purpose of the study and the best way to draw conclusions from it. For this study I used case

study methodology, through interviews, as a good fit to describe the experiences of citizens

serving as contemporary school board members. Bassey (1999) advocates the use of case studies

as a prime strategy for developing theory which illuminates educational policy or enhances

educational practice. Because this study has implications for both board members and

superintendents (and staff) who want to understand the opportunities and challenges of school

board service in the 21st century, a case study approach was appropriate.

Case Study Method

Case study has been defined in a variety of ways. Lincoln and Guba (1985) describe little

agreement about what a case study is, despite extensive literature about its use. Patton (1990)

found case studies helpful in understanding particular people or a particular problem or a unique

situation in broad depth. Marshall and Rossman (1999) suggest that a case study method can be

used to understand and even change a complex social phenomenon. I conducted a case study of

eleven citizens currently serving on a school board in different school districts (six from “small”

school districts with less than 2,000 total students; three from “medium” school districts with

more than 2,000 but less than 9,000 total students; and two from “large” school districts with

36

more than 9,000 students) in a seven county region which collectively comprises one of the state

of Washington’s nine Educational Service Districts.

I conducted interviews between one and a half and three hours in length, with eleven

current members of different (varying in size and in urban/suburban/rural demographics) school

district’s board of directors. Each interview was recorded and transcribed. I noted, recorded, and

observed details using a contact summary sheet to describe the main concepts, themes, issues and

questions I noticed during the interviews (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Stake (1995) noted the

purpose of observation is to place an interpreter in the field to observe and record objectively,

while simultaneously examining meaning. To protect those studied, pseudonyms were assigned

to each participant.

The Research Participants

Due to the predominance of small school districts (less than 2000 students, also referred

to as “second class” school districts) within the greater region bounding the study, six (a

majority) of the eleven school board members interviewed for the study were drawn from among

the 50 second class districts within the Educational Service District. Three board members

interviewed sit on boards of one of the six school districts with more than 2000 but less than

5000 students, and two more board members from among the three school districts with more

than 9000 students were interviewed.

Small School District Participants

David (all names used are pseudonyms) was elected to the school board just over a year

ago in a contested election. He was raised and attended school in the school district he

represents, and his father had earlier served on the same school board for 20 years. His school

37

district is largely rural, and enrolls slightly more than 900 students. In recent years student

population has grown, creating a changing dynamic and some tension between long-time district

citizens and newcomers. A college graduate, his career in an agriculturally-related field took him

and his family to several other communities in eastern Washington prior to his current position.

Upon accepting his current job he described a deliberate choice to purchase a home in and send

his own children to the school district from which he had graduated and currently serves. As a

parent of children currently matriculating through school, he is involved in activities such as

scouting and youth sports, in addition to participation in school parent-teacher and booster

groups. Previous to his election to the board he had chaired numerous school construction bond

campaigns for the district. He considered running for the board four years prior to when he was

elected, yet the incumbent had desired to serve another term. When, four years later, that same

sitting board member still wanted to run again after having already been on the school board for

20 years, David decided his desire to serve was significant enough to run against the individual

and, as noted, he prevailed in the election – handily in fact.

Amy Jo was appointed to a seat on her school district’s board a little more than two years

ago. Like David, she grew up and attended school in the district she represents, and her mother

had served on the same district school board for nine years when Amy Jo was growing up.

Largely rural, the district enrolls just over 500 students, and has experienced some challenges

with students “choicing out” to other surrounding school districts which are either closer to

students’ residences or offer more course options than are available in a small school district.

Both she and her husband are involved in farming, and prior to becoming the sole applicant for a

vacant board seat she had been (and continues to be) actively involved in school activities

including school improvement committees, booster clubs, and as a volunteer to assist students

38

with reading. Additionally, she has been engaged in youth sports activities in the community.

With her own children currently in school, she feels a vested interest in the success and future of

the school district.

Christine sits on the board of a district which enrolls approximately 1700 students.

Spanning parts of two different counties, the growing school district includes both expansive

rural territory and continually developing suburban housing neighborhoods. Following becoming

actively involved in an elementary school parent-teacher network, as well as extensive volunteer

work in each of her children’s elementary classrooms (her children are currently in high school),

eight years ago Christine ran for a seat on the board in a contested election that included a

primary because three individuals ran for the position. She was encouraged to run for the board

by a sitting board member and her children’s principal, and was open to the prospect based on a

feeling that the board needed someone who would be more engaged and visible than what she

perceived to be true for most of the board members at the time of her election. She ran

unopposed for a second term on the board which will end next fall, and plans to run for election

again at that time. She remains active as a parent in booster club activities, fund raisers, and

volunteering to provide reading support to middle school students and helping with a civics

project at the high school level. Formerly employed in the medical field, she indicated that her

current position, at an institution of higher learning, is less than full time and affords the time

required to be actively involved as a board member, community member, and parent.

A parent of only one child who just graduated from high school last spring and began

college in the fall, Julie applied along with several others for a seat on her district’s board nine

years ago, has been elected to two terms since, and indicates that at the conclusion of her current

term she does not plan to run again. A rural school district in which agriculture pursuits

39

predominate, almost 650 students attend district schools and enrollment increases modestly each

year. Like Christine’s district, Julie’s crosses two different counties in an large geographic area,

and the district is trying to more effectively welcome newer residents, many of whom live a good

distance from the established small town in which the district schools are situated. Julie and her

husband deliberately chose to buy a home in the small town years ago, preferring a quieter

lifestyle to the more suburban/urban environment in which she had been raised. Her career as an

early childhood educator has included demanding teaching positions in a nearby city and now in

a different small town some miles away, but never in the town or school district in which she

lives and serves. Her husband does own a small business in the community, which has afforded

him ample opportunities for community involvement including an active role in the local

Chamber of Commerce. Having done some volunteer work in her daughter’s classroom when the

girl was in elementary school, for Julie school board service was a way for her to be involved in

the community, even though she worked elsewhere.

At an earlier phase of his life Rodney had been a general manager of a large territorial

area for a major corporation which encouraged service on boards, and he had served on several

different boards before becoming a school board member. Upon a move to his current

community and a purchase of a retail business located close to several of the district’s schools, it

followed that he applied for an open seat on the school board. At the time, two other individuals

also interviewed with the board for the vacancy and Rodney was selected and has subsequently

been elected three times to the seat. His school district is basically rural with housing

developments scattered throughout the district, and almost 1800 students are enrolled in district

schools, and currently the district is experiencing enrollment decline. The parent of a college

student and a high school student, in addition to previous experience on a couple of boards he

40

had been active in coaching youth sports, and with a business located proximate to several

schools had provided support to the schools in a variety of ways. With a view that being on the

school board was a public service opportunity, when asked to apply for an open position he felt it

appropriate to stand up to such a responsibility.

Colby grew up in the small, farming community in which he lives and serves on the

school board. Employed as a farmer himself, he had previously been on another community

board and had been involved in a federal agricultural grant program which increased the already

extensive community involvement that he described as inherent for most people living in small

towns. At the time eleven years ago when he applied for an open board seat in the rural school

district which enrolls not quite 200 students, he was a single parent with his young child (now in

high school) living with him. Due to the demands of raising a child alone serving on the board

had not been on his radar, yet he was approached and encouraged by several fellow community

members. After consulting with his parents – also residents of the same community – about their

ability and willingness to assist with his child were he to become a member of the board; he was

selected from among the two people who were interviewed for the position. Because Colby had

grown up in the community, he decided that board service would be a way to give back to his

home town and school district. He has since been elected to his seat three times and in the

intervening time remarried and has three step-children, in addition to his own child. The oldest

has graduated and the other three are still in school.

Medium-Sized School District Participants

Charlie was raised on the west side of Washington State where his family was the long

time owner of a retail business. He began working in the family business at a young age and

41

worked his way up in a venture that was continually successful. In the mid-1990s he had the

opportunity to sell the business, and moved to a small community in eastern Washington and

became involved in agricultural pursuits. At the time his oldest child was entering the sixth

grade, and his youngest was not yet in school (both are now finished with their K-12 education).

He and his wife felt that moving to the small community was a good way to remove their

children from growing gang activity in the western Washington community in which they lived,

and found the move akin to “going back in time 30 years.” He got involved in a local service

club, the Grange, in hunter’s education for young people, and was active in increasing

infrastructure services in the community. Seven years ago, following the encouragement of a

neighbor who was getting off the board because her youngest child was graduating, he decided to

run for an open seat on the board of his local school district which enrolls just under 2200

students. He earned the seat in an election in which he faced no opposition, and was interested in

learning something new. To that point he had met his children’s principals and teachers and had

participated as a community member in the hiring process of a sitting superintendent, yet had

little experience with or knowledge of the school district beyond this background. The district is

situated in a small yet thriving community fairly far removed from the urban center of the region.

Over eleven years ago Susan ran against one other individual for a position on her

district’s school board, a district with a student enrollment of close to 2300 students.

Subsequently she has been elected twice more to her seat and is in the midst of her third term as

a board member. With school-age children at the time (her children are now grown and out of

school), she knew she and her husband needed to be involved with their children and their

education. She had been part of a grade level reconfiguration committee for the district, an

experience she enjoyed, and was also active on an adult committee of a student youth group for

42

many years. An owner of a retail establishment in her community, she was motivated to be

involved in the school district not only for her own children, but for other kids as well –

especially those who do not have an advocate or voice at home. She values the role as an

advocate for all children, and is desirous of staying on the board in order to continue that work.

Her school district’s student enrollment has increased in recent years, as has the district and

community population in whole, as suburban development encroaches on what has historically

been a small, rural community.

Slightly more than 25 years ago Michael, who had been (and continues as) something of

a community activist in his region, had filed to run for the position of mayor in the small city in

which he lived. Simultaneously, a school board member from the local district resigned and he

received a phone call from a current board member, later in the filing week, encouraging him to

run for the school board. With his children of school-age at the time (all are now adults), he had

been involved in their schools and agreed to file for the vacancy. Subsequently two additional

citizens filed for the seat, and he prevailed in the primary and then the general election, though

lost the race for a city position by just a few votes following a recount. Following his initial

election to the board he has since been re-elected six times in a district with a student enrollment

of slightly more than 3600 students, located amid the larger urban center of the greater region.

Along with a background of civic involvement – he was involved as an officer in the Chamber of

Commerce; belonged to a service club for 18 years and served as its president; and was a key

member of a city/county municipal board which shepherded the construction of a major regional

entertainment facility. At the time he first ran for the school board he simply wanted to be

involved and to help. A quarter century hence he remains on the board and provides continuity to

a board of directors which has experienced turnover and new members in the most recent past.

43

Large-Sized School District Participants

Daniel applied and interviewed for a position on his local school board 24 years ago, and

was surprised when the board selected him over the other applicant, who had been quite involved

in the school district. Now retired, at the time he was working full time in the financial industry,

and his corporation expected and encouraged community involvement. Daniel had moved to the

community a few years earlier from a smaller eastern Washington city, and noted that in a small

community it was impossible not to be extremely involved in the community. Among many

activities in which he was engaged in the previous community in which he’d lived and worked,

including a service club and the local Chamber of Commerce, he had served as a chair of the

school levy committee for the local district and had presented in this capacity to the local school

board. The polite and appreciative treatment of the school board made an impression on him, and

spurned a subsequent interest in becoming involved with the local district upon a move to a new

city. Upon arrival in a new city he was asked and agreed to join several boards affiliated with

community organizations and enterprises, and also became involved in the Chamber of

Commerce, the region’s economic development committee, and a golf club in which he

entertained financial clients and was afforded many networking opportunities. Following the

ascension of one of his neighbors to the role of district superintendent, sometime later Daniel

called the new superintendent to express his interest in becoming involved with the school

district by serving on any committees where the district might have a need. At the time, his

youngest daughter was still in elementary school (all of his children are now adults with families

and careers of their own). The superintendent shared that there were no committees in need of

new members, yet a seat on the school board had become vacant. Following a conversation with

a fellow community member who encouraged him to apply for the seat, and with a sense that he

44

needed to “pay back” all the opportunities he had been given and successes he had earned, his

initial appointment to the board of a growing school district with a student population now in

excess of 9000 students has been followed by 5 subsequent re-elections to a board seat in a

district to which he feels a continuing responsibility.

Just over twelve years ago Douglas was appointed to a vacant seat on the board of

directors of his local district. A few months prior to his selection, from among five citizens

interviewed, he had run for a position on the board along with five other citizens and, while

emerging as one of the top two candidates in the primary, he was ultimately defeated in the

general election by an individual with whom he went on to serve on the same board for the next

eleven years. His interest in board service in a school district with a decidedly large student

population was borne of a variety of factors. Employed in the legal profession with experience in

both public and private milieus, he had served on several other social service agency boards. In

addition, with school-age children at the time of his appointment (all are now grown) he had

been active in scouting, youth sports, and in his children’s schools. Further, he has long been

associated with a service club whose interests include youth, and the club has been a long

supporter of the children served by the local school district. Motivated to a degree by providing

some geographic representational balance on a board in which members are elected at-large,

some experiences he’d had with his children’s schools and teachers – specifically related to a

perceived dearth of high expectations for all students – spurred a desire to impact a lack of focus

on helping all kids to do their very best. Growing up in a world in which he had learned that

society keeps score, he desired to become involved and serve the community by helping make

needed changes in the quality of education provided to all students.

45

The school board members interviewed for this study were selected by purposive

sampling, a non-probability method. The criterion for participation was to reflect board members

from across the size and type of the 59 public school districts located within and associated with

the particular Educational Service District. All participants were Caucasian and, as noted in

preceding descriptions, four were female and seven were male. In purposive sampling the a

researcher utilizes a small subset of a larger population in which many members of the subset are

easily identified (Babbie, 2001). In this study, a small group of board members were selected

from the larger population of all the board members in the region’s 59 school districts. Cresswell

(1998) shared that purposive sampling allows a researcher to select cases that show “different

perspectives on the problem, process, or event” permitting the researcher to select “ordinary

cases, accessible cases, or unusual cases” (p. 62). I selected ordinary and accessible cases, and

made email and telephone contact with each of the eleven board members to arrange interview

times and locations.

Appendix C (p. 150) provides a summary of the eleven participants in the study.

Data Collection

This study conformed to a well-established tradition of research. Cresswell (1998) noted

that case study research has a long and distinguished history across many disciplines. Collective

case study allows more cases to be included in a study and, according to Merriam (1998), “the

more cases included in a study and the greater the variation across cases, the more compelling an

interpretation is likely to be” (p. 40).

A central means for gathering information in qualitative inquiry is through interviewing.

The strengths of interviewing include: it fosters face-to-face interactions, it helps uncover

46

participants’ perspectives, the data is collected in a natural setting, the researcher can

immediately follow up if clarification is required, it is useful for describing complex interactions,

provides context information, and it facilitates analysis, validity checks, and triangulation. Such

strengths were important in the study because I interviewed in person and this helped me gather

impressions and understandings that a survey or written interview may not convey. Any

misunderstandings were resolved immediately or in follow up phone conversations or emails.

Limitations

There are weaknesses in this type of interviewing including: data are open to multiple

interpretations due to cultural differences, it is dependent on the cooperation of a small group of

key individuals, it is difficult to replicate, it is filled with ethical dilemmas, it is especially

dependent on the openness and honesty of the participants, and it relies on the researcher to be

resourceful, systematic, and honest (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). This study was not

invulnerable to these potential weaknesses.

To validate the data from the interviews participants were provided transcripts for

clarification, feedback, and questions. The purpose was to allow each participant an opportunity

to triangulate the observations and interpretations of the researcher (Stake, 1995). As necessary, I

followed up by telephone conversation or email.

Babbie (2001) explains that individuals look at the world through glasses that frame

particular histories and current situations. Researchers need to be clear about the bias of their

own point of view, and my potential researcher bias was considered prior to conducting the

qualitative interviews. In applied research fields like education it is not uncommon that a strong

autobiographical element may drive the research interest. Marshall and Rossman (1998) note that

47

the challenge for the qualitative researcher is to demonstrate that personal interest will not bias

the study. It is fair and important to acknowledge that the professional role I hold as a practicing

superintendent, in which a large part of my work includes working closely with school board

members, has an impact on my role as a qualitative researcher of school board members

generally. The vast majority of the board members who have served the four different school

districts for whom I have directly worked, and who serve in the other 55 school districts served

by the Educational Service District with which I am affiliated, have most often appeared to be

supportive individuals who sincerely care about the needs of all students in the district. However,

at different times specific individual interests of some have been evident, as has been a degree of

responsiveness to some special interests and/or vocal individuals or groups in the different

communities. Because I have not personally experienced service on a school board, over three

decades of professional work a wonderment about what motivates board members, and what

perspectives they bring to board service and those they form during their terms in office, has

developed.

Cresswell (1998) cautioned that a researcher should set aside prejudgments, yet at the

same time the researcher’s own experience can benefit both the process and outcome of the

study. Wolcott (1994) suggested that personal and cultural biases can be positive forces and can

lend focus to an inquiry, providing insights by involving a point of view different from that of

the participants being observed. Still, researchers must stay open-minded to other views and

recognize that others’ perceptions are also valid. In this study it was my purpose to give voice to

school board members’ experiences and perceptions and to portray these accurately and richly.

My abilities as a researcher have been developed through education and experience.

Though I had a priori interview expectations that included a number of positive assumptions, I

48

felt I possessed the appropriate experience and interview skills to conduct objective and open-

ended interviews and to obtain the answers necessary to analyze collected data. My

qualifications and experience include a Masters degree in Educational Administration, and both

principal’s and superintendent’s certificates in school administration. I have been employed for

thirty years as a high school teacher, assistant principal, and principal; as a central office

executive director; and for the past six years as a superintendent. My background contributed to

understanding of the data collection and analysis.

Despite potential limitations, this study reflects the perspectives, perceptions, and

experiences of eleven individuals who currently serve in the challenging role of school board

member. Their understanding of the contemporary role of school board member provides a

contribution to existing literature on American school boards.

Data Analysis

I conducted interviews at places and times selected by the participants. Each interview

was transcribed following the interview so I could begin data analysis without delay. Merriam

(1998) asserted that data analysis is perhaps the only facet of qualitative research in which there

is a right and wrong way, and that the right way of analyzing data in a qualitative study is to do

so simultaneously with data collection. After the interviews participants were given the

opportunity to review the transcribed transcripts for accuracy and to offer suggestions for

changes, and several were noted. Lincoln and Guba (1985) asserted the technique of member

checking as the most critical for establishing credibility. I sought tentative categories from

subsequent interview transcripts as the remainder of the data was collected, and strived to

triangulate what I found.

49

Ethical Considerations

Social research involves other human beings and must be undertaken with extreme care

and consideration of everyone involved. Babbie (2001) notes the necessity of “informed

consent.” Part of the informed consent of the study made clear to each participant the study

would be confidential. Before agreeing to participate, potential participants (interviewees) were

provided a verbal overview of the study along with expectations of them and of me as the

researcher. They were given a Participant Consent form (Appendix B, p.149) to sign indicating

they understood the nature and intent of the research, the risks associated with the study, and

their agreement to participate. The right to withdraw at any time was contained with the

Participant Consent form. Participants were provided the opportunity to read transcripts of each

interview and to modify the transcript if necessary. Several did, and a number of the participants

shared some personal surprise as they reflected on and shared perspectives and experiences they

had not always deeply considered.

By providing participants sincere acknowledgement of the importance of the work they

are doing as elected school board members, I worked to establish trust and transparency. They

were given the opportunity to share their experiences and perspectives in a safe setting with a

researcher who validated their work as school district policy leaders.

Following the admonition of Babbie (2001), protecting participant’s identity was a

critical issue in the research. Every possibility to protect participants’ confidentiality was

paramount, and confidential information obtained during through this qualitative study was

discussed only with the participant. Already discussed, pseudonyms were used to protect the

50

identities of the participants, and they were promised every reasonable measure to maintain

confidentiality. These ethical considerations enhance the validity of the study.

Conclusion

School boards in the 21st century face growing and different challenges than they did in

the two previous centuries. Increased expectations for all students to achieve high standards, and

a decidedly increased role of both federal and state governments in public education, have

impacted the role that school boards can and must play.

Like almost everything associated with public education today, school boards are

scrutinized more closely than ever, and must embrace the challenge of providing policy

leadership that includes the genuine engagement of the public they serve. In so doing, efforts are

needed to assure that the greater good of all children, and not just demands of various interest

groups, is the constant target.

Lay citizens who serve as school board members have and continue to play a vital role in

meeting the learning and other needs of the youth of the nation who attend public schools, and as

the districts they serve continually undergo changes in structure and practice so, too, must school

boards themselves. This study provides a foundation for a more expansive and in depth inquiry

into school board service in the 21st century, in which the pressures on school districts and

boards are multi-faceted and emanate from many different forces outside of the local school

district. As pointed out by Tallerico (1991), as school governance becomes increasingly complex

yet remains locally controlled, local policy deserve the attention of educators, because who the

individuals are, the backgrounds and experiences they have, and how they develop over time can

be critical variables in the local educational policymaking process.

51

Chapter IV presents the findings of the study. A description of the backgrounds,

motivations, and purposes that lead current school board members to an interest in board service;

of the perceptions they hold of their importance and impact on educational policy and practice in

their school districts; and a sum of their lived realities as school board members is provided.

52

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS

In this study I sought to understand the motivations and expectations that contemporary

school board members bring to board service; their perceptions of the effects of their service and

leadership on policy and practice in their local school districts; and to discover which aspects of

board service they find either satisfying or frustrating. The purpose of the study is to discern and

describe the experiences and lived realities of current board members in a modern context, one in

which the autonomy and local control school boards once enjoyed has been infringed upon by

state and federal governments, the business sector, and various interest groups. As additional

players have adopted prominent roles in public education, and as accountability for system

outcomes has significantly increased, it is necessary and helpful to understand how board

members themselves perceive the enterprise they help lead.

The increased interest and intervention in public education which has progressed for

more than a quarter century has led to challenging realities for board members and the

superintendents and staff with whom they work, and growing criticisms of each. Tallerico’s

(1991) admonition that local policy actors, who are integral in the changing landscape of school

governance, warrant the attention of educators, supports the significance and necessity of

understanding who board members are; the issues they care about and viewpoints they hold; and

the realities they live and learn in the school board position.

Case Study Sample

Eleven current school board members were interviewed for this research. They represent

eleven different public school districts from among all the school districts located in a seven

county region in Washington State, a collective region which comprises one of the state’s nine

53

Educational Service Districts. All eleven districts enroll students in pre-school through twelfth

grade, and range in size from less than 200 students to close to 30,000 students.

Six of the eleven board members serve as directors of “second class” school districts –

districts which in the State of Washington are considered small with a total enrollment of less

than 2000 students. In the larger region there are 50 second class districts. Amy Jo was appointed

to her school board position, and has been on the board for two years. A graduate of the high

school in the district she serves, her mom had been on the same school board while Amy Jo was

a student. Christine is completing her eighth year on the board, and was originally elected in a

three-way race. She is active in her school district community not only in her school board role,

but as an involved parent and community member generally. Colby was appointed to the school

board almost eleven years ago, and prior to being asked to consider applying for the position had

not given any thought to board service. A lifelong resident of the district, he decided that sitting

on the school board would be a good way to give back to his community. David was elected to

his school board a little over a year ago, and had previously been involved in the district’s efforts

to pass a bond issue to modernize its schools. Energized by that work, he ran for the board in part

because his own children are currently in the school system and he believes it is important to

have board members with school age children and who are active in the schools. Julie has been

on her school board for nine years and reports that when her current term expires, she does not

plan to run again. At the time she applied for an open school board position she felt board service

would be a way to serve the community in which she and her family chose to live. Rodney has

also been in his school board position for nine years. With prior experience on several other

boards, when he was asked to consider applying for the board he felt compelled to stand up to

the opportunity and its responsibility.

54

Three of the board members serve as directors of what are considered medium-sized

school districts in this region, with a total student enrollment of more than 2000 but less than

9000. Charlie was elected to the school board seven years ago in an uncontested election. At the

time he was still something of a newcomer to the community, and he was interested in the new

learning that would accompany the school board position. Michael was originally elected to his

board seat twenty-five years ago in a three-way race. A self-described community activist of

sorts, he had previously been an active parent in the schools and felt he could provide help to all

the schools as a member of the board. Susan has served on her school board for eleven years, and

ran originally to support not only her own children but to advocate for all kids. Even though her

own kids are now grown, she remains excited about the work of her board and school district.

The other two board members interviewed serve as director of large school districts,

those with more than 9000 total students. Daniel has served on his school board for twenty-four

years. He applied for an open seat because he had a desire to help the local school district and a

sense he needed to pay back for opportunities he’d had along the course of his life and career.

Douglas was originally motivated to become engaged as a school board member to address what

he perceived to be too low of expectations for the students in his school district. Holding a strong

belief that all students deserve to be challenged, he has been on his local board for twelve years.

Case Study Findings

This chapter presents the findings of the interviews with these eleven board members

from eleven separate school districts located in Eastern Washington. A constant comparative

method outlined by Merriam (1998) was utilized, in which the researcher begins with a particular

occurrence or experience from an interview and compares it with another occurrence in the same

55

set of data or another set. I used this method to search for themes in the data in order to develop

categories and subcategories.

A total of 110 pages of double-spaced transcription resulted from the eleven interviews.

Coding of the interviews was completed and woven around the backgrounds and life experiences

board members bring to school board service and how they learn the role; the issues, challenges,

successes and frustrations they engage as board members; and the lived realities that are part of

being a contemporary board member.

To discern, understand, and describe the experiences and lived realities of current board

members in the changed context of modern public education, I asked eleven interview questions

(Appendix A, p. 147) to research three critical areas of contemporary school board service:

• What backgrounds and expectations do citizens bring to the school board position and

what is their induction experience in the role?

• What issues and challenges do board members confront and what are the accompanying

satisfactory and frustrating factors in dealing with those?

• What are the sum experiences that combine to form the lived reality of a contemporary

school board member?

In the altered context of public education in which the autonomy and local control once

exercised by school boards has been impacted by state and federal governments, the business

sector, and various interest groups, and as accountability for educational system outcomes has

significantly increased, it is important to know how current board members understand, perceive,

and act in this new reality.

56

Who Serves on Contemporary School Boards?

For this study I investigated backgrounds and motivations that led eleven current school

board members to board service, and expectations that each carried to his or her board member

role. I was interested in whether these men and women were typical of fellow community

members, and I was also was interested in their ability to relate to and act on behalf of fellow

citizens they are elected to represent.

Backgrounds of Service Orientation

Eight of the eleven board members in the case study are college graduates, and all of

them shared positive feelings about education generally. Individually and collectively they are

people who are active in schools and/or community efforts, yet none could be considered in such

an elite social class that average citizens could not approach or relate to them. Far from the

criticism that board members can be too removed from the average citizenry, a distinguishing

characteristic of the participants in the study is an orientation to public and community service

which, in fact, not everyone shares. These men and women are not of extraordinary or unusual

means, however, and they made deliberate choices to prioritize their time for school board

service. Further, while each is a parent concerned about his or her own children, several noted

the importance of advocacy for children in general.

A variety of individual experiences led to decisions to either apply or run for a school

board seat. Several had previous experiences with other boards, making school board service

almost a natural interest. Rodney shared:

Previously I held a position with a major corporation as general manager of a large

territory. Corporately they wanted managers to serve on boards, so I had already been on

57

both the Red Cross Board and a museum board. Like those two boards, serving on the

local school board was a public service opportunity, and when I was recruited to apply I

knew you have to stand up once in a while and because I had some involvement with the

local high school from my current business, I felt this was the time.

Similarly, Daniel had previous experiences with community involvement, and specifically with

several boards. He gives evidence, here, of his civic involvement and a natural inclination toward

school board service prior to his appointment:

When I was first appointed to the board I was working full time for a commercial bank.

The bank expected community involvement in part because of the networking

opportunities that comes from it. I moved here from a smaller community where you

really get involved, and soon after I got here I was contacted about joining the Symphony

Board. After I got off that board I was contacted about serving on the museum board,

where I served two terms. I was also involved in the Chamber of Commerce and the

community’s Economic Development Council. It was in the midst of serving on these

other boards and of my work with the two organizations that I interviewed and was

selected for a seat on the school board.

When asked about his background and prior experiences, Douglas explained that previous

service on boards and his particular career preceded his school board service and he felt he was

better prepared to take on the role of school board member and had some understanding of the

drawbacks of the role:

I had been on two or three other boards and my experience on those were helpful. As an

attorney I have worked for a city and have been in private practice, so my experience is

58

not just from the private sector. I had prior experiences with the state and federal

governments, and I understand why things take so long.

While other participants did not have previous experiences serving on boards, they had

been involved in their respective communities and in the local school district. A background of

active engagement with the local community and its schools appeared to lead to the path of

eventual school board service. Susan provides an example of a board member who did not have

deep experience in the public sector, yet was able to draw from experiences gained through

active participation and involvement in the schools:

I own a small business in our community and I was involved on the adult committee for

Young Life for nine years. I knew my husband and I needed to be involved with our kids

and their education, so I began by working on a district committee that was working on

changing the grade configuration between the elementary school and the middle school. I

wanted to be involved for my kids, but for other kids too, especially for those who don’t

have an advocate or a voice at home.

Amy Jo also highlighted her personal background that included school involvement related to

her role as an active parent:

I am involved in lots of things with the school like junior boosters, the high school

booster club, SIT committees, and I have been a mentor/tutor with the Washington

Reading Corps. Each of these relate to my having kids in school. When I applied for the

board I had a desire to give back. It was something I could do, and it felt like it was my

turn. For me, it is just about kids.

In addition to volunteer work with the Boy Scouts, David had become active in his school

district before running for the board:

59

I participated regularly in the booster club and still do; I like to try and contribute. I have

been involved in the parent-teacher group, and I had been the co-chair for four different

(each unsuccessful) bond issues. Through those campaigns I had gotten to know a lot of

people, and they encouraged me to run in part because of a sense there should be more

people on the board who have kids in school. In fact, the coat I have on was a “citizen of

the year” gift for my contributions to the district before I got on the board.

Quite active in the schools as an interested and involved parent, Christine explained:

I started out as a treasurer for the parent-teacher group at the elementary school. Actually

I just joined the group as a member and then the next year was elected as an officer. You

know how that goes. I did this for five years, and I was also a parent member on the site

council for two years. And I served on the safety committee and I also volunteered, so I

was at school one day a week in each of my kids’ classrooms.

Not quite as involved as Christine, Julie, too, had done some volunteer work in her

daughter’s classroom – even though her professional job took her to a different community

during the work day – and viewed her application for a board vacancy as a way she could help

out with the school and be more involved. Michael, who with his wife had five children go

through district schools, had been active with all the schools prior to running for the school

board, and saw board service as a way to help and become even more involved. Only Colby, a

single father at the time of his appointment, described his prior involvement with the school as

“only peripheral.” Still, he noted that in his small town the community is everything and he’d

been “peripherally” involved in almost everything in the town.

As noted by Charlie, concerted school involvement was not the history of every

participant in the study:

60

My only previous involvement with the school district came from being part of the hiring

process for the sitting superintendent. Also, when we moved here I had met the principal

and it seemed like a business transaction, and I also met the elementary principal when

my youngest daughter went to school. Overall my motivation was the challenge of

learning something new.

Family Legacy

Two of the board members brought to their board role a family legacy of such service. It

is not unexpected that people benefit from, and ultimately may choose to follow, an example

which has been modeled, nor is it uncommon that citizens who elect to pursue a school board

position come from family backgrounds with a history of support for public education. Amy Jo’s

mother had served on the same school board for nine years while Amy Jo was growing up. She

commented:

I remember watching my mom on the board and I had a pretty good idea of what to

expect. My mom taught me that supporting public education is your patriotic duty; not

only voting yes on school levies, but sending your kids to the local public schools and

supporting the schools with your time, energy, and effort.

David, too, had grown up in the same school district on whose board he serves, and his father

had been on the school board for twenty years. As an alumnus, he chose to buy a home in the

district and send his own children to the schools he’d attended and his dad had helped guide.

Involvement with Youth

Interviewees also pointed to other factors which either preceded or in some way

contributed to a path to school board service. A shared interest in children was a commonly

61

noted attribute, one that by most any measure would seem an appropriate prerequisite for

potential school board members. For several, working with youth in the community spurned

some interest in serving on the school board. Amy Jo discussed her involvement with a Saturday

morning baseball program that served kids in 3rd through sixth grades, and Rodney reflected on

his own involvement coaching youth sports. Douglas said:

With my three kids I was very active as a coach, and also in scouting. My wife and I were

always present and active with all of our kids’ events.

Community and Civic Leadership

The participants in the case study are not strangers to leadership or active roles in

different organizations. Such opportunities and experiences can naturally give rise to a

subsequent interest in school board service. General involvement in the community, including

service clubs, was discussed by several board members. Describing his active civic involvement,

Michael cited that background as an important link to eventually answering a call to serve on the

local school board:

I have been a community activist for many years, although a bit less so now. I served as

vice-president of the Chamber of Commerce, and I was in Rotary for 18 years and served

a term as president. I have been involved in lots of community-oriented things, and I even

ran for county commissioner in 1988 and lost in the primary. After that I became active

on a Public Facilities District Board of Directors regarding the replacement of a sports

facility in the community. We had to invent the PFD and in that process I got very

involved in working with the state legislature.

62

Julie noted that in addition to her own professional position, she and her husband are

small business owners in their community. While she is not involved in the local Chamber of

Commerce her husband is, and through the business and the Chamber he has lots of community

interaction. Because her job was located outside of the community which prevented greater

personal involvement in organizations such as the Chamber, she saw being on the School Board

as good way to be involved and help out with the community. Charlie underscored community

participation as his mechanism for getting acquainted with a new community, having sold a

family grocery business on the west side of the state before moving to a new town:

I got involved in Rotary for three years so I could see who the players in town were. I got

the information I needed from that and then dropped out. I also volunteer for hunter’s

education where I get to teach morals, ethics, and the proper way to take care of game

animals, and take kids out for their first hunts. I do a lot of shooting with a number of

organizations; cowboy action shooting in which a lot of kids and adult women are

involved. I also got involved with the Grange, and helped expand water and septic

services in the area.

Douglas commented on two organizations, in particular, to which he attributed a connection to

his ultimate service on the school board; and also noted the work involved in his career had

included connections with the school district:

One constant in my career, in both public and private practice, has been my membership

in the local Exchange Club. Its focus is on child abuse and neglect and on patriotic things.

The club has always been very supportive of levies and bonds with the local school

district, which created a natural tie to the district school board. Also, in my membership

with the local Bar Association I have been on a number of committees which have a

63

relationship to school districts. Things like the open public meetings act and public

records. In addition, in my work with the city much of it has involved the police

department, and there have been instances of connections to the local school district.

The participants in this case study are accurately described as middle or upper middle

class citizens. Yet, while in each school district they represent there are citizens with greater or

lesser means than these board members, each shares backgrounds and connections in their

respective communities that allow for access to and association with community members they

represent. Whereas Cunningham (2003) notes increased criticism that schools are governed by

school boards too far removed from their communities, this was neither an apparent or pervasive

circumstance among the participants in this case study.

A Desire to Help

Numerous writers (Danzberger, 1994; Wong, 1995; Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000)

have noted that school board members are frequently criticized for interference in district

operations or for bringing specific agendas to their interest in serving on the school board. This

was not a common finding among the case study participants. Regardless of the particular

background the board members brought to their initial school board service, the majority of them

chose to apply or run for a board position fueled by a desire to “help.” Michael shared that he

had received a phone call from a sitting board member during filing week and, even though he

had already filed to run for mayor, he accepted the encouragement to run:

I had kids in school, I had been involved, so I put my name in. We have five kids (each of

whom went through school in the district) and I just wanted to help. I had no agenda; I

just wanted to be involved.

64

Charlie, too, shared that he had been contacted about running for the school board and felt it

could be a good opportunity to learn:

A neighbor was getting off the board. Her last child was graduating, and frankly she was

on the board to assure her kids graduated. She came to me; she did not get along with the

superintendent. I said I knew nothing about it. My motivation was the challenge of

learning something new, and at my first board meeting I just said, “teach me.”

As a farmer raising a child alone, Colby had not considered school board service until he was

asked, and at that point considered that serving on the school board could be a way to give back

to a community he cared about:

I was approached about applying for a vacant position by three or four people in town. At

the time I was a single father and my daughter lived with me, and being on the school

board wasn’t on my radar. I had not put a whole lot of thought into doing it, but it was a

way to give back to the community – I grew up here and graduated from the local high

school. Honestly I think we (the district) were running fairly decent. So I talked with my

parents who were helping me with my daughter, and they were supportive so I decided to

apply.

Reflecting on her decision to apply Amy Jo shared a perspective of having the time and interest

to take her turn serving a district in which she had received her own education:

I had a desire to give back. I felt like there was a need there and others weren’t stepping

up. I had heard some rumors of some people who might be interested and I didn’t think

they would be good; I felt they had personal agendas that were too narrow and their

concerns were not about all kids. It was something I could do; it was my turn. I had been

65

asked before but now I had the time and the resources. I have no personal agendas…it is

just about kids.

Recalling his specific desire to help and give back for the opportunities he had been given,

Daniel talked specifically about a previous experience he had with a school board which

impacted him:

In the community I had moved from I was involved in a lot of things, and among them

was serving as a levy committee chair for the local school district levy. One time we had

to give a report to the school board. Board members were held in such high regard. I

remember giving the report and the board members were so polite and appreciative. I

always remembered that. When I moved back here in 1983 I called a former neighbor

who had become the local district superintendent. I shared I was interested in getting

involved with the school district and I was looking for some committees to be on. He said

they had no committees with a need for new members at the time, but a board member

was leaving the board. I knew nothing about the board and asked what I would have to

do. I decided to apply because I have always had a feeling you need to give back. I was

born and raised in this area and my parents were hard working but we had little. I worked

my way through college (so it took me a little longer to graduate), and I believe I should

pay back for any successes I have had. When I applied I did not think there was anything

particularly wrong in the district. I am just an advocate for public education.

Julie reflected that she applied for a board seat simply as a way to help out with the

school and be involved with the community. She noted she had never attended a school board

meeting and did not know anything about it; in her words, “I went in blind. I saw the ad and I

applied for it.”

66

Rodney, too, noted that when he was recruited to apply for a board seat,” I came in dumb

and blind about what was going on.” He felt his job would be to assure a balanced budget.

A Few Specific Intents

It would be unexpected if no school board members brought any specific areas of interest

or concern to board service, and several participants in the study acknowledged they indeed had

some. However, far from desiring a major overhaul of district direction or superintendent or staff

changes, avowed areas of concern centered on quality school facilities and high expectations and

quality learning outcomes for students. Just recently elected with only a bit more than a year of

time on the school board, David described his interest in running for the board:

I had been part of the bond committee for a long time, for four ballot attempts at least.

The first one failed by twelve votes and then it got successively worse. There was feeling

in the community that there needed to be an influx of new blood on the board, that it

needed people with kids in school. I have no hidden agendas. I liked the incumbent, but I

wanted to represent the people who had encouraged me to run. There was nothing I really

wanted to fix.

Two of the interviewees acknowledged more specific reasons for wanting to serve on the

board. Christine explained that she had concerns about issues at the elementary level in the local

district that needed active school board attention:

At the time I decided to run I did not really know any of the sitting board members well,

even though I had started regularly attending board meetings for about a year and one-

half before I ran. Encouraged by the principal at my children’s elementary school, I felt

the board needed someone who would be more engaged in what was going on. The others

67

had been on the board a pretty long time and were not very visible. There were lots of

issues at the elementary level that were not being accomplished or dealt with; that was

back when I thought board members could really do some things.

Douglas, too, described a personal experience and perspective, which emanated from school

experiences involving his children, which ultimately led to a desire to serve on the school board:

It was the malaise. There was no focus in the district, or not enough, on getting all kids to

do the best they could. I will be 90 years old and in a nursing home and I will still be

talking about this issue. Coming out of elementary school our twin sons were both

recommended for an extended learning (honors) program at the middle school. When

their seventh grade year started my wife called me to let me know there was a problem.

One of the boys had been placed in the program but not the other. I told her to call and

make an appointment with the principal to get it sorted out. She did and the result was

that they took that son out of the program and put the other one in. She called me again

and I stopped by the school. I talked to a counselor who was cordial but what he

explained was astounding. Almost eighty students had qualified for this program, but the

school only had room for one class of thirty students. I could not believe they had kids

they were choosing not to educate at that level. I was dumbfounded. Why wouldn’t you

have another teacher for this curriculum; you could have three classes, not just one. But

he said this was district policy. I did call and speak with the curriculum director and from

the language she used I could tell this was not district policy. But it was malaise; the

system didn’t care or respond. They got the kids in, moved them on, and said here are

sixty kids we don’t have to worry about. This was an example of having the focus all

wrong; get them in, get them out, instead of helping all kids. I did not run for the board

68

that year; in fact, I did not even think about the school board because I was busy enough.

But eventually I did run and while I did not win that race I was later appointed to a vacant

seat, and this is what spurned my interest.

Among the board members interviewed in this case study, not all of them had planned to

ultimately serve on the school board. Yet, each possessed a background of interest and or

involvement with schools and with the community in general, and most described a basic desire

to help and to learn. Among them, the absence of specific, individual agendas or areas of interest

was notable.

Learning the School Board Role

Initial Training

Though the personal and professional backgrounds board members bring to their service

influence the board members they become, the literature is filled with references to role

confusion for board members and micromanagement that work to the detriment of the district in

whole (Danzberger & Usdan, 1992; Wong, 1995; Bjork, 2000; Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000).

The study sought to ascertain what training school board members are provided that lead to an

understanding of the role. Arguably, provision of quality training to new board members could

prevent some of the challenges that blurred roles create.

In this case study, however, many of the board members described very little training and

noted that an understanding of the role develops mostly through experience. Charlie pointedly

shared being thrown into the role with an absence of any real training:

I was like a frog thrown into boiling water. We have talked about how Washington State

should have some training, but they have screwed up things. With new board members on

69

our board now I spend a lot of time with them. I try to tell prospective board members

what is involved. We do take them to the WSSDA (Washington State School Directors

Association) convention, but that experience is still pretty lukewarm. It is just being

honest with new board members. That is important.

Colby concurred that no training was provided him when he joined the board:

It is mostly trial by fire. At the time I came on the board we had no formal, initial

training. Since then we have put together a book for new board members, although I

personally had a mentor board member and he helped me a lot. We do go to WSSDA and

we have been to ESD (the local Educational Service District) and had training, and we

have had some retreats from the superintendent. Now when new board members come on

I try to help out as much as I can.

Julie’s initial experience, also bereft of initial training to help her understand the role of a board

member, was not dissimilar:

I came on the board in January and did not have much training until the next November

with the WSSDA conference. We had a few workshops but I did not get much from

those. Most of my training has been on the job. I was surprised; I had no clue, so I

decided I needed to listen, to take it in, ask questions. There was just not a lot of training

at the time. Maybe it was my fault. I should have asked more questions but I just watched

and listened. I had no clue what I was getting in to. I went to one board meeting before I

started and I left wondering what I had gotten into. The budgetary things; the hiring of

people…I was naïve. I am not a budget person, and I did not understand a lot, so I had

lots of questions.

70

Amy Jo, too, recalled a lack of in depth training beyond some basic principles:

When I was first appointed I met with the superintendent and went over logistics and

confidentiality, but it was minimal. I went to the WSSDA conference and went to new

director’s sessions, which were somewhat helpful. Most of the training was about

confidentiality and it did stress not to micromanage. But there was not very much about

school finance, or maybe I did not take advantage of that. Still, I had watched my mom

on the board so I did have some idea. For me, it has mostly been on the job training.

Several of the board members articulated a more favorable impression of training

opportunities that assisted them in learning the role of a school board member and how to

provide leadership with a positive impact. Susan recalled:

The first superintendent with whom I worked encouraged me to go to WSSDA. I took

some wonderful classes from the right people. I did the basic board member trainings. I

soon became active and involved as the legislative representative from the board. We also

had a couple of retreats that worked really well; actually long work sessions. Overall,

most of my training has been through WSSDA, and while there has been a little

additional in-service, it has not been a lot.

Christine highlighted that she has attended the WSSDA conference each year she has served on

the board, and that she was motivated and supported to learn the fundamentals of school board

service:

The first couple of years I went to all the new board member trainings, like introduction

to finance, school law, etc. I tried to learn the fundamentals first; the boring stuff. I read a

book called Highly Effective Boards. I went to all the director area meetings and all the

things sponsored locally. I was probably the most prepared you could be. Before I ran for

71

the board I went to all the board meetings for about a year and one-half. I was paying

attention. For the first six months I just went to the regular meetings, where it seemed

they did not do very much. Then I started attending the work sessions where I began to

see the dialogue that takes place. All this was helpful for the most part, but mostly you

pick it up as you go.

David, who just recently completed his first full year on the board, also shared that he had been

able to attend the WSSDA conference where he was provided the new board member training

and the opportunity to get some knowledge about what he had gotten himself into. He also noted

a couple of additional opportunities which were helpful:

Later in the year an officer from WSSDA (a board member in another school district)

came in and did some training with us about board roles and responsibilities. The

superintendent also led me around, so this gave me a leg up. But I never did see a new

board member orientation handbook, and there does need to be one so we are working on

creating one as a resource. There is a board goal to create this. Also, in my job I work for

a five member board, so I can also see the other side.

Rodney remembered that when he got on the board he was given a packet from WSSDA about

what it means to be a board member. Daniel noted that the first superintendent with whom he

worked was supportive of WSSDA, though he recalled that neither he nor the other board

members took full advantage of WSSDA training. He continued:

We did go to the conferences and this was good training for the most part, and we went to

national conferences and got additional training. The county school directors association

was pretty active back then and I was active in that. On the job training was a big

72

influence on what I gathered. I learned to ask questions and when we wanted to know

something the response was good.

Michael indicated that although he had been on some boards of some civic organizations, he

really was not sure how the school board would operate. He talked about the impact of a book he

was introduced to at a national conference for school board members:

The superintendent spent a lot of time with me on things like school finance, but the

makeup of the board lacked structure and I wondered what I was getting into. I got a

book at the National School Boards Association conference on “boardsmanship,” and

reading it opened my eyes about what we needed to change in the district, and it has been

required reading for new board members ever since. I even quiz them on it to be sure they

read it. I preach to the board we have to maintain our operations as a board and stay out

of day to day operations. For instance, you don’t go to a principal without the

superintendent and board president knowing about it. We have an understanding that an

individual board member has no power; only the board as a whole does.

Noting that he already had a lot of experience on boards and working on committees,

Douglas indicated he did not need a lot of background on the procedural stuff with the school

board. He described what he did need to learn:

I needed background on the district. Having worked for the city I knew the difference

between policy and administration. I got that it is not my job to talk to the teacher. But in

our fairly large district I needed to learn the schools and the administrators. I already had

a positive image of the administration and teachers, and I didn’t want to drive people out.

It was more to join the team to make things better. The first training was meeting with the

73

superintendent and then he took me on a tour of the district. I got to hear from his

perspective; the hands-on stuff.

A dearth of initial training about the role of a school board member and of the school

board in whole was a common theme. While some lamented this reality, most described learning

the role through experience. A lack of attention paid to deliberate training for new board

members is assuredly a contributing factor to the confusion that occurs with respect to the school

board role, and more specific focus on training could, conversely, alleviate the disruption that

results from role confusion.

The Important Role of the Superintendent in Board Member Induction

It was noteworthy that several of the interviewees specifically highlighted the significant

role of the superintendent in the process of learning to be a board member. As Rodney reflected

on his training, he pointed to the key role of the superintendent:

When I came on the board we had no money, so we prioritized sending teachers to

training rather than board members. Over time we did have WSSDA come, and the

attorney come in, and talk about what people could not do as a board member. But the

best training you get is the superintendent’s ability to build relationships – that can be

tough. You develop a relationship with the superintendent that says here is what’s

expected and here is your role. The superintendent’s expectations become the role. Then

the board member makes of that what he or she will.

Julie also indicated that a new superintendent helped her better understand her role and to feel

better about the progress of the school district:

74

It has really changed since I have been on the board. I know more. New people coming

on the board have helped things, as has a new superintendent. We have new blood. It is

quirky around here, but our new superintendent has done well. It is our job to trust the

superintendent.

Douglas, too, noted how important the superintendent and staff are to developing a full

understanding of the school board role, which he believes leads to better decisions:

The support of administration is as much a part of training as anything else. We have new

board members now and, while I don’t consider myself a mentor, I am doing some

mentoring. You try and get them connected to the right administrators. The district has to

be supportive. The single most informative things we get as board members are reports

from the staff – they are the front line people. We need to know a lot to make informed

decisions and while reports are draining on the staff; they do lead to better decision

making.

Superintendents ought heed the important role they, and their staff, play in helping school board

members understand the board role. If, as argued by several writers (Blumberg & Blumberg,

1995; Houston & Bryant, 1997), the most important relationship in a school district is the one

between the superintendent and the board, it is incumbent upon the superintendent to pay close

attention not merely to that relationship, but to a clear and helpful definition and delineation of

the role of the school board and the role of the superintendent and staff.

75

Engaging as a School Board Member

Issues Faced By Contemporary Board Members

Regardless of personal or professional background and any training each board member

brought to his or her school board position, each of them face issues which, while varied, are

realities for contemporary board members. The study sought to identify those issues, to include

an understanding of how board members saw the key issues as their board service commenced

and how they changed throughout years of service.

A review of the literature indicates that too often board members pay attention to issues

which don’t serve the good of the whole, yet the board members in this case study shared fairly

typical and important issues which boards must confront, and lessons learned through them

which contributed to positive outcomes for the district. Some of the issues, past and present,

were and are unique to a particular circumstance and school district. Indicative of the current

focus on accountability, efforts to improve student achievement and professional practices were

shared. Board members also noted budget concerns and the challenges of working with state and

federal regulations; shared worries for school board members today.

Several acknowledged that it takes time to develop the wisdom and background

necessary to fully understand the complexity of the issues, and from board members in small

school districts the difficulty of maintaining a focus on learning and teaching, rather than

becoming sidetracked by athletic and coaching interests and concerns, was noted.

Michael, the longest serving of the eleven board members in the case study, recalled important

lessons learned during his early time on the school board:

76

Like all new board members I really had no idea what I was doing. I came on the board

when there was some dissention in the district and a threat of a strike by the education

association; stuff I had not been aware of. Things were combative at the time, it was a

split board, and I saw myself as a peace maker. I hoped to get us away from dissention

and move on to a problem-solving approach with the staff. I fought through that battle

and ever since my overriding mantra has been boardsmanship – what boards should do.

After twenty-five years of service and prevailing in six elections, he is pleased that issues in his

district have changed greatly:

Once we got the board stabilized and involved and working with the superintendent, the

issues became more normal. Things like curriculum, facilities, and advocacy.

Also nearing a quarter century of school board service, Daniel harkened back to the mid-1980s

when he started on the board, and remembered it took him some time to figure out the work of

the board and the district:

When I came on the board there were several board members who had already served one

or two terms. I had a lot to learn and I had to get up to speed. It really took my first term

to figure out what was going on. At the time we were closing an elementary school

because it was old and the population in the district had shifted north, and I learned that

any time parents show up it is a big issue. The next big issue involved planning to open

another high school, which the community supported doing. We did have some issues

with certain high school coaches, their attitudes, how they treated kids. But I think we

were okay with our teachers. Today as our enrollment continues to grow we are looking

at property for another middle school, and possibly changing to a three grade level

configuration at the middle school to ease our elementary school enrollment congestion.

77

Other than that, our challenges today are the unfunded mandates the State throws at us,

and there are two issues in particular for us that are difficult from a budgetary perspective

– special education and we are still fighting for adequate transportation funding.

Julie discussed an “old boy network” and a lack of public transparency when she joined her

board nine years earlier:

We had long time board members and long time teachers. Some things needed to change.

I was only one voice and one vote and I was meek at the time. I did not see the board as

open as I felt it needed to be. There were lots of behind the door decisions. I was the only

female on the board at the time, and I often wondered if that is why I was appointed; as

the token woman. Lots of the men had been on the board for a long time and had lived in

the community forever. It wasn’t so much a policy making body, but that has changed,

definitely. As a small school district where sports are number one, we want to focus on

academics and teaching but sports always pop up. Too often academics take a back seat

to sports.

Reflecting pressures that can impact school boards in smaller communities in particular, Amy Jo

spoke of the importance of keeping academics as a focus:

My top concerns were declining enrollments due to students transferring out to other

districts, and WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning – the current state

assessment system in Washington State) scores. At the time I applied for the board my

general perception was that I was not feeling good vibes in the community. Students were

“choicing” out – they were not feeling loyal to or confident about our district. Our scores

have not been great and some of the surrounding districts do better. While these concerns

remain they have changed some. We have a better public perception and we

78

communicate better, both a result of our new superintendent. Our WASL scores are still

as struggle but we are addressing them. Our goals, and our top priorities, are in the

classroom. It is hard in our small district not to get wrapped up in facilities and sports, but

we always come back to the classroom and maximizing the 180 days we have with the

students. This is a board emphasis.

Charlie also described some internal concerns that were part of the district as he joined the board,

and noted that one of the biggest issues when he joined the board seven years ago was “little

kingdoms:”

We were so diverse in our buildings and the distribution of the budget made everyone

compete. It was like all the pigs were at the trough and whoever made the loudest noise

got the money.

He described other issues that were and in some cases remain significant in the district:

Curriculum was huge. We needed to get that jumped up. Our facilities, well, we have

what we have. We need to maintain them until we get our master plan in place, where we

hope to move all the schools to one large campus. We had to structure the board away

from just being sheep and doing whatever the superintendent said. He was an ass and a

ram rodder, and we needed a board who would think. Today, money and the budget is

still a concern, but curriculum is lots better. Everyone is working together from

kindergarten on up. We are conversing now and we have a great group of administrators,

all but one of whom was promoted from within.

Thinking back eleven years earlier, Susan said it was initially curriculum which caught her

attention:

79

We needed to provide better oversight about what we were putting in the classroom. In

some cases if one teacher wanted a curriculum that is what happened, but we needed all

parties involved – parents as well as staff. We have a much better process now.

Douglas said the main issue when he was appointed to the board was too low of expectations, a

perspective he had developed through experiences with his own children at both the elementary

and middle school level:

We had a pretty new superintendent at the time and the staff was not used to someone

like him who encouraged thinking and improvement. It had been too top heavy and too

top down. At the time, funding was not the critical issue it is now, and I was interested in

addressing the malaise of low expectations. I asked the superintendent how board

members help affect a needed change, and he said though policy. We ended up with an

academic standards qualifying policy but the frustration was the amount of time it took in

the process to get to it. It took a year and one-half, and it could have taken a day and one-

half. The part that took the longest was breaking down others’ culture and expectations;

we had a goal to raise everyone’s expectations. It was about getting people to have

ownership; to not just create a policy but support it with resources and make it real.

He went on to note that one of the reasons he remains on the board after twelve years is because

things have still not changed that much:

We got the policy but teachers still teach what they want and the evaluation tool does not

get to the changes that are needed. How do you motivate teachers? I bring up teacher

evaluation to WSSDA, our board, our human resources department…and the worst part is

it’s embedded in state law. The most pressing issue is still low expectations; the crisis is

financial and we focus on it, but is not the real issue. I keep saying define basic

80

education, fund it, and I will stop bothering you. Then you can focus on how to do the

best for kids in your district.

Facility Concerns

While board members frequently shared a desire to keep a focus on academics,

curriculum, and student achievement, school districts must also deal with additional concerns

and several of the board members in the case study highlighted facilities as a key issue. At the

time he was appointed to the board over ten years ago, Colby said the district had some building

needs and had failed a couple of bond issues:

This challenge interested me, and our approach was challenging, rewarding, and fun. We

completed a remodel project which asked our community for $1.55 million for a twenty

year solution, instead of a $4.5 million solution that would satisfy state matching funds

criteria. The superintendent served as the general contractor and lots of people were

involved with lots of volunteer work, and all of the bonds were sold locally. The way we

did this was rewarding.

With just a bit more than a year as a board member, David also talked about a building project as

a major issue that led him to wanting to serve on the school board so it might be successfully

addressed:

Our number one issue was getting the bond approved. We were successful with that and I

think it had to do with a changing of the guard on the board. There were three of us newly

elected, all in contested elections. So now we are a pretty young board; a well-educated,

professional board. Four of us currently have kids in school, and I think it is important to

stay in touch.

81

Modernization of existing schools was an issue Christine highlighted, too. Reflecting back on

eight years and two terms on the board, she indicated facility concerns that needed to be dealt

with:

At the time I got on the board I felt we needed to deal with facilities at my children’s

elementary school. This was huge because the classrooms were horrid. Both elementary

schools needed work but my personal priority was the school my own kids attended. I

also felt like there needed to be people on the board with kids in the system. I knew my

kids would continue through the system, so I was also somewhat attuned to some high

school issues. Now after five attempts we have passed an $18 million bond and are

remodeling our elementary schools.

Superintendents Are Key in Helping Board Members Understand Their Role

Regardless of the issues or concerns, several of the study participants pointed out the

significant role of the superintendent in learning to deal with the issues and challenges

successfully. Reflecting on lessons he has learned in dealing with various issues over a quarter

century of school board service, Michael highlighted and important lesson about the board’s role

in the district:

The job of the board is not to run the district. It is our job to support the superintendent,

and to make him feel secure as he helps us deal with the issues that we face and as we try

innovative things.

Discussing issues and changes in her district, Julie praised the important presence of a new

superintendent in affecting needed change:

82

Changing superintendents was important, a gift from above. It was a smart move to hire

him. Our issues now are budgetary and the economy.

Recalling key issues during his nine years of board service, Rodney also mentioned the

significance of a good superintendent and noted that making a change in superintendents has led

to real improvements in the district:

When I first got on the board finance was number one, and number two was we had an

activist board at the time. Plus we had an incredibly empowered education association. At

the time we had inexperienced superintendents who were well intended and connected

within the district; they were an example of why you should never hire from within.

Today we are solid financially because the board made this a commitment, and we are no

longer an activist board. We now have a rock star for our superintendent, and relations

with the union are better with her leadership.

Board members indicated an understanding of the difference in role and responsibility between

the school board and the superintendent, with the most experienced in the study – Michael –

flatly stating it is the board’s responsibility to support the superintendent. Sufficient attention

paid to role definition and clarification can assist both board members and superintendents deal

with the pressures and changes which impact contemporary public education.

Engaging with the Community

An historical premise upon which school board service is based is the importance of a

board’s representation of the local community to its school district, and of the school district to

the community. The study inquired about the possibilities and limitations of community

engagement from the perspective of its participants. Each of the interviewees acknowledged the

83

challenge of formal engagement between the school board/district and the community citizenry

at large, a common criticism of school boards generally. They acknowledged a need to

communicate with and include the public, and also noted the difficulties in doing so. Different

approaches to engaging the community were shared. A number of the board members described

decidedly personal commitments to the solicitation of input and feedback. Charlie shared how he

and fellow board members strive to stay in contact with the community and its members:

As a whole board we touch base with the community a couple of times a year, and at

every board meeting we have a public comment session. So as a whole I would say

monthly. In fact we have a district master plan, a site plan, and we are trying to get our

ducks in a row. We bring up this 20 year plan in board meetings but usually there is a

limited audience. A few people want some juicy morsels, and there is an angry guy who

often comes, but usually it is just the board and staff. Individually, though, we are

touching base almost daily. I ask people to tell me what they are thinking; with me it’s a

daily thing when I am out and about in public. For the past eighteen months we have

invited people to come in and visit with the board for the half hour before the board

meetings begin, and for the first three or four months many did. But then attendance

dwindled.

In the small town and district he serves, Colby discussed the reality that public communication is

in many ways a constant:

Formally we don’t engage the community and seek input very frequently. We have sent

out questionnaires, usually about two years apart. But informally, in a small community

you have a target on your forehead at all times. You are a conduit to the superintendent

and for the district. Here you are pretty much always a board member, which is not a bad

84

thing. Most people are respectful and courteous. I really don’t get a lot of calls at home

though, although I do sometimes when there is a hot topic.

Due to the characteristics of the district she serves, Amy Jo discussed the challenge of generating

as much public interaction as she would like:

Our district community is hard to define; we really are three or four distinct communities.

Individually all of us (board members) are pretty involved in different parts of the

community. We are listening, we are known, and we are available. We have done some

community surveys, although we don’t overdo this, to find out what people perceive as

our strengths and weaknesses. But individually we are out there; the school is the

community as a whole. We attend lots of events because most of us have kids in school,

so we are at the school all the time anyway. But communication is hard. We don’t have

one spot where everyone gathers or drives by.

Christine, too, describes her experience in which it is important yet challenging to get public

input. Despite the reality, she feels it is important to make concerted individual attempts to get

citizens’ input:

I am always talking to people. I know I have to be careful but I do like to hear what

people have to say. I talk to my girlfriends about the district, and with friends in the

neighborhood, and I also get some unsolicited input. We used to have community forums

but the level of participation was so low. We do what is mandated, like budget hearings

and hearings for our Initiative 728 plan, but no one shows up. When it comes to certain

decisions, we hold input forums through the individual schools, like with a (recent) hiring

of a new superintendent. I was a big advocate for putting board member email addresses

on the website, and I answer all of them I receive. Anytime there is something where we

85

anticipate there will be issues, we try to get input. We take the time to educate people,

even though they may still not like the ultimate decision. Schools are really the biggest

thing in our community, and we do what we can to put it out there.

David shared that the public was definitely involved in the design and passage of a fairly recent

bond issue to modernize the schools as the district was very active in engaging constituents. He

also noted that with an upcoming levy a similar attempt was being made. He said, however, it is

difficult to generate lots of participation:

Not as many people come as we would like. Other than the school construction

committee, where we engage every milestone event and bring people in, people don’t

come unless it is a contentious issue (like the modified block schedule at the district high

school). But I go to most sports, concerts, and meetings and I talk to people a lot, but I

am not trying to feel them out.

An owner of a business located across the street from several of the district schools and offices,

Rodney described his and his district’s experience with community engagement, and candidly

noted shortcomings with the effort the district must own:

I am in the community so frequently; I communicate with community members a lot. I

try to keep them up to speed. I listen to issues, but I also keep them abreast of what is

happening in the district. So personally I engage a lot. As a district, early on in my tenure

on the board we held some community meetings while the district was healing (from a

forced buy out of a superintendent). We are getting back to this with our current strategic

planning process. But generally public schools communicate poorly and our district is a

poster child of this. It is a big job and the problem is who is going to focus on it. You

have to spend money and time. We don’t do enough electronically and though our

86

website is getting better, it has been a disappointment. Public schools in general are not

keeping up with interaction technology, and we really don’t have an excuse.

Susan shared that in her district they try to engage the public at every opportunity, and to always

communicate with them around the big issues. She said:

There is a history in our district that things go badly when there is a lack of

communication. So we communicate through newsletters, phone calls, and the local

newspaper has been good to us. Also, when my own kids were in school I was in the

buildings all the time because they were involved and I attended the events. So there were

always lots of conversations.

Among the medium and large-sized school districts represented in the case study, efforts

to engage the public were described more from a systems perspective than from individual

attempts to communicate, and the most experienced board member sounded an important caution

associated with community engagement. Daniel cited a number of strategies that have been used

in his district including public hearings, coffee klatches, and holding meetings in homes in

different parts of the district community where volunteers are asked to open their homes for

discussions about levies, bonds, or other issues. He talked about the need to engage voters who

do not have school-age children:

We have community association nights, and though they are not well attended we do try.

We have surveyed our community several times and have paid money to professionals to

do this, and these have been helpful. While we have historically enjoyed high approval

percentages on our levies, as we track it the percentages have been dropping. We

specifically need to reach the older community; we have a high percentage of voters over

age 45 and who don’t have kids in school.

87

Douglas shared the success of his district with a citizens committee in which two parents from

each school are selected for the committee which meets monthly to discuss key issues related to

the district. He noted, however, it is more difficult to get broad community participation:

Getting to the entire public is harder. It is often a struggle to get the community engaged,

and that is the bigger question. Often it is not until there is a crisis. We have to provide

information for them to digest and then figure out how they can give input. They need to

know they are being heard, of they won’t come back. I think board members have to try

and get out there more.

Michael indicated that he does not engage the public much. He expounded on why he takes such

an approach:

Individually I don’t engage them. I have some conversations, or people will stop me with

some questions, but I don’t go out and try to survey how they feel. As a board we have

some public meetings but damn few, and when we do we get the same six people. Most

of our communication with the community occurs through our local schools. As a board

we operate as boards should operate; people do not view us as board members as

conduits to action, although people can and do come to board meetings and talk with us.

Regardless of the approach to generating public participation and engagement, the difficulty of

this work, despite genuine effort, was consistently echoed. Julie noted its challenges:

Our board meetings are always open, but our patrons just don’t come unless something

interests them. However, we did get our website up, and we went to a quarterly

newsletter instead of a monthly publication. We have tracked growth in the northern part

of the district and have a couple of meetings in that area each year, but people just don’t

88

come. We had an idea to have coffees but no one seemed to want that; we just had one

family. We are trying, but it is just really hard.

Those who had served as a board member for a lesser amount of time, and those whose

districts are located in smaller and more rural communities, were more likely to view community

participation and engagement as a personal commitment. Regardless of length of time on the

board or size of district or community, however, most board members acknowledged the

importance of public access to the board, and alluded to frustrations with and impediments to

genuine engagement with the entirety of the district community.

Serving as a School Board Member

The Demands of School Board Service

As described by Danzberger & Usdan (1992), the role of board member can be confusing

for those who serve. It can also be misunderstood and confusing for those who are represented. It

comes with demands and some inherent conflicts that are likely most fully understood only by

those who have experienced the role. The study explored the lived realities of current board

members, stories and experiences which must be understood in the current context in which

board members and superintendents and staffs lead public education. Significantly, board

members in the case study frequently underscored the vital role of the superintendents with

whom they work, and in doing so they demonstrate just how crucial the superintendent is to

helping board members, and their districts, succeed amid the outside influences, growing

pressures, and high accountability on and for public education in the 21st century.

89

Remembering that in the beginning of his service he did not know what to expect and that

he became prepared over the years, Michael shared the perspective he has developed over 25

years of service:

I really don’t do a lot with individual groups, although I do go to some things and have

certainly put in plenty of seat time in 25 years. From time to time I have served on

different committees, but it can be uncomfortable because it is impossible to separate

yourself from being a board member. You are treated differently and sometimes

deferentially, and you walk a tight rope because if you speak they may perceive what you

say to be coming from the board, rather than just from me as an individual member.

Rodney shared that he was not prepared for all the role entails. Importantly, he discussed the key

role of the superintendent in the reality of board service:

Being a board member is less demanding for me now under our new superintendent that

it was with the two previous superintendents. That is solely about the ability of the

superintendent. With a weaker and less connected superintendent I was much more

involved in planning, direction, negotiations and curriculum. With the current

superintendent there is more of a trust factor. The time demands of the role are predicated

on the skill and trust level between the superintendent and the board, so today my time

commitment is much easier and I can more easily say no to being as involved as I used to

be.

While still relatively new on her district board, Amy Jo felt she was reasonably well-prepared

and described her efforts to be intentionally involved in the district when she first joined the

board:

90

In some ways being a board member is demanding, but probably only as demanding as

you want to make it. It has a lot to do with the climate of the district. I think it is

important to go to different events and to be visible to teachers and staff, and those who

are involved in our schools see that I am involved. In my first year I went and visited in

the classrooms to give them a chance to see me and so they would know I was available

and paying attention, but I have not done this since because I don’t need to. Our new

superintendent has assured our principals are doing more observations and also

community members are now feeling better about our schools.

Charlie was very clear that for him serving on the board is a full-time job which he finds “damn

satisfying:”

I was used to working with the public in the grocery business so I am comfortable talking

with people. We have one board member who just shows up, but is about what you make

of it, and is very rewarding especially because we don’t get paid to do it. It is demanding

work, and I have met lots of great, intelligent people and it has made me a better person.

You have to do your homework, and you need to spend time with the superintendent, but

if you keep everything honest and up front, it is probably only as demanding as you make

it.

Christine discussed definite demands associated with the role, and the importance of doing her

homework:

There are times when I say it can’t get worse but then it does and I think why did I say

that? It is hard to make decisions for the group as a whole, and to make everyone happy. I

like people to be happy, but when I do my homework and am prepared, and do the

background work, I feel comfortable with the decisions we make.

91

After nine years on her board Julie shared the progression of her preparation to fully understand

the role:

I was not prepared but I have come along. It is what you make of it. I have been involved

in interview committees and I have worked on the Strategic Plan which took weeks and

weeks.

Recalling that she definitely was not prepared for the demands of being a board member, Susan

remembered the advice of the first superintendent with whom she worked:

She counseled me early on that as a board member you could be as busy as you want, and

she was right. There has been some back and forth with this and different levels of

involvement over time. When I first got on the board I felt like the time it took was a little

demanding, but I would do it again in a heartbeat. Right now, though, we have good

things and good people, including a good superintendent, in place and good

communication. I have learned that you don’t have to respond immediately. You just

have to learn it (the role). I would not change it. I would do it again; it is a vital role when

people do it for the kids.

David concurs that being a board member can take time, though as a new board member he finds

it necessary to spend the time so he understands how district resources are allocated:

It is demanding, but I have some flexibility in my job which helps. I probably spend an

additional 3-4 hours each week in addition to normal board stuff. I do feel at times like I

don’t have enough time to do everything I need to; because I am still new on the board I

feel more comfortable if I can look at where and how we are spending our money. But to

be honest there is not much controversy, and in some ways the district does run on cruise

control.

92

Two of the longer serving board members in the case study, Douglas with 12 years and Colby

with 10 and ½ years, shared slightly different perspectives. Douglas highlighted a busy board

schedule, yet one which affords him access to the information and understanding he needs:

I have never really confronted an issue that kept me awake at night. Even with closing a

school, I could look at is analytically. We have gone from two meetings a month, though,

to at least four, and if you are the board president it can be really time consuming. But I

have never resented it until recently, and resentment is too strong of term. It is personally

rewarding to be on the board yet it still takes time away from my family. But I have felt

prepared, and I have access to the information I need.

Colby noted his business background as an asset to knowing how a school district should be run:

I have been fairly well prepared. I’ve run a farm business for 25 years so I know how the

business part works, and my philosophy is hire the best person and stay out of the way.

As long as you are not the board chair, it is not overly demanding at all.

Learning the school board role appears to be borne of on the job experience. If this is

true, it is important that new board members are provided some a priori knowledge that it takes

time to develop the perspective needed to successfully understand and execute the role. Further,

board members highlighted the key role of the superintendent in defining and affecting the

school board member role, an important lesson for superintendents with implications for how

superintendents work with board members and assist them in learning the position.

Sources of Satisfaction

Service on a public school board is a human endeavor which has both rewards and

frustrations. The lived realities of the eleven board members interviewed shed light on the

93

satisfactory and frustrating aspects of school board service. Despite documented challenges

associated with school board service, and including contemporary factors such as increased state

and federal presence in local school districts, the board members shared satisfaction about

tangible results in various areas of their districts. These include improved instructional and

curricular practices and learning outcomes for students; improved school facilities; and enhanced

collaboration among the school board, with the superintendent and staff, and with the citizens

board members are elected to serve. Though not immune to the outside influences and pressures

with which local districts must deal, board members strive to have a positive impact on things

they still can control.

Each board member pointed to aspects of the role that provide satisfaction and pride. For

three of them, being a part of successful school construction projects provide a tangible and

positive result. Colby shared pride that the school was innovatively remodeled and paid for in

just six years. David indicated the important role of an engaged school board in building a

positive future for the district:

I would like to think the bond passed as part of restructuring of the board. Building a new

high school, and being a member of the construction committee, I feel like I am paying

attention to details which will make the school a better place for years to come.

Michael, too, shared that addressing district facilities is important as school boards strive to forge

a quality future for the district and its students:

The modernization of our high school has been a crowning achievement. We

incorporated elements from our past in the project, which provides a treasured link

between our history and our future.

94

A host of other factors were identified as satisfying in the challenging and oft times

difficult role of school board member. Rodney shared that he feels good about a number of

things that he perceives have occurred during the time he has served on the board:

The district is much better off. We have done a lot of great things – we are financially

stable; we have a good vocational education program; and solid facilities. Educationally

we are in a better place and we are meeting needs. We now have full day kindergarten,

smaller class sizes, and a home school partnership program. I also like what we have

done with college level courses and expectations, because we really had none when I got

on the board. We have now set the bar higher.

Charlie highlighted efforts in which he has been engaged to bring about needed improvements in

the school district:

I moved here from a district that passed levies at 90%, and I thought in this community I

might be able to help make it better; to get this community to trust. I also worked to raise

our levy amount, and we have managed both to run higher levies and get more support. I

feel like I have contributed to us being more honest and open about things. Hidden

agendas and personal viewpoints are brought into the light of day and destructive

personal agendas are not there. We have addressed some personnel problems and all but

one of our administrative promotions has come from within, which is important to me. It

is important to give people light at the end of the tunnel, so they know you can move up

if you work hard. Overall we run better meetings, and I listen and interact better.

Susan reflected on the district’s progress and transition during her time on the board, and pride in

needed changes which have been made:

95

We came through a tough transition (with the second, of three, superintendents) and

everyone is now on the same page. Communication is good, and financially we are in a

better place. We are still a conservative district but we are moving along. We have made

good changes in our administrators, and our staff got to know us as a board. We have

changed some things in our policies and our contracts which have alleviated some

frustrations.

Recalling that she joined the board with no preconceived expectations, Julie said for her things

have changed completely. She indicated satisfaction in helping impact how decisions are now

made in the district:

I feel like I have been a part of helping our district come along and get out of the box we

were in. Because we are now listening to our teachers we are making better decisions and

our district has gotten stronger. Now decisions are made with public input and

knowledge, and we are trying be more transparent and to engage our public more.

Daniel, from his lengthy years of board service, noted that public education is the foundation of

this country and is more complicated than he had imagined. Still:

Even though it is a lot to get your arms around and we may never get to the point where

we are doing “okay,” I am very satisfied with what we are doing in our district. We are

trying to do better, and are not content to just leave things as they are. We recognize that

it is our responsibility, as the board and administration, to keep assuring things get better.

We work with the right perspective and we have been able to do well.

Christine referenced similar efforts toward continuous improvement in her district. She talked

about affecting deepened trust with the district community:

96

When I joined the board we had a couple of members with strong personalities who did

not want to listen and wanted to dictate. But we have worked hard to change this, and to

assure people we really do want to hear their perspectives. We have changed the tone of

the board and established higher trust. Because of this we passed a bond and are getting

some things done in our community. I think, I hope, that people would see that I am

doing my best.

Douglas stressed he enjoys working with professionals who are dedicated and doing the right

things to support kids. He also takes pride in the fact his school district is seen as a leader in the

state and that the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction frequently turns to and highlights

the district for its effective practices. Two of the board members specifically mentioned the kids

in their respective districts. Colby pointed to the transferrable skills students learn that help them

once they graduate from the district:

It is very satisfying that when our kids leave our district they are successful. Most of our

kids are involved in everything, and so they have to learn to manage their time. As a

small district they are not excluded from anything – a lesson they may have to learn later

– so they are forced to budget time and be productive, and when they go to college they

do well.

And Amy Jo expressed appreciation for the help she believes students are provided in the public

school district she serves:

It is good to know every kid has an opportunity, an equal opportunity. We help kids who

would not be in school if it weren’t public and available. Also, our communication with

the public has improved a lot, which is due to our new superintendent.

97

Frustrations Associated with School Board Service

While it was not difficult for each board member to recall and highlight points of pride

connected with their service as board members, it was also easy for them to discuss frustrations

they had experienced with the role. Contemporary school board members lead during a time in

which higher expectations are held for each student than has ever been true, and such

expectations are intertwined with external factors which impinge on the concept of local control

around which school boards were originally constituted. Board members in this case study

candidly addressed aggravations they experience with regard to federal and state infringement

upon and requirements of public education, and with insufficient finances to meet higher levels

of accountability. Douglas identified a number of frustrating aspects:

My two biggest frustrations are the federal government with NCLB (the reauthorization

of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as No Child Left Behind) and

the State government with everything. Government is not designed to deal with

problems; it is all deal making and avoidance. The WASL is a classic example; the

assessment was never developed as it needed to be. I have to compare Washington to

other states. When I go to national conferences and hear about other states, I come back

to our reality that districts in Washington cannot just impose taxes. We have case law in

this state that says define it (basic education) and fund it, but we can’t do that at the

district level. We want the best in the written, taught, and tested curriculum; and in

facilities. But we are restricted by the state. I have told legislators that I did not become a

board member to sue the state, but I have supported doing so twice. It is frustrating that

the percentage of the budget that goes to public education continues to decline.

98

Colby agreed about the challenging impacts that emanate from the government’s role in local

education:

It is frustrating to be told what to do by the government but then be given no money to do

it. Unfunded mandates and loopholes are difficult.

Like her fellow board members, Christine expressed common aggravations related to the federal

and state governments, especially around inadequate funding:

We seem totally beholden to the federal government and NCLB. This has trickled down

to the State with the WASL, special education, and rules of compliance. I have real

frustrations about funding; they give and they take away, and it comes with strings

attached. Especially in the last year local control seems to be eroding at the hands of the

federal and state governments and the State Board of Education. I am not impressed.

Things are changing constantly but we are not given the money needed to adapt; to learn

how to do it. We do not have adequate funding, period. Part of education is always

evolving, and it has to change, but without enough money to free up the teachers and do

needed training, we are stuck.

Susan, too, noted that finances are always tough, and that her district struggles with insufficient

basic and special education funding. Like Douglas, she mentioned the hesitancy of some staff

about change, and the time it takes to affect change. Others, including Charlie, are frustrated by

the legislature as well:

Funding is a constant challenge and frustration. When I look at our F195 (a state budget

report) this year and see we are supposed to be at 75% but are only getting 70%, it is

irritating that the state rapes and pillages dishonestly. Our legislators have frankly not

been helpful at all. There is a lack of support from both the state and federal government.

99

We also have challenges getting people in our community to be interested in the schools

on a more regular basis. I am at a loss to how to make people get involved. We have

people on the far right and the far left, and they often just want to be left alone and have a

distrust of all government. Also, our economy around here is tough. It is frustrating, but it

is what it is. We have gotten used to making do and any bit extra makes us happy. I go

home and pour a shot of whiskey over funding issues. I would love to see Washington

State fully fund us, but that won’t happen.

Julie echoed a recurrent theme of concern about state and federal government influence:

No Child Left Behind, the WASL – the state and federal governments have caused

craziness. And you combine that with the challenges that small school districts have

generally, because it boils down to funding and numbers. We are a farming community

but fewer kids are being raised on farms, and our economy goes as harvest goes. It is

frustrating.

Like most others, Michael mentioned lack of funding and the uncertainties that accompany it,

and noted now is not an easy time for public education as districts have to look for ways to cut

and scale back. Amy Jo spoke specifically about funding shortfalls:

Funding is a huge roadblock. State finances are very concerning, and with funding cuts

we have to make we don’t get to choose which teachers to cut and some of our least

senior teachers are some of our very best. This affects our programs, and choice, and

enrollment when we have to cut staff.

Like Amy Jo, David is still a relatively new board member and his concerns are similar to hers:

The budget process is frustrating, with the problems we are having as a state and not

being able to control the impact it will have on our district. NCLB is a frustration because

100

it comes with mandates that are not funded. And too much is geared around the WASL; it

appears we are teaching to the test rather than to educated kids. We develop the whole

curriculum around the assessment.

Daniel succinctly summarized an oft noted concern about State government and its role in local

education:

The State has totally disregarded its obligation to fund public education and there are way

too many unfunded mandates. Our reality is to deal with these things the best we can.

In addition to difficulties in dealing with the influence of the federal and state

governments, concerns about teacher unions were also shared. Douglas highlighted specific

frustrations with unions and their impact on shielding teachers from individual accountability:

Unions can be frustrating. Our local union is not that bad but statewide the union has too

much clout and this gets in the way of accountability. The legislature, the district, the

school board are held accountable, but who holds teachers accountable? This is very

frustrating. The culture that bugs me the most is that some teachers don’t want change;

they would rather gripe than go to professional development or accept a critique. It is

frustrating how long it takes to affect cultural change.

Colby also noted the union can add to the challenges districts face:

The union gets in the way, too. It takes so much more time, energy, effort, and money

when the union gets in the way.

Rodney repeated this theme and a sense that the union exerts pressure which results in making

decisions that are not always best for meeting student needs:

My biggest frustration is summarized by what both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity

say: I support the union workers but not the union. That has never been more fitting than

101

now. Every district has 10% that need to find a different profession. Teacher unions don’t

allow you to reward excellence. They protect not just mediocre people, but the worst

workers. So we make classroom assignments that “least damage kids” instead of “most

advantaging kids.” This is frustrating.

Reflecting on the financial challenges facing school districts, Christine shared how problematic

unions can be when it comes to meeting the shortfalls:

And union issues are terrible. Unions are the worst thing when it comes to making cuts.

How do you do it when it has all been negotiated?

The frustrations expressed by the board members in the case study are reflective of

prevailing challenges faced by school districts across the state of Washington and the nation in

the 21st century – funding inadequacies and shortfalls, state and federal government impacts, and

challenges presented by teachers’ unions. These inherent modern challenges warrant clarification

for board members and the public they serve. Through understanding these realities, strategies

for working through and around them can and must be formulated toward the outcomes desired

both from local communities and from external players in public education.

Lived Realities of Contemporary Board Members

This qualitative case study explored board member’s perceptions of the importance and

impact of their individual contributions, and that of their school boards in whole, on educational

policy and practice in their respective school districts. It illuminated the lived realities of board

members in a modern context in which school board service and challenges have significantly

changed from a pre-reform era.

102

Each board member shared perspectives from a vantage point that only those who have

held a school board position might fully understand, yet which are useful for superintendents and

staff members who work with board members, and for others who might someday become board

members, to recognize and heed. Borne of lived experiences unique to their particular districts

and communities, meaningful and practical lessons were shared by each.

Participants shared a continuum of learning as a board member, indicating that it is

unlikely new board members can possibly possess the bigger picture perspective that is required

to provide policy leadership and direction for local school districts in the complex constellation

of contemporary public education. Also, the reality that the broader public does not always

plainly see or understand the school board role, including its parameters and limitations, was

highlighted. Of particular significance, board members illuminated the key role of the school

district superintendent, a pervasive theme as board members discussed almost all aspects of the

school board experience. The importance of the role of the superintendent cannot be overstated

and the attention superintendents give to the role and its relationship to the school boards with

and for whom they work must not be underestimated.

Charlie shared that serving as a board member has been an incredible learning

opportunity. He highlighted lessons he has learned and perspectives he has developed:

When I was elected to the board I was the dumbest post in the fence row. I knew nothing

and now I know this much. The day I finally had some intelligence about it is the day I

realized I really knew nothing at all. You get to make decisions that affect people’s lives

and there is no audience and no touchdowns. I have a blast with is and I love watching

the kids in a safe and comfortable experience. I like helping people get what they need

and deserve, and when I look at the budget for the year I think “spend it on the kids.” It is

103

not a building budget, but a budget for children. To be a board member you have to be

honest about the time commitment. It requires someone who is a good, honest person

with a purpose, and I think it is important to get someone with kids in school. You have

to be comfortable talking with people, and a level of professionalism needs to develop on

the board. It is helpful to have people with business backgrounds because it is a business,

and a balance of men and women is important because people of different genders see

things differently. I think it is important to hire well and back them, and get rid of the bad

ones. You can’t be afraid, and you have to take responsibility.

Julie recalled her naivety at the time she was first selected to the board, and remembers that she

did not fully realize the magnitude of the role. Hiring a new superintendent has been helpful:

I felt at first that I was the token woman, but I quickly realized that the work is serious. It

is a serious job and you are making decisions that affect kids, jobs, and the community.

So you have to learn as much as you can, and ask questions. It is a big, complicated

entity. Board members are there for the kids, even if the public may have other

perceptions. Some will be mad and others will think we are wonderful. I have always

tried to do a lot of observing, and I have learned that for many people, I always have my

board hat on whether I think I do or not. In nine years I have seen three superintendents

and several new board members, and I think the best thing we have done is hire our

current superintendent.

Rodney highlighted some significant challenges along with deep learning that accompanies, in

his case, nine years on the school board. He has found some of the challenges associated with

public education to be quite frustrating:

104

I would say that nine years on the board makes you a better board member. But one of

the toughest things for me is that you are expected to be a proponent of public education,

yet if I had it to do over again my kids would not have been in public schools. That is

because it is almost impossible to affect real, substantive change…because of outside

forces. The state and federal governments; OSPI (Office of Superintendent of Public

Instruction); the union; AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress); the insurance company; the

attorney – all of these have an effect. If someone asked me about getting on the board I

think I would say go for it, but I would also say it is not glamorous; it’s a huge time

commitment; it’s thankless and mostly invisible. Education is a different beast; it is

nothing like business. And public education is so unlike the real world. I would say the

main responsibility is to communicate about the district in the community and talk about

the good things, because the conversations will often start with the negative. Be the eyes

and ears of the superintendent, and protect him/her from being blind-sided. Share what

you hear, don’t have an agenda, and let the superintendent deal with things.

Amy Jo indicated that board service is a rewarding experience, and you get out of it as much as

you put into it. Significantly, she learned how important hiring the right superintendent is:

It is not all fun and games, and there are some hard decisions to be made. But the top

priority has to be kids. Anything that is a matter of debate, I have to back up and ask what

is best for all kids? The second priority is hiring the right superintendent and

administrators, and they will take care of the rest. I have learned not to micromanage; we

don’t run the classrooms. It is not our job to deal with the daily issues, but to represent

the school to the community and the community to the school.

105

Colby views his board service similarly, and noted that board members must understand they are

not the experts in education:

I did not have huge expectations; I just came on the board to serve and do what I needed

to do. Sometimes it has been challenging, but if you know you are doing the right things

for the right reasons, it is not overwhelming. It is a cliché, but it is about doing what is

right for kids. My basic agenda is we are here to make policy and to oversee – not to run

the district. Hire the best superintendent and let him do it. Some like to micromanage and

that can really mess things up. We are not the experts in education; that is not our role.

In her words, Susan was pretty “clueless” when she first joined the board. Yet learned along the

way perspectives that are important for school board members:

There was an assumption that you have more power than you actually do, and you learn

that you really don’t. Things only work when you act as a full board. I was not

completely prepared but as a mom I knew you needed to make good decisions for kids;

you need to look at the big picture and do things for the kids. There is a ripple effect with

every decision you make and you cannot do anything alone, only as a group. It if it is

good for kids there is a way to make it happen. Policies and procedures are parameters,

and I think legislators need to remember that our kids matter, and that they our worth our

investment.

Christine, too, learned a different reality than the one she’d anticipated. She discussed

developing an understanding that school boards can and should pose tough questions, yet the

superintendent must run the district:

You have a perception that the board can make decisions and things will happen, but it

doesn’t work that way. Good decisions are data driven and come from deep down

106

ownership. You ask the hard questions; that is something board members can and should

do. Ask the questions, bring ideas, but ultimately it needs to come from the folks doing it.

You have to get out and go to things, and it takes a ton of time. Along the way you piss

some people off, yes. Some get mad, and there can be some lost friendships because

people don’t comprehend that you have all the students to deal with; not just one or a

class of 30. And it is hard to make the system work for all kids. I think the biggest thing

we do is hire a good superintendent, trust him and let him do his job. To do your job – to

set policy and approve the budget – you have to be prepared and ask hard questions. And

you have to be open-minded, and need to always have a filter about what is best for all

kids.

Daniel indicated that after 24 years on the board there are still things he can learn. He offered

that it is important for board members to always want to learn:

Our primary responsibility is to the kids, and a board member should never lose sight of

this. I really understand that it is not my job to micromanage, but administrators are

looking for input and as lay people we can provide it. We either have or have had kids in

school. Right now none of our board members have any kids in school, and to be as

objective as needed, I think it is better for board members not to have kids in school

while they serve. In all, you do great service to the community by serving on the school

board, and by always making decisions with the kids in mind; it becomes the best

volunteer work possible.

David holds a different perspective about the importance of school board members being current

parents of school-age kids. He continues to learn about the policy role for which school board

members are responsible:

107

I believe you have to be connected with what’s going on in the schools, and if you have

children in school, you have a greater incentive to care. You can impact their education in

very positive ways. However, I came to the board not well-versed in establishing policy

and vision for the district, and it is something I do need to continue to learn more about. I

have learned, though, that budgets and hiring practices are probably not the board’s role.

Michael noted the impact of what he learned from the experience in the district when he first

joined the board a quarter century ago. He also discussed all he has learned since, including the

significance of holding positive assumptions:

Going through the problems we experienced the in the first couple of years I was on the

board made a believer out of me. It was a horrendous time (a superintendent was ousted)

and it created public distrust and crippled the district. My view became that we should act

as a team, and the method I believe in is to create a bigger circle; us and them does not

work. We have to broaden the circle and keep people talking. Communication it the key

and I tend to believe that people want to do a good job in general. If you assume this

about an individual legislator, the legislature, OSPI, or whomever – that they want to do a

good job, then you can talk to them. I also learned that individually you have no power;

you have to harmonize with the board. Working as a member of a team with the board

and the superintendent are the critical elements. I want the superintendent to know his or

her job is secure; I don’t want to impede anything. The key role of the board is to hire the

superintendent and then have sense enough to let them run the district. Also, I have

learned that a key role of school boards is advocacy. Legislators listen to board members,

and we need to advocate or we are failing.

108

Douglas similarly understands how important it is for board members to stay focused on the big

picture, and to respect the role of the superintendent and staff:

I am only one vote, and if fact I work for the citizens. Our job is to hire the

superintendent, and the annual budget – yet you need to see the bigger picture. You are

not expected to know everything, and are not required to. But you do need to think

critically. While it is important to trust and respect the staff, they have emotional ties to

programs we may not. You need to analyze critically without challenging – a tough line.

Conceptual Framework

While much has been written about the historical and traditional role of school boards,

there is a scarcity of study on school board members themselves. Working from the contention

of Tallerico (1991) that amid the complexity of contemporary school governance, local policy

actors warrant the attention of educators because who they are and what they bring with them to

their roles are critical variables in educational policymaking practices, several distinct themes

materialized through the interview process. From these themes a conceptual framework of the

study emerged. This conceptual framework is woven around the backgrounds and life

experiences board members bring to school board service and how they learn the role; the issues,

challenges, successes and frustrations they engage as board members; and the lived realities that

are part of serving as a contemporary school board member. Depicted in Figure 1 on page 109, it

reflects what citizens who serve in the contemporary school board role experience and

understand to be their roles and responsibilities in the multifaceted context of modern public

education.

109

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Summary

In this chapter the findings of the qualitative case study were presented, organized around

the conceptual framework of the study and the three crucial areas of contemporary school board

service the study investigated. The wisdom borne of the experiences and perspectives of the

eleven school board members who participated in the study was shared. Each of the participants

in this study indicated that serving as a school board member entails considerable reward and a

pervasive agreement that they are glad to be involved in such work, despite contemporary

challenges and complexities impacting public education.

Discussions of these finding, insights and understandings, and recommendations derived

from the research are provided in Chapter V.

110

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to discern and describe the experiences and lived realities

of current board members in a modern context. It targeted understanding the motivations and

expectations that contemporary board members bring to board service; their perceptions of the

effects of their service and leadership on policy and practice in local school districts; and a

delineation of both the satisfactory and frustrating aspects of board service.

An understanding of how contemporary board members perceive and experience school

board service is significant because increased interest and intervention in public education has

affected pressures on and expectations of local school boards and school districts. It is important

to understand how those who hold school board positions understand and live their role as board

members amid the pressures and challenges faced by public education today.

Following a triangulation of the perceptions, perspectives, and experiences which were

provided by eleven school board members, a nine phase model of contemporary school board

service – from backgrounds and expectations that precede board service through the lived reality

of serving on a school board – emerged. The model is shown in the Figure 2 below:

Figure 2. Nine Phase Model of Contemporary School Board Service

111

The model is a further delineation of conceptual framework of the study, which is woven

around the backgrounds and life experiences board members bring to school board service and

how they learn the role; the issues, challenges, successes and frustrations they engage as board

members; and the lived realities that are part of serving as a contemporary school board member.

Eleven interview questions (Appendix A, p. 147) were asked of the participants in the

study to research three critical areas of contemporary school board service:

• What backgrounds and expectations do citizens bring to the school board position and

what is their induction experience in the role?

• What issues and challenges do board members confront and what are the accompanying

satisfactory and frustrating factors in dealing with those?

• What are the sum experiences that combine to form the lived reality of a contemporary

school board member?

This chapter offers generalizations and insights garnered from the findings and discusses

the practical implications and significance identified from the case study. Conclusions drawn

from the data described in the previous chapter are presented. The chapter also offers

recommendations for further research.

Discussions and Insights

This section of Chapter V is structurally organized around the conceptual framework of

becoming a school board member, engaging as a school board member, and serving as a school

board member; and addresses the nine phase model that emerged from the interviews with eleven

current board members. It provides an analysis of the findings for each.

112

Becoming a School Board Member

The literature on school boards includes criticism that board members can be an “elite”

group compared to the population at large, and therefore may not accurately represent a broader

population with dissimilar backgrounds (Urban & Wagoner, 1996). Additionally, Sell (2005)

notes that school boards can fail in their effectiveness because lay people may not fully

understand educational issues well enough to form policies and manage schools. Who board

members are as they join a school board, and the backgrounds they bring with them to board

service, influences who they become during their time of service on the school board.

Backgrounds of School Board Members

While eight of the eleven participants in the case study have college degrees, a larger

percentage than the adult population in aggregate, they share backgrounds which are not

uncommon among typically involved and interested community members. Amy Jo, Colby, Julie,

Rodney, Scott, and Susan either operate businesses in their local communities or have a spouse

who does. Involvement in these enterprises leads to a substantial amount of contact with, and

input and feedback from, community members. In each case, the communities and school

districts they serve are fairly small (only Susan’s district enrolls more than 2000 students) so the

connections within and among the community in whole are extensive.

Daniel, Douglas, and Michael all work or did work in the same community in which their

school district is located, and each described involvement in community groups and on other

boards. Charlie, too, described community group involvement and numerous and consistent

opportunities to interact with the larger public. Amy Jo, Christine, David, and Julie emphasized

113

involvement with school activities and service or volunteer work with groups connected to the

school.

Criticism that board members are too far removed from the public they are elected to

represent was not supported in this case study. The participants are typical citizens and none are

of extraordinary means. Distinguishing characteristics include an interest in serving schools and

communities, and an ability to prioritize time to do so. Both factors are desirable traits in lay

citizens who volunteer for the policy direction work in local school districts.

Six of the eleven participants originally joined their school boards through interview and

appointment, and only in one case (Amy Jo) was there just one applicant for the vacant board

seat. Colby and Daniel were each one of two interviewed; Julie and Rodney were one of three;

and Douglas was one of five interviewed. Of the five who initially joined the school board via an

election, only Charlie ran unopposed. David and Susan were elected in two-way races, and

Christine and Michael were both elected in three-way races. Land (2002) noted it is only a small

percentage of the public who demonstrate an interest in running for board office, yet in nine of

the eleven districts represented there were other citizens interested in the school board seat.

Additionally, the three-way races in which Christine and Michael were involved occurred in

districts where superintendent turnover subsequently occurred. The number of candidates in

those two elections may have reflected, as described by Alsbury (2003), the contention that as

community members have increased dissatisfaction with the school or district, they become more

active in trying to change representation on the school board.

The reality for the board members in this study does not completely conform to growing

apathy chronicled by several researchers (Carol, et al., 1986; Olsen & Bradley, 1992) which

suggests decreased interest and willingness among citizens to serve on school boards in complex

114

times. In only two cases in the study was there just one citizen who applied or ran for an open

board position. In all the others there were other citizens interested in the positions, and in the

two where there was not, it is important that Amy Jo and David did want the position. In the face

of public education’s modern complexities, insufficient funding, and challenging external

influences and pressures, people remain interested and, importantly, willing to volunteer to serve

local school districts and their students. Arguably, the local school board does, and should,

remain a viable force in American public education.

Motivations of School Board Members: Why They Serve

Two of the board members interviewed, Christine and Douglas, acknowledged specific

issues and concerns related to the local school district which contributed to an interest in school

board service. For each, the concerns emanated from circumstances at their children’s schools,

and they joined the board with a specific intent to address these issues. Another, David, was

concerned about facilities in the district and from an experience as a chair of a committee which

four times had failed to receive citizen approval for a building bond project, became convinced

that the school board needed a change in membership. He stated his belief, and his perception of

the community’s perspective, that the board needed members with children in school and thus

who might be more involved than had become true in his district.

For each of the others interviewed, however, a prevailing theme of a simple desire to help

and to “give back” was noted. Indeed, several shared an a priori understanding that it is not the

role of an individual school board member or of the school board as a group to micromanage the

operations of the schools. Two board members – Michael in a medium sized district and Rodney

is a small district – discussed ousting of superintendents in their districts either right before or

115

soon after each joined the board (neither actively supported the non-renewals), and articulated

lessons that resulted. Demonstrating an understanding of a strong sense of teamwork that is

needed for boards to operate effectively (Carter & Cunningham, 1997) Michael highlighted:

When I first got on the board there was controversy with the superintendent and the board

was split. Three of the board members voted to fire him two years before he was eligible

to retire, and I was one of two who did not vote to non-renew his contract. Through that

experience I learned a lot about boardsmanship and how boards should operate. I learned

the importance of a team effort between the board and the superintendent.

Danzberger (1994), citing studies of the Institute of Educational Leadership, noted that

boards are oft criticized for micromanagement and interference, findings which have been

similarly chronicled by Wong (1995) and Goodman and Zimmerman (2000). In aggregate, the

board members in this case study did not undertake their school board roles with an avowed

intent to interfere but, as stated, merely to help. With the three board members who did carry

specific motivations to board service, each described a desire to proactively address the issues of

concern yet no explicit intent to disrupt the school district or its leadership and staff in so doing.

Among the participants in the case study there was a notable lack of individual agendas,

and an avowed understanding that it is only through collaborative teamwork that school board

members can have genuine influence. When a new board member is appointed or elected and the

former is evident, it is important for superintendents and other board members to define and

demonstrate the significance of teamwork in the school board position. When that is in place, as

described by most of the board members in the case study, the opportunity to meaningfully

impact policy and practice in a local school district is significantly increased.

116

Initial Training of School Board Members: How They Learn To Serve

A number of researchers (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2003; Wong, 1995; Goodman &

Zimmerman, 2000; Carter & Cunningham, 1997; Danzberger & Usdan, 1997; Bjork, 2000;

Houston & Bryant, 1997) have addressed an unclear demarcation of school board member

responsibilities compared to those of the superintendent and staff, and have noted both the

problems to which this can lead as well as the opportunities it might create for superintendents to

work more effectively with boards.

The participants in this case study, in whole, described provision of precious little initial

training. David and Douglas both noted that either through membership on other boards, or their

professional roles, they understood the important difference between the policy role of a board

and the operational responsibility of administration, even as both acknowledged a significant

need to learn about the organization they were helping lead. Christine had attended school board

meetings, including work sessions, for a year and one-half before joining the board, which

provided her some understanding of the work of the board. For most, though, training came in

the form of attendance at a WSSDA annual conference and its specific sessions targeted at new

board members. Little in-district attention was paid to this area. Several board members,

however, illuminated the key role of the superintendent in learning to be an effective board

member. Rodney highlighted the best training comes through the superintendent’s ability to

build relationships, and through this the superintendent’s expectations become the role of the

board.

Michael recalled it was through lessons derived from the non-renewal of the first

superintendent with whom he worked that he learned the importance of a school board staying

out of day to day operations of a school district, and that a board member has no power

117

individually but only as a member of the board in whole. Julie expressed that she learned it is the

board’s job to trust and support the superintendent in order for the focus of the district to remain

on important goals related to learning and teaching. And Douglas shared that the support of and

access to administration is a vital part of board member training. Such perspectives match the

admonition of Wong (1995) that boards must avoid micromanagement and instead focus on

setting policy in order for true educational reform to result. Representing the largest district in

the case study, Douglas observed:

It is easier to be a board member, for me, in a large rather than a small district. In small

districts you get hit with all the stuff you should not be involved in.

From smaller districts, both Amy Jo and Julie indeed noted the ongoing struggle to maintain a

focus on academics and not allow sports to predominate community and school board attention.

Boyle (2004) asserted that learning to how to govern effectively is the most critical issue

in board development, and Danzberger (2004), citing three studies of the Institute for

Educational Leadership, noted that a common criticism of school boards is too little attention

paid to their own needs for ongoing training. Based on the experiences of these board members,

significantly more attention should be paid to initial training of board members. Reliance on the

training provided by WSSDA (Washington State School Directors Association), often at its

annual conference, is insufficient in terms of assuring local school board members deeply

understand the parameters of the school board role and the teamwork that is necessary to execute

it effectively. Additionally, and beyond initial training, continued board development work to

promote coherence and collaboration (Noguera, 1999), is warranted to enhanced school board

effectiveness and the outcome of focused school district operations. As specifically highlighted

by a number of participants, the superintendent plays a key role in how school board members

118

learn, understand, and carry out their role, which means attention to this area is among the most

important work of a superintendent.

Engaging as a School Board Member

Danzberger (1994) discussed criticisms that boards give too little attention to major

concerns in favor of concentration on administrative trivia, and Howell (2005) described

lessened impact of local school boards as state and federal government influence increases. This

study inquired of the participants about the issues with which they deal or care about, and what

they learned through confronting these issues.

Issues Faced By School Board Members

For three board members, facility concerns were important and in each case bond issues

subsequently passed which addressed the issues. Two board members spoke of the ruckus each

confronted when first on their respective boards, related to fractured relationships between the

board and the superintendent. Each clearly understood the caution of Houston and Bryant (1997)

that boards and superintendents must work cooperatively to nurture a climate conducive to

educational effectiveness.

Rodney recalled that the board he joined held an activist stance as a result of non-

renewing a superintendent, and he drew a connection between their activism, similar

empowerment among the local education association, and hindrance to true educational progress

in the district. He described pride in the board’s “de-activism” and improved relationship with a

new superintendent during his time on the board. Michael, too, outlined dissention which existed

in his district when he joined the board as three members voted to non-renew the superintendent,

a circumstance which had a relationship to a threatened strike by the local teachers’ union. He

119

described learning the importance of boardsmanship through that ugly experience, and of

assuring the board avoids trying to run the school district and rather promotes a problem solving

approach to district challenges as it provides strong support to the superintendent. Both of their

stories reflect some unfortunate and unhealthy power struggles which, as chronicled by Bjork

(2000), and Cunningham and Codeiro (2003), can occur on school boards and between boards

and superintendents

Meier (2003) described that many citizens no longer feel as connected to public

education as once was true, owed to a variety of factors. Julie spoke to this reality in her district

when she joined its board:

The board was not as open as it needed to be. There were lots of behind the door

decisions, and it wasn’t so much a policy making body as a group of men who had lived

in the community and been on the board for a long time each, who did what they wanted

to do.

Feeling at first like a token female, she saw the need for changes and worked to bring discussions

into public as well as to help the district focus more on academics and learning and less on

sports, which can be a too common trap in small towns and districts.

Douglas, a board member who joined the board with the strongest avowed area of interest

– expectations for all children which were too low, or “malaise” as he termed it – perceives this

same concern continues even after twelve years, yet acknowledges the challenge of affecting

change in culture and belief systems. Importantly, he has come to understand that as the

superintendent and staff members attend to day to day issues, a school board can push for needed

fundamental change, and that board pressure can assist the district in moving toward change.

120

Other board members discussed curricular and student achievement issues,

acknowledging Elmore’s (2000) assertion that schools today are expected to educate all students

to high standards. As suggested by Tyack (2003), the majority of the participants demonstrated a

sincere interest in issues that affect the education of future generations. Additionally, financial

concerns and state and federal pressures associated with WASL and No Child Left Behind were

commonly addressed, indicative of the increased power of state and federal governments in

educational decision making (Feuerstein, 2002). Most shared concerns related to these factors as

they impact all children and not just a particular segment of children, and though significant

frustration with government influence was commonly shared, attitudes about it were hardly

defeatist.

The participants in the case study do not, as a rule, become involved in individual issues

that are not focused on the needs of the district and all the children served. They do have to

confront outside pressures, ratcheted expectations, and challenging financial shortfalls, yet they

allude to an internal locus of control in meeting such challenges. Several participants highlighted

the issue of learning to work as a cooperative board, and outlined the significance of working on

behalf of the needs of all children. While some criticism of school board members is

undoubtedly justified, the board members in this case study are not among those whose work and

intent is driven by self or limited interests. Rather, these individuals give their time and attention

to shared interests and outcomes, providing an example for what school board members can and

should be.

121

The Demands of Community Engagement

Fostering public participation and engagement can be difficult. As noted by Iannacconne

and Lutz (1994; 1970), it is often only when citizens become truly frustrated with the failure of a

board to represent community interests that they become sufficiently dissatisfied to become

involved. Land (2002) also chronicled lack of public involvement with school boards that can

lead to detrimental board influence.

Elsberry (2005) argues the importance of the public’s voice in the work of school boards,

and a number of the participants described their board’s and district’s attempts to collectively

engage their publics, and each noted pervasive challenges associated with these efforts. Whether

through formal surveys, print or web-based publications, or planned community meetings, they

lamented too little public participation or input. Several discussed the open nature of their board

meetings, yet few citizens if any attend even when – as is the case in Charley’s district – a

practice of a “pre-board meeting” time was established for conversations with the school board

prior to the regular meeting. Rodney argued that blame lies with the board and district:

Generally public schools communicate poorly, and we are a poster child for this. It is a

big job and the problem is who is going to focus on it. You have to spend money and

time, both in short supply in our small school district.

Julie stated that people only come to meetings if there is a topic that is controversial or holds

interest for them, and shared that even as her district has reached out and scheduled meetings in

population growth areas of the district, participation is low. Michael expressed frustration that

when public meetings are held in his district, “the same six people attend.”

Douglas offered that his district has a fairly successful citizens committee that includes

two parents from each of the district’s schools which meets monthly, and noted this structure

122

provides an opportunity for the school board to connect with parents across the district. He

cautioned, however, he is not as confident that the involved parent representatives have a

mechanism for sharing information from these meetings with the larger parent and citizen

community. Similarly, he highlighted that the district’s board of directors now includes two

student representatives, yet is concerned that the students who serve have no effective

mechanism to disseminate information to the student population generally. David articulated the

particular challenge associated with reaching citizens who don’t have school-age children, a

problem in every school district.

Several of the board members, all from smaller or medium-sized districts represented in

the study, each district generally rural in character, indicated they make attempts to talk with and

solicit input from citizens as an individual board member, and some noted fellow board members

do the same. Campbell (2001) has found it is easier to solicit and encourage public participation

in smaller, more homogenous settings which exist to a greater degree in small, rural

communities. While espousing the helpful nature of such outreach Michael, from a medium-

sized district located within a more urban setting, cautioned that people should not view

individual board members as conduits to action, and that it is only through the board operating as

whole, and through formal board meetings, that action can result.

While school boards are criticized for including too little input from the public, and for a

lack of transparency in their work, the participants in the study shared cognizance about the

importance of engaging district citizens. At the same time, they articulated the difficulty in

soliciting greater public participation, despite sincere personal and system-wide efforts to do so.

And the most senior board member of the eleven explained a potential trap in too much personal

contact with citizens, as this can mislead citizens into thinking that an individual board member

123

has power or authority. Though school board members are not always able to generate public

involvement or discern public attitudes and perspectives on issues, a dilemma lies with a reality

that the larger public does not fully understand and appreciate the parameters surrounding and

limitations on the school board role. An avenue to more clearly educate the public about the role

of a school board and its individual members is needed, yet difficult to do.

The Demands of the School Board Role

Participants referenced other key demands associated with the school board role, some

that they did not feel fully prepared for. Susan recalled the first superintendent with whom she

worked counseling her that a board member could be as busy as she might want, and notes that

has proven true. Other study participants described considerable time demands that vary from the

basic of the regular board meeting(s) each month, to additional work sessions, committee work,

and attendance and participation at many school-related events. Board members from the smaller

districts represented in the study more frequently mentioned the latter, an indication of the

enhanced visibility of board members in their respective communities, and of a commitment to

accessing citizens in light of the challenge with getting citizens to participate as part of the

formal board structure.

One participant in the study discussed a difficult dilemma for board members. Christine

said,

It is hard to make decisions for the group as a whole. You cannot make everyone happy,

and I prefer people to be happy. But when I do my homework, am prepared, and do the

needed background work, I feel comfortable with the decisions we make.

124

Three participants spoke specifically about the legislative work involved in the life of a

board member. Susan referenced the importance of her role as the legislative liaison from her

local school board, and discussed her involvement with the Federal Relations Network of the

National School Boards Association. Douglas, too, indicated the significant amount of time, and

associated frustration, in dealing with the state and federal legislators and the lack of funding that

follows required mandates. Michael, also active in legislative work for most of his 25 years on

the school board, shared:

Our school board is very active in advocacy. This is a primary and key role of school

boards. Legislators listen to board members, and we need to advocate or we are failing. I

tend to believe that people want to do a good job in general, and if you assume this about

an individual legislator or about the legislature, then it is possible to talk with them.

Rodney, one who came to the board role feeling inadequately prepared, shared that the

superintendent plays a key role in the demands of board service:

Being a board member is less demanding now under a new superintendent than with the

two previous superintendents. This is solely about the ability of the superintendent, and I

consider the previous superintendents good friends. With weaker and less connected

superintendents I was much more involved in planning, direction, curriculum, and

negotiations. But with our current superintendent the trust factor is much different. If I

don’t trust that the superintendent has the ability or is making good decisions, I will be

much more watchful. So the time demanded is predicated on the skill and trust level

between the superintendent and the board and because of this, today my time

commitment is much easier.

125

Participants describe the school board position as the complex role it is; one that requires

significant time not only to learn to understand, but also to deal with the complications and

pressures that accompany it. A number of the board members referenced the legislative work that

is an important part of a school board’s work, and the participant who has served on the school

board for a quarter century discussed how critical it is for school boards to advocate for public

education, the needs of children, and the ability of school districts to meet those needs.

The numerous participants who referenced the crucial role of the superintendent in

effectively dealing with the demands and pressures faced by school districts and boards, affirm

the importance of the board-superintendent role discussed by Blumberg and Blumberg (1995), as

well as the work of Peterson and Short (2002), and Danzberger (1992), who note that a poor

relationship between the superintendent and board can impede district reform and restructuring

efforts. Superintendents and board members both need to work to create conditions in which the

school board maintains a broad picture view, and works on behalf of the needs of public

education and all children generally. When this occurs, and the board has sufficient faith in the

superintendent and staff to attend to day-to-day operations, the odds of a successful impact on

the district are significantly increased.

Serving as a School Board Member

Cunningham and Cordeiro (2003) described role confusion, power struggles, and

“fuzziness” as realities for school board members in the 21st century, and Danzberger (1994)

discussed a complex governance system of schools today with multiple layers and decision

makers. Participants addressed an initial lack of clarity about the role of the school board. Three

of the board members identified this directly. Christine, who had spent over a year attending

126

board meetings prior to running for a board seat, described her perception that a board can make

decisions and things will then happen, only to learn it doesn’t work that way in practice. Susan,

too, said she began her service as a board member believing she would have more power than is

actually true, and of learning that it is only by working as a full board that positive outcomes

occur. Eadie (2003, 2006) advocated that all board members must work in a collaborative

process to set a course of achievement of clear outcomes. With just slightly more than one year

as a board member, David discovered that what boards actually do differs from preconceived

notions he held.

Others described various challenges that a changed context and environment have caused

for school boards (Cunningham, 2003). Daniel learned that public education is much more

complicated than he had expected, and Julie grew to recognize the seriousness of a board

position and the importance and impact of decisions made by the school board. Gladwell (2000)

discussed the import of clarity and agreement about the definition of organizational interests and

goals, and Rodney noted the challenge of reaching such outcomes in public education due to the

influence of too many, often conflicting, outside forces and demands.

Satisfactory Facets of School Board Service

Several researchers, including Leithwood and Jantzi (2000), Shannon and Bylsma (2004),

and Fullan (2001) assert that new and shared school and district cultures are imperative amid the

complexity of modern education. They note that leadership must be well-defined, and quality

learning and teaching should be overarching goals within a framework of system-wide

improvement efforts. Board members in this study described the importance of collaborative

work toward shared goals and a focus on student achievement (Waters & Marzano, 2006).

127

Charlie, David, Daniel, Julie, Douglas, Michael, and Susan each pointed to teamwork among

their boards; increased openness and absence of individual agendas; enhanced communication

with the community; and a clear focus on the needs of the students of their districts. Several

spoke specifically to the key role of district teachers and other staff members and their work with

students, indicating an understanding proffered by Caruso (2006) regarding the primacy of the

relationship and connection between teachers and students.

The participants, as lay leaders, learn through experience the constraints of the school

board position. They also develop an understanding of its possibilities by working together

toward shared goals that focus on their district’s particular needs. The proactive and empowered

stance with which they embrace the work demonstrates that despite the pressures and

complexities confronting their districts and public education, board members possess a resolve to

work through and around those toward the most positive outcomes for their districts.

Frustrations Associated with School Board Service

The research on school boards is replete with challenges faced by board members in a

modern era. Feuerstein (2002), Howell (2005), and Usdan (2006) have all outlined increased

interference of state and federal governments, and consequent frustrations for school boards and

districts, on the intrusion to “local control” upon which the institution of American school boards

is based (Boyd, 2003; Tye, 2000). Participants in this study articulated frustrations with a

changed educational landscape. Colby noted it is frustrating to be told by the government what to

do, yet not be provided the resources needed to achieve the expectation. Christine specifically

identified how her district has become beholden to the requirements of No Child Left Behind, yet

the district is not provided the financial support needed to reach expected outcomes. Julie shared

128

the same concern, and spoke directly to concerns with Washington State’s assessment system

(WASL) and its impact on district curriculum decisions, teacher practices, and especially its

impact on students. Amy Jo, Michael, and David each agreed that state and federal requirements

which outdistance adequate education funding make the work of their boards and local districts

difficult. Daniel emphatically shared a perspective that the state has disregarded its commitment

to students in the K-12 system, and Douglas noted he believes in “define it, fund it,” but the

second part of that mantra has not occurred.

The role of a modern school board member is complex and can be confusing, and the

issues and challenges related to public education are numerous and complicated. In this context it

is difficult and perhaps impossible for a new board member to be adequately prepared for its

reality. Thus, concerted attention to fully describing the complex intricacies, pressures, and

expectations at the outset of board service – incumbent for superintendents and experienced

board members – should be assured each time a new member joins the school board, and should

be an ongoing effort and commitment of the superintendent.

Teachers’ unions are a frustration highlighted by participants in the study. Moe (2006)

described that the power of teacher unions has become too great, and Cunningham (2003)

articulates that the power of a strong interest group, such as a teacher union, hinders school board

ability to work toward the common good. Colby, from a small district, and Daniel representing a

larger district in the study, both expressed concerns about unions. Colby noted that the impact of

unions adversely impacts and slows progress toward needed change, and Daniel discussed the

often disruptive nature, seemingly intentional, of the union. Christine talked about the challenge

of teachers who are unwilling to change while the union fights for their rights to not have to, and

Rodney espoused the difficulty and unfairness of ending up stuck with teachers who have

129

“lifetime appointments.” While noting immense respect for the vast majority of the staff in his

district, Douglas has deep concerns that as districts, individual schools, and boards are held

accountable by the state and federal governments, there is no concomitant accountability for

individual teachers.

The entities of the school board and of the labor associations in a school district both

have a need to better understand the expectations, goals, parameters, and limitations of the other.

The superintendent plays a key role in clarifying the entities to and for one another, as well as in

bringing them together around areas of common or shared interest.

Focusing the Work of the School Board

Board members spoke to broad perspectives of school board service borne of the

experience each has had in the role. Carter and Cunningham (1997) summarized the vital nature

of school boards and superintendents developing clear and united visions with a commitment to

teamwork. Similarly, the necessity of a clear vision and adherence to non-negotiable goals aimed

at student achievement has been documented by Waters and Marzano (2006), and Houston and

Bryant (1997) describe the significance of a cooperative relationship between a school board and

the superintendent in order for a school district to operate as it should.

Amy Jo and Susan directly noted that a board’s work must always be about kids, and

Christine further emphasized it must be about all kids in the district, something she has found is

sometimes difficult for individual parents to understand and accept. Most spoke of maintaining a

big picture perspective avoiding the criticism, noted by Mountford (2004), that it is possible for

boards to fracture and fall prey to power struggles which don’t serve all students well. Daniel

referenced the newest member of his school board whom, he noted, had been something of an

130

over involved parent while her own kids went through district schools (a “helicopter mom” he

said), and described that as her tenure on the board continues, she is learning the import of a

broader perspective. Describing that a board member’s or school board’s perspective is, and may

need to be, different from that of an individual parent or community member, Julie lamented “the

public doesn’t always understand what our role is and what it is not.”

Participants articulated lessons learned about needed collaboration and consensus among

board members, related to Noguera’s (1999) research on the significance of coherence and

collaboration in public education. Susan shared an understanding that the work of a school board

member cannot be done alone but only as a group, and Michael indicated recognition that

individually he has no power or influence, and stressed the importance of harmonizing with

fellow board members and the superintendent as a team. Colby flatly stated it is not a board

member’s job to be an expert in education, and Amy Jo discussed how vital it is not to

micromanage.

The participants in the study developed, over time, an understanding of or at least an

appreciation for the critical nature of harmonizing, with one another and with the superintendent,

around clear and shared goals. Unlike some of the criticism which is aimed at modern school

boards, these board members were not focused on individual interests or programs, and most

articulated an understanding of the significance of keeping a focus on group goals and efforts,

and always on the needs of all of the children educated in the district.

The Importance of the Board-Superintendent Relationship

While none of the eleven interview questions asked board members to speak specifically

about the superintendent, each respondent spoke to the importance of that leadership role. The

131

literature on school boards is filled with discussion about the significant role of the

superintendent and the pitfalls and role confusion that can befall board members (Goodman &

Zimmerman, 2000; Bjork, 2000; Blumberg & Blumberg, 1995; Peterson & Short, 2002; Houston

& Bryant, 1997), including a reality that a poor relationship between the board and

superintendent can adversely affect the stability and morale of the school district. The board

members in this study clearly recognize the centrality of the relationship with their

superintendents. The longest serving board member in the study, Michael has worked with four

superintendents and said it is necessary to back the superintendent; the board’s role is to hire the

superintendent and let him or her run the district. Colby concurs, and asserted it is the board’s

job to hire the best person and let that person lead the operation of the district. Charlie, Amy Jo,

Julie, Christine, and Douglas each shared the same perspective. Noting an understanding that a

school board hires only one person, the superintendent, Douglas emphasized that it is crucial to

support the superintendent; and in so doing to be a critical analyzer without challenging. Daniel

shared it is appropriate to ask questions of the superintendent and administrative staff to better

understand aspects of the district work, while avoiding any semblance of micromanagement.

Board members in the study indicated comfort with a foundation upon which Danzberger

(1992) notes that school boards were modeled, with the superintendent as Chief Executive

Officer. Noting the importance of hiring the right superintendent, having a fully engaged school

board without individual agendas, and always remembering the work of the board is about kids,

each of the participants articulated the rewarding nature of school board service, summed up by

Michael who said he has remained on his school board for a quarter century precisely because of

the associated rewards.

132

A clear theme echoed by all of the participants in the study is an understanding of

avoiding the trap of micromanagement. While the role of the board can be confusing and the

boundary between the school board and the superintendent and staff can become blurred, the

eleven board members interviewed demonstrated a clear grasp of the demarcation between the

two, and an understanding of the significance of respecting that boundary. The importance of

helping board members figure out the key distinctions between the two different roles and

responsibilities, and of maintaining their respect for that line, can make the difference in the

ability of individual board members and school boards to successfully execute their important

role in public education.

Though participants seemed to grasp the concept of role delineation and the need to

maintain a broad perspective and to work collaboratively toward a shared vision and goals, an

area of noted difference among the participants is perspective on ability to represent the

community while maintaining a big picture view. Most of the board members from small

districts represented in the study argued the importance of board members having kids currently

in school. Christine ran for the board in part because she felt too many board members in her

district no longer had school-age children and she noted insufficient engagement as a result.

Amy Jo and David both pointed to the importance for board members to be parents of kids in the

system, Susan and Rodney each indicated they are finding themselves ready to leave the board

because their children have or will graduate.

With a different perspective, the two board members from the large size districts both

said it is not mandatory that board members have kids in school, and Daniel noted that all of the

children of board members in his district are now out of school which he believes provides for a

more objective perspective from the board. Charlie and Susan, from medium sized districts,

133

concurred and each have remained on the school board, and want to continue, even though their

own children have graduated or soon will.

Despite conflicting perspectives, each of the participants is driven by a desire to

represent, well, those who elect them and to assure that the needs of the district’s students are

attended. These commitments are desirable characteristics for board members, whether they are

parents of school-age children or not.

Practical Implications

School board members have an important and challenging role in public education, and

the position of board member is impacted by multiple factors. Like other players in the

educational enterprise, board members are committed to quality learning and achievement by all

students. Working toward that outcome, however, is no longer solely a local district undertaking,

but is impacted by requirements of the state and federal governments. Board members must

navigate what Danzberger (1994) described as multiple layers of decision making in a time in

which learners, and the larger society, are more diverse.

Training and Education for School Board Members

The study found that the board members in the study are arguably representative of the

public they serve. Though their level of education, on aggregate, is greater than the citizenry at

large, none were of extraordinary means. The most distinguishing characteristics were a record

of involvement in schools, community, and civic endeavors, desirable qualities for citizens who

volunteer time to provide policy direction and leadership to school districts. It is appropriate that

citizens with a record of and commitment to service are encouraged to pursue school board

service.

134

The participants noted a provision of insufficient initial training, frequently only through

attendance at sessions for new members at WSSDA conferences. They also recognize and accept

the challenges and responsibilities with which they are charged, though most acknowledged they

did not completely understand the full possibilities and limitations of the board role at inception

of service. Board members expressed a desire and willingness to learn the role and its

complexities and challenges, and need assistance to do so. It is essential that the superintendents

with whom they work, and experienced board members, pay close attention to the need to

provide explicit school board training. This must include education about the complex, often

external, factors which impact local district operations.

As board members described learning which came mostly through experience, they

highlighted the centrality of the superintendent role in this process. To successfully address

blurred and confused roles, micromanagement, and potential interference to which school board

members and their members can be susceptible, documented by numerous researchers

(Danzberger & Usdan, 1992; Wong, 1995; Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000), increased attention

to board training and “boardsmanship” by superintendents and by veteran, experienced board

members should be integral to initial and ongoing training and education of both new and

continuing board members.

Communicating and Connecting with the Public

Land (2002) studied the lack of genuine public involvement with school boards and

districts, and criticized that an absence of engagement with the community has led school boards

to exercise power and influence in ways which did not serve the needs and interests of all

students.

135

Participants did note challenges in the solicitation and integration of meaningful and

sufficient public participation. Different board members reported varying strategies and

perspectives about how to engage the public, even as each highlighted the importance. Several

noted a dilemma that the public does not always understand the school board’s role; what it can

and cannot do. Especially from board members representing the smaller districts, pressures come

from parents and community members to deal with operational and/or personnel aspects of the

school district. School board member and the citizens in the communities and districts they serve

face struggles understanding the demarcation between policy development and oversight, and

day to day operations. Described by Cunningham and Cordeiro (2003) the role of school board

member can be fuzzy for those in it and those represented.

A focus on community engagement strategies is needed to assist board members meet the

desire to include community input. Processes which result in greater public participation must

include clarification of the board’s role for the public; board members reported citizens often do

not understand the parameters of the school board role and its delineation from the role and

responsibilities of the superintendent and staff. It was clear that board members view public

input as essential, yet absent shared understanding and acknowledgement of what school boards

can or cannot do, criticisms of lack of representation may only continue, even though it may not

be justified.

The Key Role of Superintendent

Each of the participants identified the essential role of superintendent, and the magnitude

of the relationship between the superintendent and the board. The centrality of this relationship,

robustly discussed in the literature on school boards (Blumberg & Blumberg, 1995; Peterson &

136

Short, 2002; Danzberger, 1992; Carter & Cunningham, 1997; Houston & Bryant, 1997), was

reinforced in each interview.

It is vital that both board members and superintendents understand the magnitude of this

relationship and its impact on successful school district outcomes. The relationship must be

given continual and sufficient attention, and must be regularly reviewed. Further, both

superintendents and board members must own a focus on constant development and elucidation

of the relationship, and both should help the staff and community to gain an understanding of it.

School Board Members as Advocates

The longest-tenured board members in the case study, each of whom represented large or

medium-sized districts in the study, spoke most frequently about the role of a school board with

legislative activity and advocacy for public education. Additionally, it was noted that the longer

the board member had been on the board, a relationship to a greater understanding about the role

of policy development, oversight, and vision for the school district was discussed in more depth.

These two outcomes of the study likely reflect that experience in the board role deepens

understanding of its responsibility and impact. School boards are primarily accountable for the

direction and policies of school districts, but they can also exert influence in the policy arena of

public education in whole. Work to help board members understand and embrace the potential of

concerted work in this area can help school boards exercise increased influence amid the

growing impact of state and federal governments, and other prominent players, in modern public

education.

137

Summary

This intent of this study was to understand the reality of school board service though the

perspectives of those in the position, in the context of the complicated and competing factors

which have impacted the historical foundation of local control, and which have resulted in

frustrations for school board members; role confusion; and increased criticism of board members

and of school boards.

The previous discussion indicates that participants in this study have found ways to make

sense of a complex enterprise, and remain true to their commitment to their local districts. They

face frustrations discussed in the literature of external influences, barriers to meaningful public

engagement; and challenges to learning the parameters of the school board policy role and its

delineation from the role of the superintendent and staff. However, these board members provide

a positive example of working proactively, collaboratively, in the best interests of children, and

with a developing perspective about the importance of shaping public education policy – one

school district at a time. Its findings buttress the viability of school boards when board members

hold similar perspectives and commitments.

Recommendations for Future Research

The observations and reflections of the board members presented in this study may not be

representative of school board members across the nation, yet their stories provide an indication

of the various ways school board members approach school board service, their experiences

related to the service, and their perceptions about it. Multiple instances of similar realities of the

lived experiences of board members were revealed.

138

Instead of supporting criticisms of school boards, this study found board members who

strive to understand the role and its intricacies; acknowledge and respect the delineation of

responsibility between the board and superintendent; work proactively amid challenges and

external influences; and who are cognizant of their duty to represent the community to the school

district and the district to the community.

Continued study of the functioning of contemporary school board members and of school

boards in whole, and the effects of their work on student achievement, instructional practice and

effectiveness, and public confidence and support – in a complex era of ongoing educational

reform – is needed. The conceptual framework can be used as a mechanism for other board

members to analyze their experiences in and perspectives about the school board role.

Additionally, future studies should include school board members of diverse ethnicities

and race. In this study, because the vast majority of school board members in the larger region

are Caucasian, to have included a non-Caucasian board member would have compromised the

pledge of confidentiality for participants.

139

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alsbury, T.L. (December, 2003). Superintendent and school board member turnover: Political

versus apolitical turnover as a critical variable in the application of the dissatisfaction

theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39 (5), 667-698.

Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/

Thomson Learning.

Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Philadelphia, PA: Open

University Press.

Bjork, L. (2001). Leadership and the politics of superintendent board relations. Paper presented

at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Blumberg, A., & Blumberg, P. (1985). The school superintendent living with conflict.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Boyd, W.L., & National Society of the Study of Education. (2003). American educational

governance on trial: Change and challenges. Chicago, Ill. London: University of

Chicago Press.

Boyle, P. (2004). School Boards and Public Values. American School Board Journal, 191(6),

22-27.

Campbell, D.E. (2001). Making democratic education work. In P.E. Peterson & D.E. Campbell

(Eds.), Charters, vouchers, and public education (pp.241-267). Washington, DC:

Brookings Institution Press.

Carol, L., Cunningham, L., Danzberger, J., Kirst, M., McCloud, B., & Usdan, M. (1986). School

boards: Strengthening grass roots leadership. Washington, DC: Institute for

Educational Leadership.

140

Carter, G., & Cunningham, W. (1997). The American school superintendent: Leading in the

age of pressure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Caruso, N. (February, 2006). Board Members Need to See Who Teachers Are. School

Administrator, 63 (2), 8.

Castallo, R.T. (2003). Focused leadership: School boards and superintendents working

together. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cunningham, W. G. (June, 2003). Grassroots democracy: Putting the public back into public

education. Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (10), 776.

Cunningham, W.G., & Cordeiro, P.A. (2003). Educational leadership: A problem based

approach (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Danzberger, J.P. (1997). School boards – partners in policy in The Superintendent of the Future

(Spillane, R.R., & Regneir, P., eds.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

Danzberger, J.P. (January, 1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring.

Phi Delta Kappan, 75 (5), 367-373.

Danzberger, J.P. (1992). School boards: A troubled American institution. Facing the

Challenge: The report of the twentieth century fund task force on school governance.

New York, NY: Twentieth Century Fund.

Danzberger, J., Kirst, M., & Usdan, M. (1992). Governing public schools: New Times new

requirements. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Danzberger, J., & Usdan, M. (1992). School boards: Strengthening a grass-roots American

institution. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

141

Davies, D.R., & Hosler, F.W. (1949). The challenge of school board membership. New York:

Chartwell House.

Deckman, M. (October, 2006). A National Portrait of Religious Conservative Candidates.

School Administrator, 63 (9), 29.

Denzin N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage

Devlin-Scherer, R. & Devlin-Scherer, W. L. (1994). Do school boards encourage parent

involvement? Education, 114 (4).

Eadie, D. (May, 2006). Making A Good Board Better. School Administrator, 63 (5), 6.

Eadie, D. (2003). Eight Keys to an Extraordinary Board-Superintendent Partnership.

Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, Dc: The

Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from http://www.ashankerinst.org/Downloads/

building.pdf

Elsberry, M. (May, 2005). The Improper Use of Executive Session. School Administrator, 62

(5), 6.

First, P.F., & Walberg, H.J. (1992). School Boards: Changing local control. Berkeley, CA:

McCutchan Pub. Corp.

Fitzpatrick, J., Secrist, J. & Wright, D.J. (1998). Secrets for a successful dissertation.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fox, J. (August 1, 2006). The proper duties of a school board: Hire educators, watch the money,

stay out of the way. In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, B7.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

142

Feuerstein, A. (January and March, 2002). Elections, voting, and democracy in local school

district governance. Educational Policy, 16 (1), 15-26.

Feuerstein, A. & Dietrich, J.A. (May, 2003). State standards in the local context: A survey of

school board members and superintendents. Educational Policy, 17 (2), 237-256.

Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference.

New York/Boston: Little, Brown, & Co.

Goodman, R.H. & Zimmerman, W.G., Jr. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for

21st Century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for

high student achievement. Washington DC: Education Commission of the States.

Retrieved November 4, 2006, from http://www.nesdec.org

Hamel, J. Case study methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hess, F.M. (2002). School Boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges

of district governance. Washington, DC: National School Boards Association.

Howell, W. G. (2005). Besieged: school boards and the future of education politics.

Middletown: Brookings.

Houston, P. & Bryant, A. (June, 1997). The roles of superintendents and school boards in

engaging the public with the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 78 (10), 756-759.

Howell, W. G. (2005). Besieged: school boards and the future of education politics.

Middletown: Brookings.

Howell, W.G. (2005). School Boards Surrounded. American School Board Journal, 192(5), 24-

27.

Iannacconne, L. & Lutz, F.W. (1994). The crucible of democracy: the local arena. In J. Scribner

& D. Layton (Eds.) The study of educational politics. Washington, DC: Falmer.

143

Iannacconne, L. & Lutz, F.W. (1970). Politics, power and policy: The governing of local school

districts. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Kirst, M.W., & Bulkley, K.E. (2000). ‘New, Improved’ Mayors Take Over City Schools. Phi

Delta Kappan, 81(7), 538.

Kirst, M.W. (2004). Turning points: A history of American school governance. In N. Epstein

(Ed.) Who’s in charge here?: The tangled web of school governance and policy (pp.14-

41). Washington, DC: Education Commission of the States; Brookings Institution Press.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1993). Methods of educational and social research: An integrated approach.

New York: Longman

Land, D. (Summer, 2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in

relation to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72 (2),

229-278.

Leithwood, K.A., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of different sources of leadership on

student engagement in school. In K.A. Riley & K.S. Louis (Eds.), Leadership for

change and school reform: International perspectives, 50-66. New York: Routledge/

Falmer.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Marshall, C., & Gerstl-Pepin, C. (2005). Reframing educational politics for social justice.

Boston/New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

144

McAdams, D.R. (January, 2006). Administrative Support for Board Members. School

Administrator, 63 (1), 6.

McCurdy, J. (1992). Building better school boards. Arlington, VA: American Association of

School Administrators.

Meier, D. (2003). The Road to Trust. American School Board Journal, 190(9), 18-21.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moe, T.M. (2006). A union by any other name. in P.E. Peterson (Ed.), Choice and competition

in American education (pp.123-135). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.

Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school

board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40 (5),

704-741.

National School Boards Foundation. (1999). Leadership matters: Transforming urban school

boards. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Noguera, P.A. (1999). Confronting the challenge of diversity. School Administrator, 56 (6),

16-18.

Olson, L, & Bradley, A. (1992). Boards of contention: Introduction. Education Week, 11 (32),

2-3, 5, 7, 9-10.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

145

Peterson, G. & Short, P. (2001). The school board president’s perception of the district

superintendent: Applying the lens of social influence and style. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 37 (4), 553-570.

Plank, D. & Boyd, W.L. (1994). Antipolitics, education, and institutional choice: The flight

from democracy. American Education Research Journal, 31 (2), 263-281.

Riede, P. (September, 2004). Board Ethics. School Administrator, 61 (8), 20-26.

Russo, C.J. (1992). The legal status of school boards in the intergovernmental system. In P.F.

First & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), School boards: Changing local control (pp.3-18). Berkeley,

CA: McCutchan Pub. Corp.

Sell, S. (2005). Running an effective school district: School Boards in the 21st Century.

The Journal of Education, 186 (3), 71-97.

Shannon, G.S., & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of improving districts: Themes from

research. Olympia, WA: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tallerico, M. (1991). School board member development: Implications for policy and practice.

Planning and Changing, 22 (2), 94-107).

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Bristol, PA:

Falmer.

Tyack, D.B. (2003). Seeking common ground: Public schools in a diverse society. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Tye, B.B, (2000). Hard truths: Uncovering the deep structure of schooling. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Urban, W., & Wagoner, J. (1996). American Education: A history. New York: McGraw-Hill.

146

Usdan, M.D. (Summer, 2006). Mayors and Public Education: The Case for Greater

Involvement. Harvard Educational Review, 76 (2), 147-151.

Usdan, M.D. (January, 1994). The relationship between school boards and general purpose

Government. Phi Delta Kappan, 75 (5), 374-77.

Waters, J.T., & Marzano, R. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of

Superintendent leadership on student achievement. A working paper. Denver, CO:

McREL

Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (2005). Research methods in education. Boston, MA: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Wolcott, H.F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and

interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Wong, K.K. (Spring, 1995). Toward Redesigning School Board Governance. Teachers College

Record, 96 (3), 569-576.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

147

APPENDIX A

Interview Guide

Name of Interviewee/Code Number: / Time and Place of Interview: School District Information (number of students/schools): / Initial School Board Service: Elected (contested or unopposed) Applied, interviewed, appointed Years of service to date on School Board: Concurrent with the introduction to the interview and ascertainment of the above information, I will share that this interview is being conducted as part of a qualitative study/doctoral dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Ed.D. in Educational Administration at Washington State University. A participant consent form will be shared, explained, and signed, and I will clarify that the interviewee’s confidentiality will be strictly maintained, and the notes made during the interview will be transcribed and only used to complete the qualitative study/doctoral dissertation, and in no other way. It will be noted that this research project has been approved by the IRB of Washington State University. The interviewee will be offered the opportunity to receive a copy of the final paper if so desired. The Interview

1. Beyond your role as a School Board member, describe what you do in your community and what relationship, if any, it has to your Board service.

2. When you either ran for election or applied to serve on the School Board, what motivated your interest in serving as a Board member?

3. At the beginning your service on the School Board of Directors, what issues did you see as most pressing with which the Board needed to address? How, if at all, have the issues changed during your time on the Board?

4. Describe any initial “Board training” you were provided, and how that helped (or hindered) your understanding of School Board service and leadership impact.

5. In what ways, and how frequently, do you as an individual Board member, and does your Board as a whole, engage the community and seek input on issues?

6. Please describe what it is like to be a Board member – what that entails for you (the time committed, the activities and work engaged, the public and private interactions that are a part of that service). How demanding is Board service, and how prepared do you feel for the issues and tasks you face as a Board member?

148

7. At this point in your service, how closely have the initial or prior expectations you had of School Board service matched the lived realities of your experience as a School Board member? What training(s) have you participated in that have helped you successfully carry out your Board responsibilities?

8. As you think about the goals, hopes and dreams you brought to the inception of your service to the School Board, how would you describe the impact of your Board leadership and contributions to the realization of those? What internal (district, community) or external (region, state, federal) challenges have created conflicts or roadblocks along your journey?

9. As you understand and perceive public education today in your own school district, this region, and the State of Washington, are there specific factors or realities that render your Board service either satisfying, frustrating, or both?

10. If you were given the opportunity to mentor a new Board member, either in yours or another school district, how would you articulate the primary responsibilities and priorities of School Board members in general? Which of these have you been most prepared to address, and which would you suggest could be addressed with additional training?

11. Is there anything else that you would like to share about your School Board service that would serve to illuminate an understanding of the experience you have had as a School Board member?

149

APPENDIX B

Participant Observation/Interview Consent Form

December 2008 Name Title (School Board Member) Address City, State, Zip Dear , My name is Michael Dunn of the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology at Washington State University. As I discussed with you on the phone, I am a doctoral student competing a qualitative study in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Ed.D. in Educational Administration at WSU. As part of the qualitative study/dissertation, I am to conduct interviews and field observations about the motivations and intent that lead citizens to School Board service; the perception of the key work of School Board service; and the perception of the impact of such service. The study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Washington State University. I am requesting your permission to interview you; this interview is intended to last for approximately 60-120 minutes. Notes from the interview will be compiled (using pseudonyms for actual names and school districts) and will be destroyed after writing the academic papers that are required to fulfill graduate course requirements. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from it at any time. There is not any anticipated risk of embarrassment or harm as a result of your participation in the interview. Your identity will remain confidential. You will not be identified, nor will your comments be connected to you, in this study. You may freely withdraw from participation in this qualitative study at any time. Your participation is greatly appreciated. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have about the project at any time. I can be reached at 509.701.1742 (cell) or 509.456.2715 (work). You may also contact the chair of my dissertation committee, Dr. Paul Pitre, at 509.335.6363 or pep@wsu.edu If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a participant you may contact the WSU Institutional Review Board at 509.335.9661. Participant’s Name Date Michael Dunn Date

150

APPENDIX C

Table 1. Overview of Study Participants Participant Elected or

Appointed District

Size Community

Type Years of Service

School-age

children at

initiation of Board service

School-age

children now

Amy Jo Appointed – only applicant

Small Rural 2 years Yes Yes

Charlie Elected - unopposed

Medium Rural 7 years Yes No

Christine Elected – three way race

Small Rural/suburban 8 years Yes Yes

Colby Appointed – two were interviewed

Small Rural 10.5 years Yes Yes

Daniel Appointed – two were interviewed

Large Suburban 24 years Yes No

David Elected – two way race

Small Rural 1 year Yes Yes

Douglas Appointed – five were interviewed

Large Urban 12 years Yes No

Julie Appointed – three were interviewed

Small Rural 9 years Yes No

Michael Elected – three way race

Medium Urban/suburban 25 years Yes No

Rodney Appointed – three were interviewed

Small Rural/suburban 9 years Yes Yes

Susan Elected – two way race

Medium Rural/suburban 11 years Yes No