Eight Characteristics of Effective School Boards

Eight Characteristics

of Eective

School Boards

Chuck Dervarics and Eileen O’Brien

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

More than 90,000 men and women are members of local school boards in the United States, all serving

as important trustees of the nation’s public education systems. According to the National School Boards

Association, these public ocials serve on 13,809 elected or appointed boards in the U.S.

Most of the public knows that school boards do things like set the budgets, establish school boundaries

and set school policies. But does school boards’ work aect student achievement? e higher media visi-

bility of teachers and principals in the push for better learning, while important, has led some to question

whether school boards matter.

From a research perspective, it’s a complex question. Isolating what makes an eective board—that

is, one that impacts student achievement—involves evaluating virtually all functions of a board, from

internal governance and policy formulation to communication with teachers, building administrators,

and the public.

But the answer is: Yes, they do. In this research brief, NSBA’s Center for Public Education looks at indi-

cators of school board eectiveness. From this research, it is clear that school boards in high-achieving

districts exhibit habits and characteristics that are markedly dierent from boards in low-achieving dis-

tricts. In the most dramatic examples from this research, scholars compared districts with similar levels of

poverty and disadvantage to determine factors that separate high-performing districts from those with low

performance. In many cases, these dierences included the approaches taken by local school boards.

So what do these boards do? Here are some examples:

• Boards in high-achieving districts are more likely to engage in goal setting and monitoring their progress.

• ey are increasingly data savvy—identifying student needs and justifying decisions based on data.

Eight Characteristics of

Eective School Boards

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

• Board members possess detailed knowledge of their district, including initiatives to jump-start success.

• Board members have craed a working relationship with superintendents, teachers, and administra-

tors based on mutual respect, collegiality and a joint commitment to student success.

For the full list of eight characteristics of eective school boards, keep reading.

Background on the studies

Despite the pivotal role of school boards in the nation’s educational framework, comparatively few studies

focused on the practices and eectiveness of elected or appointed boards. As Sam Stringeld and Deborah

Land noted in their 2002 study, Educating At-Risk Students, “quantitative and qualitative studies of board

eectiveness are virtually non-existent,” (Land and Stringeld, National Society for the Study of Education,

2002). Nonetheless, while there may be no magic bullet to assess boards comprised of individuals with

divergent views, there is a consistent body of research examining the characteristics and practices of eec-

tive school boards. (For the purpose of this paper, eective boards are those operating in high-achieving

districts, particularly those that are making signicant strides despite serving large numbers of disadvan-

taged students.)

Much of the research cited here focuses on school board/district practices and approaches gleaned

through interviews, surveys, observations and qualitative measures rather than in-depth quantitative in-

formation. Several studies also date back to the early 2000s or earlier; as a result, the data have limitations.

Nonetheless, the research base now includes notable studies comparing the practices of boards in

high-achieving districts and contrasting those with practices of boards in lower-achieving districts. Several

of these include detailed case studies exploring the evolution of districts from low performing to high

achieving—a process that includes discussion of the school board role. In addition, scholars have used

quantitative methods to assess the eect of district leadership on student achievement; oen, this assess-

ment includes data and trends related to school board operation, thus providing rich details on the evolu-

tion and, in some cases, transformation of local boards.

Taken together, these reports provide a sound basis to explore the role played by school boards in student

achievement. e pertinent studies for this paper fall into three general areas:

• Meta-analyses of education research, with a focus on the practices of boards, superintendents, and

other school leaders;

• Case studies of high-achieving districts, with a focus on the evolving role of school boards; and

• Studies that compare school board practices in districts with similar demographics but substantially

dierent student outcomes as reected by annual assessments and other factors.

Meta-Analysis: In 2006, J. Timothy Waters and Robert Marzano of Mid-Continent Research for Education

and Learning (McREL) examined 27 studies since 1970 that, they concluded, included rigorous quanti-

tative methods to assess the eect of school district leadership on student achievement. eir analysis,

School District Leadership at Works: e Eect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement:

Meta-analysis of Inuence of District Administrators on Student Achievement, looked at more than two

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

dozen studies covering more than 2,800

districts and 3.4 million students. Of the

27 studies examined, 14 had information

about the relationship between district

leadership and average student academic

achievement.

Case Studies: Several studies on district

leadership focus at least in part on board

activities. e Learning First Alliance study,

Beyond Islands of Excellence, (Togneri and

Anderson, 2003), examined the practices

in ve school districts with high student

test scores despite moderate to high student

poverty levels. Districts in the study were

Aldine, Tex., Independent School District;

Chula Vista, Calif., Elementary School Dis-

trict; Kent County Public Schools in Mar-

yland; Minneapolis, Minn., Public Schools,

and Providence, R.I., Public Schools.

Also, a study of 10 districts in ve states,

Getting ere from Here (Goodman, Ful-

bright, and Zimmerman, 1997), sought to

identify the eect of quality governance on

student achievement. Included in the anal-

ysis was an examination of the relationship

between school board and superintendent

and characteristics of eective board lead-

ership. Researchers selected the districts to

reect diversity in size, geography, student

achievement, graduation rates, dropout

rates, board/superintendent relations and

race/ethnic factors.

Studies with Comparison Districts: One of the richest data sets available is the Lighthouse I study of the

Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB). Looking at similar districts with either unusually high or un-

usually low records on student achievement, the project examined the role of boards and how they relate

to student achievement. In studying Georgia districts, Lighthouse I contrasted the knowledge, beliefs, and

actions of school board members from high- and low performing districts. Since conducting this original

study in 1998-2000, IASB has expanded the project into an action research approach, identifying pilot

districts in Iowa for further testing of this concept (Lighthouse II) and launching a multi-state project fo-

cused on board leadership (Lighthouse III). Multiple Lighthouse research papers were cited in this report,

including e Lighthouse Inquiry: School Board/Superintendent Team Behaviors in School Districts with

Extreme Dierences in Student Achievement (Iowa Association of School Boards, 2001), e Lighthouse Re-

EIGHT CHARACTERISTICS OF AN

EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARD

1. Eective school boards commit to a vision of high

expectations for student achievement and quality

instruction and dene clear goals toward that vision

2. Eective school boards have strong shared beliefs

and values about what is possible for students and

their ability to learn, and of the system and its ability

to teach all children at high levels.

3. Eective school boards are accountability driven,

spending less time on operational issues and more time

focused on policies to improve student achievement.

4. Eective school boards have a collaborative rela-

tionship with sta and the community and establish

a strong communications structure to inform and

engage both internal and external stakeholders in

setting and achieving district goals.

5. Eective boards are data savvy; they embrace and

monitor data, even when the information is negative,

and use it to drive continuous improvement.

6. Effective school boards align and sustain resourc-

es, such as professional development, to meet

district goals.

7. Eective school boards lead as a united team with

the superintendent, each from their respective roles,

with strong collaboration and mutual trust.

8. Eective school boards take part in team develop-

ment and training, sometimes with their superin-

tendents, to build shared knowledge, values and

commitments for their improvement eorts.

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

search: Past, Present and Future: School Board Leadership for Improving Student Achievement (Iowa School

Boards Foundation, 2007) and in the omas Alsbury-edited e Future of School Board Governance:

Relevancy and Revelation (2008).

In addition, Foundations for Success: Case Studies of How Urban School Systems Improve Student Achieve-

ment (MDRC for Council of Great City Schools, 2002) examined what it termed “fast-moving” urban dis-

tricts and compared them with slower-moving districts of similar size and demographics. In selecting the

districts, researchers looked for cities with improvement in reading and math in more than half of their

grades through spring 2001. Districts also had to achieve growth rates faster than their respective states

and narrow racial achievement gaps. e project ultimately focused on Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools,

the Houston Independent School District, the Sacramento, Calif., United School District, and a subset

of New York City schools known as the Chancellor’s District. One key research question was to examine

district-level strategies used to improve student achievement and reduce racial achievement disparities.

Several of these strategies involved school boards.

Finally, a 1993 report on school leadership in British Columbia, Canada, e Politics of Excellence: Trustee

Leadership and School District Ethos, concluded that districts with a productive “ethos” produced high-

er-than-expected student achievement and lower-than-expected costs over time (LaRocque and Coleman,

1993). e role of the board was part of this district “ethos.”

In reviewing these studies, it is reasonable to conclude that school boards in high-achieving school dis-

tricts look dierent, and that they oen feature characteristics and approaches that dier, from those in

lower-achieving districts.

Eight characteristics of eective boards

1. Eective school boards commit to a vision of high expectations for student achievement and

quality instruction and dene clear goals toward that vision.

In comparing district leadership and student achievement, Waters and Marzano (2006) identied ve spe-

cic district leadership responsibilities that positively correlated with student achievement:

• Establishing a collaborative process to set goals;

• Establishing “non-negotiable goals” (that is, goals all sta must act upon once set by the board) in at

least two areas: student achievement and classroom instruction;

• Having the board align with and support district goals;

• Monitoring goals for achievement and instruction; and

• Using resources to support achievement and instruction goals.

“Publicly adopting broad ve-year goals for achievement and instruction and consistently supporting these

goals, both publicly and privately, are examples of board-level actions that we found to be positively correlat-

ed with student achievement,” they said. Typically, they adopted the goals with specic achievement targets

and benchmarks. “e board ensures that these goals remain the top priorities in the district and that no

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

other initiatives detract attention or resources from accomplishing these goals.” e districts also provided

professional development to board members and examined the eectiveness of such training.

In Beyond Islands of Excellence, Togneri and Anderson (2003) provided examples of the positive eects of

goal setting. In its case studies, the majority of high-achieving districts adopted specic goals and boards

adopted policies to consistently support them. At three case study sites—Kent County, Md., Minneapo-

lis, and Providence—boards adopted broad strategic plans that contained both goals and the action steps

needed to attain them. To assess progress on a regular basis, Kent County and Minneapolis also added

indicators of success to the plan so board members could review gains or address challenges.

Each district also adopted what Togneri and Anderson termed a simply stated vision of student success.

For goals on student achievement, board members identied brief, one-line vision statements such as “All

our students will achieve on grade level” and used them in public and sta presentations. Signicantly, the

report said, school boards and superintendents also carefully examined how to stretch limited dollars to

focus sucient funding on the goals.

e Lighthouse I studies (2001, 2007) also oer important details about the importance of identifying

goals. In high-achieving districts, board members adopted goals and had detailed knowledge about their

relationship to curriculum, instruction, assessment and sta development. As a result, these public ocials

could identify not only the purposes and processes behind school improvement initiatives but also the

board’s role in supporting these eorts. By comparison in low-achieving districts, board members were

“only vaguely aware of school improvement initiatives,” researchers noted. “ey were sometimes aware of

goals, but seldom able to describe actions being taken by sta members to improve learning.”

Notably, these dierences extended down to the sta level. In high-achieving districts, sta members

could link the school board’s goals to building-level goals for student learning and explain how the goals

impacted classrooms. “Sta members identied clear goals for improvement, described how sta develop-

ment supported the goals, and how they were monitoring progress based on data about student learning.”

By comparison in the low-achieving districts, “ere was little evidence of a pervasive focus on school

renewal at any level when it was not present at the board level.”

2. Effective school boards have strong shared beliefs and values about what is possible for

students and their ability to learn, and of the system and its ability to teach all children at

high levels.

In the Lighthouse I studies (2001, 2007), board members consistently expressed their belief in the learning

ability of all children and gave specic examples of ways that learning had improved as a result of district

initiatives. Poverty, lack of parental involvement and other factors were described as challenges to be over-

come, not as excuses. Board members expected to see improvements in student achievement quickly as a

result of initiatives. Comments made by board members in Lighthouse were indicative of the dierences.

In a high-achieving district, one board member noted, “is is a place for all kids to excel.” Another board

member noted, “Sometimes people say the poor students have limits. I say all kids have limits. I believe we

have not reached the limits of any of the kids in our system.”

Yet in low-achieving districts, board members frequently referred to external pressures as the main rea-

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

sons for lack of student success. Board members oen focused on factors that they believed kept students

from learning, such as poverty, lack of parental support, societal factors, or lack of motivation. Board

members expected it would take years to see any improvements in student achievement. For these board

members, the reasons for pursuing change oen were simple ones—to meet state mandates (and avoid

sanctions) and a desire to not “have the lowest test scores” in the state.

In addition, board members in low-achieving districts oered many negative comments about students

and teachers when they were interviewed by Lighthouse researchers. Said one, “You can lead a horse to

water but you can’t make them drink. is applies to both students and sta.”

In one low-performing district, teachers made 67 negative comments about students and their parents

during Lighthouse interviews. In a similar number of interviews in a high-performing district, there were

only four such comments.

3. Eective school boards are accountability driven, spending less time on operational issues and

more time focused on policies to improve student achievement.

According to Goodman, Fulbright, and Zimmerman (1997), another characteristic of quality governance

is the ability to focus on student achievement while spending comparatively little time on day-to-day oper-

ational issues. In interviews with hundreds of board members and sta across the districts, they found that

high-performing boards focus on establishing a vision supported by policies that target student achieve-

ment. Yet poor governance is characterized by factors such as micro-management by the board; confusion

of the appropriate roles for the board member and superintendent; interpersonal conict between board

chair and superintendent; and board member disregard for the agenda process and the chain of command.

Case studies of individual districts in other studies support many of these ndings. In Chula Vista, Calif.,

the board took its policy role seriously and developed policies that supported instructional reform. As

proled in Togneri and Anderson (2003), the focus began when top administrators recognized a need for

a new cadre of exceptional principals and asked the school board for help. In response, the board approved

a policy with higher salaries for principals, giving the district more leverage to attract quality candidates

to the district. Later, the board granted the central oce greater exibility to provide principal raises and

bonuses. Members also supported the superintendent in dismissing principals who did not meet perfor-

mance standards; this smaller but still signicant action reected the policy and partnership approach

adopted earlier by the board.

Other case studies in this report were replete with examples of board commitment to policy and accounta-

bility, something oen reected through visions and strategic plans. In Aldine, Tex., board members made

sure to adopt strategic plans that placed children’s learning needs front and center. As one Aldine board

member explained, “Everything we do is based on what’s best for the children, period. Whether you are

dealing with an administrative issue or a student issue, we ask, ‘What’s best for the children?’”

With everyone on board to promote achievement, boards encouraged their stas to tackle dicult issues

and seek innovative solutions. As a result, the districts engaged in a collegial policy-making process that

emphasized the need to nd solutions. An administrator in Kent County, Md., summed up the board’s

work as follows: “e board recognizes its role as a policy-maker. [Board members] are very professional.

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

ey never humiliate each other. ey have

no hidden agendas. e goal is what is best

for the children.”

Boards held the superintendent and his or

her colleagues accountable for progress but

did not engage in the daily administration

of schools. Explained one board mem-

ber: “I am not a professional educator.…

[e superintendent and her sta ] are the

professionals, and we say to them, ‘ese

are the results we want to see; you are in

charge of how to do it.’”

Likewise, Snipes, Doolittle, and Herlihy’s

case studies (2002) include similar nd-

ings. e groups concluded that fast-mov-

ing districts had developed a consensus

among board members and other leaders

on the identication and implementation

of improvement strategies. is required

a new role for the school board, which fo-

cused on decisions “that support improved

student achievement rather than on the

day-to-day operations of the district.”

In Lighthouse II (2007), researchers identi-

ed ve pilot school districts and provided

technical assistance and support to the

boards based on research ndings docu-

mented in Lighthouse I.

Results from this study also showed that

districts made gains when they were

able to focus on achievement rather than

administrative issues. In the majority of

districts, boards spent more than double the amount of time on policy and student achievement than they

did prior to Lighthouse II. It was also common for these districts to schedule additional work sessions on

student achievement. (More information on Lighthouse II is in the sidebar on the next page).

A DOZEN DANGER SIGNS

While this paper did not specically focus on charac-

teristics of ineective school boards, it may be helpful

to review some of the descriptions of ineective boards

mentioned in the research:

1. Only vaguely aware of school improvement initia-

tives, and seldom able to describe actions being

taken to improve student learning

2. Focused on external pressures as the main reasons for

lack of student success, such as poverty, lack of paren-

tal support, societal factors, or lack of motivation

3. Oer negative comments about students and teachers

4. Micro-manage day-to-day operations

5. Disregard the agenda process and the chain

of command

6. Left out the information ow; little communication

between board and superintendent

7. Quick to describe a lack of parent interest in educa-

tion or barriers to community outreach

8. Looked at data from a “blaming” perspective,

describing teachers, students, and families as major

causes for low performance

9. Little understanding or coordination on sta devel-

opment for teachers

10. Slow to dene a vision

11. Did not hire a superintendent who agreed with

their vision

12. Little professional development together as aboard

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

4. Eective school boards have a

collaborative relationship with sta and

the community and establish a strong

communications structure to inform

and engage both internal and external

stakeholders in setting and achieving

district goals.

e Lighthouse I studies are particularly

relevant in conveying this theme. Looking

across high- and low-achieving districts

in Georgia, school board members in high

achieving districts had strong communica-

tion between the superintendent, sta, and

each other. ey received information from

many sources including the superintendent,

curriculum director, principals, teachers,

and sources outside the district. While the

superintendent was a primary source of

information, he or she was not the only

source. In addition, ndings and research

were shared among all board members.

By comparison, in low-achieving districts,

board members expressed concern that

not all information was shared or shared

equally. As a result, researchers said, “Some

felt le out of the information ow.”

In high-achieving districts, school board

members could provide specic examples

of how they connected and listened to the

community, and were able to identify con-

crete ways they promoted this involvement.

Likewise, sta members in these districts

described the boards as supportive, noting

that these public ocials “would respect

and listen to them.” In interviews, board

members were quick to note how they com-

municated actions and goals to sta. One

strategy was to schedule post-board meet-

ings to provide teachers and administrators

with in-depth briengs on policy decisions.

By comparison, school boards in

CONVERTING RESEARCH TO ACTION:

LIGHTHOUSE II

Building on the success of Lighthouse I—which iden-

tied the dierent knowledge, beliefs and actions of

school boards in high-achieving districts—the Iowa

Association of School Boards expanded the initiative to

begin embedding these ideas in other jurisdictions.

Under Lighthouse II, from 2002 to 2007, IASB identied

ve pilot districts in Iowa and oered technical assis-

tance and support to the board, superintendent, and, at

some sites, district leadership teams. The goal was to

move entire districts from one set of assumptions, be-

liefs and practices to another: the set possessed by the

high-achieving districts in Lighthouse I. After ve years

of work, the project showed signicant gains:

• In three of the ve districts, the time spent on pol-

icy and student achievement during regular board

meetings increased from 16 percent to 37 percent.

• By the end of the project, boards in all ve districts

regularly scheduled extra time for boards to focus on

student achievement.

• Four of the sites showed signicant increases—some

as high as 90 percent—in the number of sta and

board members who could consistently describe the

district’s school improvement goals.

• At all sites, 83 percent to 100 percent of all sta and

board members reported a clear, district-wide focus

on improving literacy.

• All districts, by year 3 of the project, agreed strongly

that local school boards can positively aect stu-

dent achievement.

• By year 3, signicant gains on a measure of reading

comprehension were seen at every grade level in one

district. In addition, in the fourth year of the study,

four of the ve sites showed statistically signicant

gains in student reading and/or math for at least

two grade levels on the statewide norm-referenced

measure of achievement.

Starting in 2008, IASB launched the Lighthouse III

project, through which the association is working with

several states to outline best practices for school boards

and state school board associations.

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

low-achieving districts were likely to cite communication and outreach barriers. ey were quick to de-

scribe a lack of parent interest in education; in fact, they were able to list only a few eorts to solicit com-

munity involvement. Compared with board members from high-achieving districts, they frequently noted

frustration with the lack of community involvement and said there was little they could do about it. As for

relationships within the district, sta members from the comparison low-achieving districts contacted for

the research oen said they didn’t know the board members at all.

While such ndings perhaps could be limited to high- and low-achieving districts in Georgia, other

research highlights similar ndings. Similar factors were evident in Waters and Marzano’s 2006 meta-

analysis of 27 studies. In this study, the authors found that high-achieving districts actively involved board

members and community stakeholders in setting goals.

While individual board members did pursue their own issues, the researchers said, there was a reluctance

to place these issues at center stage. “When individual board member interests and expectations distract

from board-adopted achievement and instructional goals, they are not contributing to district success, but

in fact, may be working in opposition to that end.” School board members realized, the authors noted, that

these issues can be a distraction from core district goals.

5. Eective boards are data savvy; they embrace and monitor data, even when the information is

negative, and use it to drive continuous improvement.

In the Lighthouse I study, board members in high-achieving districts identied specic student needs

through data, and justied decisions based on that data. In addition, board members were not shy about

discussing trends on dropout rates, test scores, and student needs, with many seeking such information on

a regular or monthly basis.

By comparison, board members in low-achieving districts tended to greet data with a “blaming” perspective,

describing teachers, students and families as major causes for low performance. In one district, the super-

intendent “controls the reaction of the board to recommendations by limiting the information he gives to

them.” e Lighthouse I study contrasts this with the policy of a high-performance district, where the super-

intendent “believes sharing information will get them to react and encourage engagement.” Board members

in this district view data as a diagnostic tool, without the emotional response of assessing blame.

Board members in lower-performing districts also provided little evidence of considering data in the

decision making process. In these districts, board members frequently discussed their decisions through

anecdotes and personal experiences rather than by citing data. In many cases, the study noted, “e board

talked very generally about test scores and relied on the interpretation made by the superintendent.” As a

result, board members believed the superintendent “owned” information, leaving it to the top administra-

tor to interpret the data and recommend solutions.

Togneri and Anderson (2003) also emphasized how eective school boards embraced data. Boards in

high-achieving districts were not afraid to confront negative data and, in fact, used it as a basis to improve

teaching and learning. In Minneapolis, a renewed emphasis on data has helped drive improvement. Yet

back in the mid-1990s, the district showed a wide achievement gap between white and minority students

and posted a high school graduation rate barely above 40 percent. When the city’s Chamber of Commerce

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

failed to support the school board’s request for a tax increase, the board began a fundamental rethinking

based on goals and data. It hired a new superintendent with a strong foundation in instructional improve-

ment. Together, the board and superintendent developed goals and performance indicators to rank and

monitor school progress. is process ultimately helped build trust among school and community leaders,

eventually leading to district progress and, later, successful new tax proposals benecial to schools.

Minneapolis was typical of the report’s study districts, which “had the courage to acknowledge poor per-

formance and the will to seek solutions.” With the board, superintendent and community supporting the

new process, the district developed a vision focused on student learning and instructional improvement

with system-wide curricula connected to state standards with clear expectations for teachers.

6. Eective school boards align and sustain resources, such as professional development, to meet

district goals.

Successful boards recognize the need to support high priorities even during times of scal uncertainty.

One leading example is in providing professional development for teachers, administrators and other sta.

According to LaRocque and Coleman (1993), eective boards saw a responsibility to maintain high stand-

ards even in the midst of budget challenges. “To this end, the successful boards supported extensive pro-

fessional development programs for administrators and teachers, even during times of [scal] restraint,”

they wrote in e Politics of Excellence: Trustee Leadership and School District Ethos.

Lighthouse I researchers (2001, 2007) also identied research-based professional development for sta as

one of seven “conditions for improvement” typically evident in high-achieving districts. From the board’s

perspective, members did not simply provide funding for such professional development – they could cite

specic examples of activities and their link to improvement plans. “In high-achieving districts, board

members described sta development activities in the district and could describe the link between teacher

training and board or district goals for students,” the study noted. “Board members described a belief in

the importance of sta development activities focused on student needs.”

In low-achieving districts, however, board members said teachers made their own decisions on sta devel-

opment based on perceived needs in the classroom or for certication. “Board members knew there was

a budget for sta development but were unsure whether there was a plan for sta development,” the study

noted. In fact, board members frequently made “disparaging remarks” about sta development, calling it

an ineective strategy.

Lighthouse II, as noted in Alsbury (2008) further reinforced this point. Boards not only took an active in-

terest in professional development but also provided the infrastructure for such programming to succeed.

“For most boards, this required signicant changes in the allocation of resources (people, time and mon-

ey) and would not have happened without a clear understanding of the characteristics of quality profes-

sional development and a belief in the importance of improving the knowledge and skills of educators in

order to improve student outcomes.”

Additional evidence is available in the Snipes, Doolittle and Herlihy’s 2002 analysis of high- and low-achiev-

ing districts. In high-achieving districts, the board and superintendent support uniform professional devel-

opment built on curriculum. In lower-achieving districts, professional development may vary extensively

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

from school to school. One example was in Sacramento, Calif., where teachers received at least 18 hours of

in-service training per year based on uniform curricula. New teachers also received six full days of instruc-

tional training, and teachers had common planning periods to encourage collaboration on lesson plans and

strategies to address student needs. In the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C., schools, weeklong seminars for

Advanced Placement teachers, leadership retreats for principals and nancial support for attaining national

board certication were among eective strategies by the district to improve curriculum.

Waters and Marzano (2006) also touts the importance of professional development. While not specically

examining the school board role in this process, this study on leadership notes that “a meaningful commit-

ment of funding must be dedicated to professional development for teachers and principals. is profes-

sional development should be focused on building the knowledge, skills and competencies teachers and

principals need to accomplish a district’s goals.”

7. Eective school boards lead as a united team with the superintendent, each from their respec-

tive roles, with strong collaboration and mutual trust.

In Getting ere from Here, Goodman and colleagues (1997) concluded that those with a strong board/

superintendent relationship had greater student achievement as measured by dropout rates, the percentage

of students going to college, and aptitude test scores. Goodman’s review of characteristics of quality gov-

ernance included several that were directly related to school boards and their relationships:

• A trusting and collaborative relationship between the board and superintendent;

• Creation by the board of conditions and organizational structures that allowed the superintendent to

function as the chief executive ocer and instructional leader of the district;

• Evaluation of the superintendent according to mutually agreed upon procedures; and

• Eective communication between the board chair and superintendent and among board members.

Likewise, Snipes, Doolittle, and Herlihy (2002) also emphasizes the importance of these factors. In success-

ful districts, boards dened an initial vision for the district and sought a superintendent who matched this

vision. Nowhere was this truer than in Sacramento, Calif., one of the case study sites. In 1996, a mayor’s

commission concluded that the city schools, beset with high superintendent turnover and other problems,

had “a lack of accountability and deplorable building conditions.” A group of individuals focused on progress

won seats on the school board, and they quickly bought out the contract of the old superintendent and hired

one sharing their views. e new superintendent and board sought input from thousands of community

stakeholders and ultimately adopted an action plan with specic achievement benchmarks based on student

assessments such as the SAT-9. e board and superintendent also established seven “vital signs” of success,

including high rates of kindergarten readiness; a student attendance rate of at least 95 percent; increased

prociency of English Language Learners; and objectives that at least 90 percent of students attain math and

reading prociency and graduate high school. Within four years, the district saw consistent gains in math

and reading plus a drop in the disparity between white and Hispanic student achievement.

In contrast to this “moving” district, comparison districts had no such impetus to work toward success.

Boards were slow to dene a vision and oen recruited a superintendent with his or her own ideas and

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

platform. e dierences between the districts only increased over time, as boards and superintendents in

high-achieving districts jointly rened their visions over time, assessed district strengths and weakness-

es and had all signs of a stable relationship. By comparison, less successful districts featured boards and

superintendents that were not in alignment, as the superintendent “may develop solutions without board

involvement.” Such boards also may not hold superintendents accountable for goals.

8. Eective school boards take part in team development and training, sometimes with their super-

intendents, to build shared knowledge, values, and commitments for their improvement eorts.

Board member development and training is a clear theme within this research base. In high-achieving

Lighthouse I study districts (2001), school board members said they regularly participated in activities in

which they learned together as a group. ey cited frequent work and study sessions with opportunities

for inquiry and discussion prior to making a nal decision. In low-achieving districts, however, board

members said they did not learn together except when the superintendent or other sta members made

presentations of data.

Other studies focused on this subject as well, sometimes within the context of the responsibilities of an

eective superintendent. In the 2006 Waters and Marzano meta-analysis, for example, one key goal for su-

perintendents is to produce an environment in which the board is aligned with and supportive of district

goals. e study suggests that supporting board members’ professional development is one of several ways

that superintendents can help realize this goal.

In their study on eective governance, Goodman and colleagues (1997) emphasized in detail the impor-

tance of formal training for board members. ey recommended orientation workshops for new members

soon aer their election. eir “sample policy statement” on orientation included a commitment by the

board and administrative sta to help all new members learn board functions, policies and procedures.

Chief responsibility for orientation should reside with the superintendent and board chair, they noted, but

this work should include meetings with top administrative personnel to examine services, policies, and

programs. As a guide, the report cited policies in Kentucky requiring a specic number of hours of train-

ing for board members based on their experience. is ranged from a high of 12 hours of annual training

for board members with zero to three years experience to four hours a year for those with at least eight

years of board service. Emphasizing the importance of the board/superintendent relationship, the study

also recommended that superintendents participate in orientation and development workshops alongside

their board members.

Elsewhere, two of the eective districts in the Togneri and Anderson (2003) study utilized formal train-

ing and professional development for school board members. In Kent County, Md., the board adopted

the Baldrige in Education process, which created a strong working relationship among the central oce,

board, principal and teachers. In Minneapolis, the school board engaged in the Carver method, which

emphasizes the board’s role in establishing goals, setting indicators, aligning resources to goals, monitoring

progress, and communicating with the public.

Finally, LaRocque and Coleman (1993) illustrated the value of both formal and informal learning activities

for board members. According to these researchers, eective school districts in Canada oered a mixture

of learning activities for their board members, or “trustees,” including retreats, special meetings, work

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

sessions, school visits and even social events. As a result, the trustees had a “willingness to meet regularly

with the professionals in the district to discuss what was happening and what should be happening.” is

commitment conveyed to sta the importance of district goals and the importance of the sta members’

work in supporting them. In addition, they noted, “e successful boards did not just rely on district sta

reports…ey obtained information about programs in dierent ways and from dierent sources, and

sought opportunities to interact directly with administrators and teachers.”

Related nding: Stability of leadership

In the 2002 Snipes et. al study, researchers noted that fast-moving districts had political and organization-

al stability, as evidenced by low rates of school board and superintendent turnover. Goodman’s research

echoed all of these points, concluding two characteristics of high achieving districts were long tenures by

superintendents and school board members and regular retreats by senior sta and board members for

evaluation and goal setting purposes.

Similarly, Togneri and Anderson (2003) note the long tenure of board members and superintendents in

high-achieving districts. “ey set their courses and stayed with them for years,” the study said. Among

the ve successful districts proled, superintendents in three districts had been at their jobs for at least

eight years. In most of those proled, the majority of board members had been serving in that capacity

for 10 or more years. “at continuity allowed superintendents and boards to grow together in their ap-

proaches to change and to better understand each other’s work.”

Conclusion

During the past 15 years, a number of research studies have begun to document the value that school boards

and their members add to the development of an eective public education system. is edgling base of

research provides a foundation for boards and other policymakers. e research also is timely, since it co-

incides with a period in U.S. public policy that has focused substantially greater attention on accountability

in public education. Much of this research has contrasted boards in low-performing and high-performing

districts, thereby providing best practices for new and veteran board members nationwide. While there is a

need for additional research—a study on boards in districts with mid-range achievement might be one useful

step—it is increasingly clear that board members in high-performing districts have attitudes, knowledge and

approaches that separate them from their counterparts in lower-achieving districts.

Based on the studies included in this report, it is clear that school boards in high-achieving districts hold

a high, shared vision about the capabilities of both students and sta—they believe that more is possible

and are motivated to improve results for students. ey are policy and accountability driven, focusing their

time and energy on governance-level actions related to student achievement and classroom instruction.

ey engage in goal-setting processes that can drive action in the district to improve. ey align resourc-

es—including sta professional development—around those goals. ey are data savvy—using data to

both diagnose problems and to monitor and drive continuous improvement eorts. ey communicate

with and engage sta and community and work well together as a team and in collaborative leadership

with their superintendents. And, they commit to their own learning, building the knowledge and skills it

takes to govern during a period of educational reform.

CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

In this era of scal constraints and a national environment focused on accountability, boards in high-per-

forming districts can provide an important blueprint for success. In the process, they can oer a road map

for boards in lower-achieving school districts nationwide.

is report (2011) was written by Chuck Dervarics and Eileen O’Brien. O’Brien is an independent education

researcher and consultant in Alexandria, Virginia. Much of her work has focused on access to quality educa-

tion for disadvantaged and minority populations. O’Brien has a Master of Public Administration from George

Washington University and a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from Loyola University, Chicago. Chuck

Dervarics is an education writer and former editor of Report on Preschool Programs, a national independent

newsletter on pre-k, Head Start, and child care policy. As a writer and researcher, he has contributed to case

studies and research projects of the Southern Education Foundation, the American Council on Education,

and the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education, oen focusing on issues facing disadvantaged populations.

Dervarics has a Bachelors degree from George Washington University.

About CPE

e Center for Public Education is a national resource

for credible and practical information about public

education and its importance to the well-being of our

nation. CPE provides up-to-date research, data, and

analysis on current education issues and explores ways

to improve student achievement and engage public

support for public schools. CPE is an initiative of the

National School Boards Association.

nsba.org/CPE

Founded in 1940, the National School Boards

Association (NSBA) is a not-for-prot organization

representing state associations of school boards and

their more than 90,000 local school board members

throughout the U.S. Working with and through our

state associations, NSBA advocates for equity and

excellence in public education through school

board leadership.

nsba.org

1680 Duke Street, 2

Floor, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3493

nsba.org/CPE • nsba.org