A Study of School Board Minutes: Records of Reform

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which the Illinois Educational Reform Act of 1985 was being implemented at the local school district level as measured by the number of reform-related board motions, discussions and reports documented in local school board minutes the year preceding passage of the reform act and the 2 years following its passage. The study provides evidence of the amount and nature of local policy-making directly responding to legislated reform. Further, it indicates that school boards are responding to some areas of the reform bill more than to others, and that some school boards are responding to reform provisions more than to others. Finally, the study raises serious policy questions about why local school boards have been neglected in the eighties reform movement and about the role of these boards in the future of educational governance.

The School Board President’s Perception of the District Superintendent: Applying the Lenses of Social Influence and Social Style

“…Although the school board meeting agenda may not come to mind as a significant factor in district leadership and in the establishment and maintenance of good board-superintendent relationships, professional and empirical literature in the area indicate otherwise (Carpenter, 1987;Castilla, 1994;Glass, 1992;Konnert & Augenstein, 1995;McCurdy, 1992;Zeigler et al, 1977). Research supports the notion that important activities and conversations in local districts are not always reflected in the formal parliamentary board agenda (Zeigler et al, 1977) or board minutes (Nowakowski & First, 1989). Acknowledging the limitations of these documents, investigators have used formal (parliamentary) board meeting agendas (Carpenter, 1987;Zeigler et al, 1974Zeigler et al, , 1977 as well as board meeting minutes (Lutz, 1977;Nowakowski & First, 1989;Scribner & Englert, 1977) in their examinations of school board behavior.…”

An Examination of School Board Presidents’ Perceptions of Their Superintendent's Interpersonal Communication Competence and Board Decision Making

“…(Carpenter, 1987;Castilla, 1994;Glass, 1992;Konnert & Augenstein, 1995;McCurdy, 1992;Zeigler, Tucker, & Wilson, 1977). Research supports the notion that important activities and conversations in local districts are not always reflected in the formal parliamentary board agenda (Zeigler et al, 1977) or board minutes (Nowakowski & First, 1989). Acknowledging the limitations of these documents, investigators have used formal (parliamentary) board meeting agendas (Carpenter, 1987;Zeigler et al, 1974Zeigler et al, , 1977 as well as board meeting minutes (Lutz, 1977;Nowakowski & First, 1989;Scribner & Englert, 1977) in their examinations of school board behavior.…”

“…Numerous studies have classified board orientations as either hierarchical or bargaining (Tucker & Zeigler, 1980), elite or arena (Lutz & Gresson, 1980), or political or professional (Greene, 1992) in examining their influence on decision making and school district governance. Findings from these as well as other investigations examining board behavior (Hentges, 1986;McCarty & Ramsey, 1971;Nowakowski & First, 1989;Scribner & Englert, 1977;Zeigler et al, 1974) have chronicled the oftentimes conflicting roles, responsibilities, and expectations of boards and their willingness or hesitancy to defer to the expertise of the superintendent in policy decisions. This dynamic continues to generate areas of tension in the margin of control and governance of the school district.…”

“…In the face of numerous reforms calling for decentralization of school management and greater emphasis on shared decision making, the importance of local boards of education in implementing these educational reforms should not be underestimated. By simple inaction, local boards could easily diminish or halt reform efforts (Nowakowski & First, 1989). This could be exacerbated by the fact that members of the board are often subjected to persuasion attempts from diverse and conflicting interest groups within the community (Feuerstein & Opfer, 1998;Hentges, 1986;McCarty & Ramsey, 1971;Zeigler et al, 1974).…”

“…Although a significant relationship was found between superintendent interpersonal communication competence and internally oriented decisions, no significant relationship was found for board decisions on externally oriented issues. Research has shown that a major proportion of a board's focus is devoted to the business of running a school (Nowakowski & First, 1989;Petersen & Short, 2001). One explanation for the constraints on the superintendent's ability to be influential on externally oriented policies is the district's need for external fiscal support to implement and support many of these considerations.…”