The Problem: Low Achieving Districts and Low Performing Boards

Abstract

Effective school districts maintain superintendent and school board collegiality which can foster success and connectedness among members. Delagardelle and Alsbury (2008) found that superintendents and board members are not consistent in their perceptions about the work the board does, and Glass (2007) found that states do not require boards to undergo evaluation for effectiveness. In the current study, 115 board meetings were observed using the School Board Video Project (SBVP) survey, which was created in 2012 by researchers to uncover school board meetings’ effectiveness. MANOVA, Univariate ANOVA, and Pearson Chi-Square test results revealed significant differences between low-, medium-, and high-performing districts’ school board meetings. Evidence indicated that low-performing districts’ board meetings were: less orderly; had less time spent on student achievement; lacked respectful and attentive engagement across speakers; had board meeting members who seemed to advance their own agenda; had less effective working relationships among the governance team; had fewer board members who relied on the superintendent for advice and input; had one member, other than the board president, stand out for taking excessive time during meetings; and did not focus on policy items as much as high- and medium-performing school districts. The research concluded that more school board members from low-performing districts needed training to improve their effectiveness. Furthermore, highly refined and target-enhanced school board training programs might lead to lasting governance success and more effective teaming that could improve district, and ultimately, student achievement.

Educational Leadership and a Comprehensive Reform for Improving Underrepresented Urban Students’ College Access

“…They have revealed that if underrepresented urban students receive proper support and guidance during their high school years, then they are more likely to get into college (Adelman, 2006). Since school leaders have direct authority and the power to develop and monitor academic and counseling services, they play a crucial role in preparing every student for college and their future career (Lee & Eadens, 2014). Particularly, the American School Counselor Association' s (ASCA, 2012) National Model and the College Board (2010) provide a valuable road map and framework for school leaders looking to initiate, implement, and lead comprehensive student services to help every student' s school success and college readiness.…”

Making the Case for Arizona School Board Training

“…In a more recent study, Lee and Eadens (2014) conducted a quantitative study that compared board behaviors during meetings in high, medium, and low achieving districts using a multivariate analysis of variance, a procedure for comparing multivariate sample means. This study involved researchers observing over 115 videos of board meetings throughout that nation.…”

“…Board meetings in low-performing districts were less orderly, along with board members spending less time on agenda items dealing with student achievement than high-performing district boards. Additional findings included low-performing board members were not listening respectfully and had poorer working relationships with the governance team (Lee & Eadens, 2014). Lee and Eadens' summary indicates that targeted training could greatly enhance governance effectiveness, thus "highly refined and target-enhanced school board training programs might lead to lasting governance success with superintendents in tandem with their board members, and could lead to more effective governance teaming that affects districts, and ultimately, student achievement."…”

“…Unfortunately, extreme minimal requirements to be certified as a board member such as only being a registered voter and a resident (ASBA, 2015; TASB, 2015; CABE, 2015; GSBA, 2015; & NYSSBA, 2015) coupled with the need for highly specialized skill sets (Rice et al, 2000) leaves a large gap. Lee and Eadens (2014) found this disconnect between minimal board legal qualifications and the multifaceted skills needed to be effective board members creates a highly compelling argument for comprehensive targeted board training and evaluation. This quantitative study compared Arizona districts' grades, the dependent variable, with state sponsored board trainings, the independent variable, during the 2014 school year.…”

The Obama Administration American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Local School Board Politics

“…However, it is not uncommon for governance structures to lose sight of their purpose (Kirst & Bulkley, 2001; Lee & Eadens, 2014). As a result, such systems often evolve according to the wishes and needs of those who are able to influence them (i.e., internal bureaucracies) and not necessarily the public they serve (Briffault, 2005).…”