University of Colorado, Boulder
CU Scholar
Political Science Graduate Theses & Dissertations
Political Science
Spring 1-1-2014
Local School Boards: Different Institutional
Designs, Different Outcomes?
JulieMarie Anjali Shepherd
University of Colorado Boulder, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.colorado.edu/psci_gradetds
Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons, Education Policy Commons,
and the Political Science Commons
Recommended Citation
Shepherd, JulieMarie Anjali, "Local School Boards: Different Institutional Designs, Different Outcomes?" (2014). Political Science
Graduate Theses & Dissertations. 35.
http://scholar.colorado.edu/psci_gradetds/35
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Political Science at CU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science
Graduate Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CU Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected].
LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS:
DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONAL DESIGNS, DIFFERENT OUTCOMES?
by
JULIEMARIE ANJALI SHEPHERD
B.A., University of Colorado, Boulder, 2007
M.A., University of Colorado, Boulder, 2009
A dissertation submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Political Science
2015
This dissertation entitled:
Local School Boards: Different Institutional Designs, Different Outcomes?
written by JulieMarie Anjali Shepherd
has been approved for the Department of Political Science
________________________________________
Susan E. Clarke, Ph.D.
________________________________________
Kenneth N. Bickers, Ph.D.
Date: 7 January 2015
The final copy of this dissertation has been examined by the signatories, and we
find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards
of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline.
IRB protocol # 12-0171
ABSTRACT
Shepherd, JulieMarie Anjali (Ph.D., Political Science)
School Boards: Different Institutional Designs, Different Outcomes?
Dissertation directed by Professor Susan E. Clarke.
This dissertation considers the institutional designs of Colorado K-12 school boards and
seeks to understand if increased student achievement and effective board processes are
associated with variations in governance structures. Amidst growing critiques and calls for
reform in public education, some school boards have adopted new governance rules that change
their scope and accountability structures. In Colorado, over thirty school boards have adopted a
model known as Policy Governance. This research compares the processes and outcomes of
school boards using Policy Governance rules to the processes and outcomes of school boards not
using this defined set of rules. Policy Governance encourages the board to focus on its ends, not
operational means; act through policy; maintain a healthy board-superintendent relationship; and
regularly monitor the superintendent to ensure expectations outlined in board policies are being
met.
Two hypotheses are tested in this research: that when a board uses Policy Governance,
1—high student achievement is more likely and 2—effective board processes are more likely. To
test these assumptions, original data are used, including survey data from nearly 200 school
board members; key-informant interview data from board members and superintendents; and
descriptive data from school districts and the state. Preliminary regression analyses that use the
presence of Policy Governance as an explanatory variable for student achievement do not return
statistically significant results. Turning instead to Ostrom’s rules in form versus rules in use
framework, further discussion acknowledges this possible disconnect. A potential measurement
and analysis issue arises if a board says they use Policy Governance, but do not implement the
practices associated with the model; or if a board utilizes practices similar to Policy Governance
but does not formally identify as such. To address this, a new variable, fidelity to Policy
Governance is constructed using data from self-reports of what drives the majority of board
meeting time. While this variable still does not correlate to higher student achievement, it does
highlight the importance of a board identifying and implementing a set of good governing
practices, regardless of what those institutional rules are formally called.
iii
DEDICATION
This work all started when I decided to run for a seat on my local school board. Serving
as a board member now for the past five years on the Aurora Public Schools Board of Education,
I have had the opportunity to work with many committed and selfless board members. As such, I
dedicate this work to my fellow school board members, past, present and future, on the Aurora
Public Schools Board of Education, the Colorado Association of School Boards Board of
Directors, and across the state of Colorado. The passion, expertise, and sense of urgency you
bring to your board work are inspiring and contagious. Thank you for all you do in service to the
community and Colorado students.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I want to acknowledge Susan Clarke, my committee chair, mentor and
late-night email correspondent. I vividly remember the first graduate seminar I took with you
(Policy Readings) and recall thinking, “oh how I wish I would have found you as a mentor and
advisor from the beginning of my graduate school career.” As a student who was never on the
traditional academia path, I appreciated your ability to connect theory to the real policy world
and encouragement for me to do the same. I always felt that you honored my knowledge and
insights from my professional and elected experiences and helped me connect that to academic
theory and scholarship. Thank you for not giving up on me and seeing this through to
completion, even after your retirement!
Next, I must acknowledge my family for their love and support. Mom, in some ways, I
feel like I’ve lived the Ph.D. experience twice—first vicariously through your own doctoral
program and secondly now for myself. I am thankful for this and know your own pursuit of
higher education and your upbringing of me to always be a learner and to set high expectations
for myself influenced my decision to enter graduate school and helped me maintain the energy to
stay the course. To Michael—thank you for putting up with me, encouraging me and giving me
the space and time I needed to complete this work. It hasn’t always been easy, but you stuck by
me and reminded me to look for the light at the end. It has paid off and now we can move
forward and plan for the future. Sarah, thank you for being there with me and for me—you
always manage to help me keep perspective. Even though you will blaze your own trail, know
that you are brilliant, driven and will accomplish whatever it is you set your mind to. And to the
rest of my family; my soon-to-be in-laws and my extended family, thank you for believing in me
and always staying positive, even when I doubted myself and my abilities.
The rest of my committee members, Krister Andersson, Ken Bickers, Eric Gonzales
Juenke and Michael Kanner deserve a special thanks and recognition for their patience with me
as I completed final revisions. Each of you provided helpful insights, suggestions and
encouragement to look at my data in new and different ways. I know I have not taken the
traditional (or shortest) path to the completion of this dissertation, but am thankful for your
commitment to me and willingness to support me to the finish line. To Ken and Eric I am
especially thankful—for it was through formative research opportunities with each of you during
my undergraduate career that I first became interested in political science as more than a
precursor to law school and made the decision to pursue graduate studies in the discipline.
I wish to acknowledge the staff at the Colorado Association of School Boards. In addition
to being a top-notch resource, advocate and friend to school board members across the state, you
all have become good personal friends. You will never know the extent to which informal
conversations, email newsletters or blog topics influenced my thought process behind and
ultimate writing of this dissertation. Not only do you help me to be a better school board
member, but you also helped me complete my dissertation!
In closing, I want to acknowledge the staff, administrators and teachers in Aurora Public
Schools. I am proud to be a product of the Aurora Public Schools educational system and am
continually amazed by the dedication, professionalism and “students first” mentality you bring to
our students each and every day. In the face of new legislative mandates and tight budgets, you
never lose sight of the end goal. Thank you for doing everything you do to give our students the
best opportunity at a bright and fulfilling future.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ v
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x
PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
Introducing Institutional Variation to Alter Outcomes .............................................................. 6
Policy Governance: Institutional Rules to Alter School Board Members’ Behaviors? ............. 8
Why School Boards?.................................................................................................................. 9
Can the School Board Institution Support Student Achievement? .......................................... 10
How does the School Board Institution Support Student Achievement? ................................ 14
Research Question and Hypotheses ......................................................................................... 15
Organization............................................................................................................................. 16
Methods and Data .................................................................................................................... 16
School Boards as Political Institutions .................................................................................... 18
Traditional School Boards: Failed Political Institutions? ........................................................ 19
Alternative Institutional Designs for School Boards ............................................................... 22
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................... 28
Policy Governance as an Institutional Design to Improve Outcomes ..................................... 28
Expectations of why Policy Governance Boards Should Experience Higher Academic
Achievement ................................................................................................................................. 33
Expectations of why Policy Governance Boards Should Experience More Favorable Process
Outcomes ...................................................................................................................................... 36
Policy Governance in Colorado School Boards....................................................................... 38
Who Adopts Policy Governance? ............................................................................................ 39
Does the Adoption of Policy Governance Make a Meaningful Difference? ........................... 47
Other Factors Hypothesized to be Associated with Policy Governance.................................. 54
vi
CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 61
Does Policy Governance Still Matter? ..................................................................................... 61
Policy Governance and Perceived Efficiency: An Interaction ................................................ 62
Is “Doing” Policy Governance Different from “Being” Policy Governance? ......................... 64
Measuring Fidelity to Policy Governance: Rules in Use ......................................................... 69
Modeling Student Achievement .............................................................................................. 74
When School Board Members Perceive their Function is to Increase Student Achievement . 77
Additional Analysis of Board Member Perceptions ................................................................ 78
Explaining Unexpected Results: A Glimpse inside the Black Box via Telluride and Salida .. 83
Differing Implementations of the Same Model: Aspen and Adams 50 ................................... 88
CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 92
Providing Context: Survey and Interview Data ....................................................................... 92
How Board Members View Institutional Structures ................................................................ 94
The Value-Add of Each Governance Model ........................................................................... 95
School Board Members’ Role in Increasing Student Achievement ........................................ 99
Getting Along with the Superintendent ................................................................................. 102
A Tale of Two School Boards: Policy Governance Rules in Form versus Rules in Use ...... 105
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 116
Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 116
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 121
Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 121
Implications............................................................................................................................. 123
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 126
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................. 132
School Board Member Survey ............................................................................................... 132
Survey Participants Demographics ........................................................................................ 134
Text of Survey........................................................................................................................ 135
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. 145
School Board Member Interview ........................................................................................... 145
Interview Text ........................................................................................................................ 146
vii
TABLES
Table
1.1 Comparison of School Board Governance Structures.................................................23
2.1 How Policy Governance Should Drive Increased Student Achievement....................33
2.2 How Policy Governance Mirrors Key Board Processes as Defined in Previous
Research.............................................................................................................................37
2.3 Characteristics of Colorado School Boards Implementing Policy Governance..........39
2.4 Comparison of District Demographic Features between Policy Governance and
Non-Policy Governance Boards........................................................................................43
2.5 Superintendent Turnover Rates for Policy Governance Boards..................................45
2.6 Comparison of Student Achievement Measures between Policy Governance and
Non-Policy Governance Boards........................................................................................49
2.7 Comparison of Student Achievement as Measured by Performance on State
Standardized Tests before and after Policy Governance Adoption...................................53
2.8 Comparison of Expected Operational Outcomes between Policy Governance and
Non-Policy Governance Boards........................................................................................55
2.9 Percentage of Boards and their Relative Success Rate for Passing Local Tax
Questions 2010-2014.........................................................................................................59
3.1 Two-Way Analysis of Variance for Student Achievement as a Function of
Governance Model and Perceived Board Efficiency.........................................................64
3.2 Topics on a Typical Board Meeting Agenda...............................................................66
3.3 Comparison of Policy Governance Rules in Form and Rules in Use..........................68
3.4 Reported Level of Fidelity to Policy Governance in Use for Original Policy
Governance Boards............................................................................................................70
3.5 ANOVA Tests between Fidelity to Policy Governance and Key Outcomes...............72
3.6 Student Achievement and Institutional Structure........................................................76
3.7 Modeling Perceptions and Student Achievement........................................................78
viii
TABLES (Continued)
3.8 Modeling School Board Member Perceptions of the Primary Function of the Board
for Policy Governance in Form Boards.............................................................................80
3.9 Modeling School Board Member Perceptions of the Primary Function of the Board
for Policy Governance in Use Boards................................................................................82
3.10 Profile of Telluride and Salida School Districts........................................................84
3.11 Profile of Two Policy Governance Districts: Aspen and Adams 50.........................89
4.1 School Board Member Interview Participants.............................................................93
4.2 Superintendent Interview Participants.........................................................................94
4.3 Profile of Aspen and Jefferson County School Districts...........................................107
4.4 A Summary of Policy Governance Concepts Codified: Aspen and Jefferson County
Boards of Education.........................................................................................................109
5.1 Comparison of Governance Principles in Literature Mapped to Policy Governance
Principles..........................................................................................................................118
A.1 Survey Responses by District...................................................................................133
A.2 Demographics of Survey Respondents.....................................................................134
ix
FIGURES
Figure
1.1 Decision Makers Influencing Student Achievement...................................................12
2.1 Superintendent Turnover from 2001-2012..................................................................46
2.2 Superintendent Turnover Following Policy Governance Adoption............................47
2.3 Proficiency Rates on State Math Tests over time........................................................51
2.4 Proficiency Rates on State Literacy Tests over time...................................................52
3.1 Mean Student Achievement as a Function of Governance Model and Efficiency......65
3.2 The Policy Governance Black Box..............................................................................87
3.3 The Non-Policy Governance Black Box......................................................................88
4.1 School Board Member Assessment of Board-Superintendent Relationship.............103
x
PREFACE
In November 2009, I was elected to a four-year at-large Director term on my local Aurora
Public Schools Board of Education. Shortly after my election, I participated in various board
member orientations, professional development workshops as well as informal mentoring
sessions with veteran board members. These interactions were designed to help me learn what
being a board member meant, what my roles and responsibilities were, and the basic operational
and organizational structure of the school district and how I, as an individual board member fit
into this governance structure. After these orientation meetings, the term Policy Governance
became a common terminology used to describe how the school board conducted itself and
governed the school district.
Prior to my board of education experience, I had multiple experiences serving on boards
including policy making legislative-like entities. In those positions, my work was prescribed
largely by Robert’s Rules of Order and some combination of statute or other legal authority and
followed standard conventions of business meetings. I could find similarities between past board
positions and my new board of education position with agenda headings such as “consent
agenda,” “action items” and “reports from the board;” however, on the Aurora Board of
Education, there was a whole new set of terms to learn. These included things like “executive
limitations,” “monitoring,” and “board ends.” Although sitting board members attempted to give
me a primer on Policy Governance and I had even been given a book entitled, Boards that Make
a Difference: a New Design for Leadership in Nonprofit and Public Organizations (Carver,
2006), I still did not have a clear understanding of exactly what Policy Governance was or what
it meant for me as a new board member and my ability to complete my board work.
1
Concurrently, I was beginning my second year of graduate school and was steeped in
coursework, readings and theories about institutional design and how actors’ behaviors are
shaped and altered by institutional rules. I immediately drew parallels between what I was
studying in graduate school and what I was experiencing via my elected school board seat.
Although the majority of my academic discussions were focused on federal and less frequently
state-level political institutions, it was obvious that the same principles would apply to a locallevel legislative body. The more I embraced and understood my local board of education as a
legislative institution and the Policy Governance model as a set of institutional rules, the more
my questions about Policy Governance began to sound like a set of discussion questions in a
graduate school institutions seminar: how would Policy Governance shape actors’ behaviors?
Did relevant actors (school board members, teachers, staff, and the voting public) understand the
institutional rules by which the board operated and made policy decisions? What, if any, were
the consequences for individual board members for non-compliance with the rules? What
accounted for the emergence of Policy Governance? Most importantly, I found myself asking,
why had the Aurora Public Schools Board of Education adopted the Policy Governance model? I
heard a variety of responses including increased efficiency and focusing on student outcomes
and an ability to move away from discussing flavors of milk served and bell times. It was this
experience and these questions that provided the genesis for what would become my dissertation
topic and research.
I wanted to understand what Policy Governance meant for me as a board member: how it
would shape my actions and my ability to engage in policy making; how it would define my
relationships with fellow board members, the superintendent and the voting public; and most
importantly, how it would help me better do my job and serve students in Aurora Public Schools.
2
Admittedly, I was a skeptic, and it was not immediately clear to me how, if at all, using the
Policy Governance model would help me be a better board member or help improve outcomes in
Aurora Public Schools.
In many ways, I have found that my board of education experience resembles a natural
experiment where I am able to test, in real-time and in first person, the theories, questions and
hypotheses relevant to my research. I share the above context so that the reader is aware of the
dual perspectives (scholar of political science and elected official) I bring to this research. Along
with my original data collection and statistical analysis of Colorado school districts, I have been
able to draw on first-hand experiences, conversations, professional relationships and active
participation at many board meetings to inform the subsequent research and analysis.
3
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Local K-12 school boards are legislative units that, at their core, function like other
legislative institutions such as Congress or state legislatures. School boards are comprised of
publicly elected officials tasked with producing policy outputs and distributing public dollars. As
legislative institutions, school boards must operate in accordance with local, state and federal
laws and are accountable to the public. While the school board as an institution, regardless of
geographic location, is charged with the same basic functions, individual school boards vary in
their institutional designs. For instance, school boards vary in size; whether or whether not
individual board members represent districts or the entire at-large community; and even the
operational rules by which a board functions. This research explores the consequences of the
institutional design of local school boards.
Just like Congress and other legislative bodies, school boards have set rules and norms
that govern the behavior of the institution as well as the individual members that make up the
institution, in this case, school board members. Some of these rules are derived directly from
state statute or other municipal law and prescribe the responsibility and authority assigned to a
school board. Other institutional rules, however, are created by the institution and its
membership. These rules for example, may dictate how the agenda is developed, how
information is reported to the board or how the board conducts monitoring and oversight.
Nation-wide, an increasing number of school boards are beginning to adopt new institutional
rules and structures. In some cases, the alteration of these institutional rules is a response to
public concern and criticism about the local school system. In other cases, the introduction of
new institutional rules and operating procedures is about school board members feeling the
4
pressure and general mistrust from the voting public and their attempt to respond by changing
governance and leadership practices. In education today, there is increasing concern about the
performance of public schools. Scholars, politicians, educators, interest groups and parents are
seeking ways to reform public education and in doing so, improve student achievement. With
this increased focus on improving the quality of the public education system, there follows a
focus on improving the quality of leadership and governance of the body in charge the public
education system—the school board.
Since the 1990s, in Colorado, there has been a surge of local boards of education
adopting a very specific set of operating rules embodied in a model known as Policy
Governance 1. While there is limited information as to what prompts these boards to adopt the
model and its governance rules 2, there are expectations for what these boards should look like
after adopting the rules of Policy Governance. This research will focus on school boards in
Colorado and the rules by which these bodies have elected to operate. Specifically, the processes
and outcomes of the school board institution using the defined Policy Governance rules will be
compared to the processes and outcomes of school boards not using these defined rules. In its
leadership training for school board members, the Colorado Association of School Boards
1
In attempts to ascertain the extent of CASB’s involvement as an organization in promoting Policy Governance, I
interviewed the Policy Governance consultant from the CASB staff, collected information from school board
members as part of the key informant interviews and reviewed documents and other publications from those on
CASB staff in the mid 1990s when Policy Governance first started surfacing. From these sources, it appears that
Randy Quinn, the Executive Director of CASB in the 1990s had a professional interest in and connection to John
Carver and his Policy Governance work (it is not clear how or why this relationship emerged). Quinn was formally
trained by Carver in the Policy Governance model and self-identifies as a Policy Governance consultant. According
to his website (aspengroup.org) Quinn and an associate started a consulting business in 1993 and have since worked
with many boards (school boards and other types) across the country. When Quinn left CASB, it appears that there
was a temporary stop to new boards adopting the model. Some did sporadically, possibly on their own or as a result
of networking with existing Policy Governance boards. The next resurgence of boards adopting the model happened
when the current CASB staff came back around to the idea of Policy Governance as a productive model or tool for
board members. In my interviews, although no one specifically named this, it sounded as if there were internal
politics and differences in personalities at CASB that dovetail the Policy Governance adoption timeline.
2
As a result of term limits and poor/non-uniform record keeping, there is limited historical institutional knowledge
about most of Colorado’s local boards of education. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain exactly when and why a
board adopted the Policy Governance model.
5
(CASB) notes that school board members must be focused on raising student achievement as
well as practicing good processes. According to CASB, these important governance processes
include “running a successful meeting, working well with the superintendent, and relating to the
community” (CASB, 2013, p. 30). These types of outcomes, student achievement and board
processes, will be considered in this work.
Introducing Institutional Variation to Alter Outcomes
Political institutions are at the core of political science analyses and political scientists
have long been interested in understanding how institutions advance or alter outcomes. This
basic causal model has been studied at many levels ranging from Congress to the bureaucracy to
state legislatures, and it is this same line of inquiry that will be followed and applied to school
boards in this research. Political institutions are the sets of rules and norms that provide structure
and organization for government and governance. Not only do alterations to institutional rules
change processes and procedures, but they also change the outputs and outcomes of said
institution. Borrowing heavily from Congressional literature, there are instances of how the
institutional structures—or rules—constrain or simultaneously incentivize member behavior and
ultimately influence the process and outputs.
By setting specific rules, whether formally codified or simply understood, institutions
can influence their members’ behaviors. Institutional rules may govern how members receive
and share information, how and when they vote, how bargaining and coalition building unfolds,
or how the agenda is set (see Shepsle and Weingast, 1987, Weingast and Marshall, 1988, Romer
and Rosenthal, 1978). Institutional rules are often altered intentionally to favor certain behaviors
or to maximize the likelihood to obtaining policy preferences. Cox and McCubbins (1993)
describe how parties utilize institutional rules to not only control member behavior, but also how
6
this control is wielded for the purposes of advancing a specific agenda. Institutional structures
can also influence members’ ability to engage in rent-seeking behaviors and pursue reelection
interests (Mayhew, 1974).
When political institutions are altered or used in an intentional way to affect behaviors,
processes and outputs are unavoidably affected. If, as expected, members act as rational actors,
members use cues from their environment to inform their behavior calculus. As institutional
settings are altered, the most preferred outcome may change, and the rational actor must adjust
accordingly (March and Olsen, 1984). Outcomes are dependent on institutional rules and norms
(Shepsle and Weingast, 1987) and these rules and norms condition not only behaviors, but also
direct outcomes. For instance, one of the primary outcomes of Congress is observed through
distributive politics—or the doling out of money and other policy benefits. When member
behaviors are altered, so too are the members’ abilities to engage in distributive politics.
While political science scholars have demonstrated this relationship between altered
institutional rules and a resulting change in outcomes, it must also be acknowledged that there
are degrees by which institutional rules are actually adopted and implemented. Elinor Ostrom’s
scholarship around and discussion of the Institutional Design Analysis framework and its
intricacies highlight this gap well. When an institution or a group of actors that comprises an
institution self-selects into a specific set of institutional rules, there is an expectation for how this
happens. However as Vincent Ostrom (1980) notes, “rules are not self-formulating, selfdetermining, or self-enforcing” (p. 312), and the actual implementation of said rules is left to
“…human agents who formulate [the rules], apply them in particular situations, and attempt to
enforce performance consistent with them” (Ostrom 2011, p. 19). This gap between rules in form
and rules in use will be further explored as it relates to school boards’ implementation of the
7
Policy Governance model in subsequent chapters. As Ostrom (2011) notes, “words are always
simpler than the phenomenon to which they refer” (p. 19) and it is this very disconnect between
the words of Policy Governance and the phenomenon of their use that will surface as a
complexity when measuring the effects of Policy Governance.
Policy Governance: A Set of Institutional Rules to Alter School Board Members’ Behaviors?
These same theoretical arguments, assumptions and expectations are relevant for local
educational institutions. Policy Governance is a highly prescriptive model of board governance,
that when implemented with fidelity, should cause the institution’s operations to look strikingly
different from those of a board using a different set of rules. In other legislative institutions, the
adoption of specific structures, rules and norms is often associated with different outcomes and
different behaviors. Arguably, one of the most pressing concerns in public education today is
whether school districts are performing. In an era of high dropout rates, low graduation rates,
limited evidence of growth in academic performance, growing gaps between populations of
students and fears of falling behind in terms of global competition, student achievement is the
focus of the public, education community and policy makers’ outcries. Citing McGowen and
Miller (1999), Carver (2000) states that "’the challenge is for leaders to change the culture.’” He
goes on to suggest that “if there is to be a renaissance of public education, it will begin when
boards discard the conceptually incoherent practices of today for a public leadership founded on
sound governance theory” (p. 30). Carver, who developed the Policy Governance model,
contends that the way in which a school board functions, and more explicitly, the way it governs
8
will affect the success of the public education system in the United States 3. This research work
takes up the broad question of how institutional rules vary across school boards and whether or
whether not (and in what ways) these operational rules of a school board are related to high
student achievement and board process outcomes: in other words, when school boards change
their institutional rules, do resulting outcomes change?
Why School Boards?
A survey of scholarly work on the connection between school boards and key outcomes,
such as student achievement, turns up a short, but gradually expanding list. Early work on school
boards was more descriptive in nature. As Land (2002) notes, much literature on school boards
has been limited to “conclusions and recommendations based on personal experience,
observations and opinions and a heavy reliance on anecdotal evidence rather than on well
designed research studies” (p. 265). Only more recently, perhaps in response to the increased
attention on and interest in school reform, has scholarly work begun to take up questions of
substance with regard to school board structure, function and academic outcomes. A seminal
work, the Lighthouse Study (2001), provides perhaps the most exhaustive look at the connection
between board structures and operating procedures and student achievement.
Given the richness that local boards of education provide to test theories and assumptions
about legislative institutions, it is rather surprising that more work has not been done to date. In
addition to the large n that a school board study yields, there is also the appeal to better
understand how school boards as political entities advance student achievement—a cause of
3
While Carver does not explicitly make the claim that student achievement (in the form of test scores or other
measures of academic performance) will increase when Policy Governance is implemented, his work does suggest
broadly that organizational outcomes improve when there is effective and focused governance, which he believes
Policy Governance provides. The basis that underlines these claims, while not tested specifically with school boards,
is drawn from his work with a variety of non-profit and corporate boards.
9
interest to scholars, practitioners, political elites and the voting public alike. This cause, however
has not received overwhelming attention and as Stringfield (2008) states, such “shallowness of
research on school boards almost defies belief” (p. 387).
Can the School Board Institution Support Student Achievement?
The education world today is marked by dwindling resources, unfunded and underfunded state and federal mandates and increased levels of public scrutiny. At the same time,
student achievement seems to be stagnate, and in some cases, declining (Hess and Meeks, 2010).
The responsibility for student achievement is most commonly placed on teachers and school
administrators; or excuses are made for student achievement because of the demographics of a
community, the outdated textbooks or use of misaligned standardized assessments. Although the
significance of living in an impoverished and impacted community where a zip code determines
how much money goes to the school system cannot be overlooked. While these factors are not
causal, they often do correlate. This is evident in further analysis contained in this dissertation.
Until recently, the responsibility for student achievement has rested with professional
educators. School board members have not traditionally been thought of as educators but instead
were perceived to be primarily responsible for setting the budget, addressing legal issues and
handling constituent concerns. In fact historically, the school board was discouraged from
meddling in matters that influenced student achievement—this role was left to experts (teachers
and administrators) (Hess and Meeks, 2010). The school board’s role (at least the perception of
its role) is beginning to change, and now the public and education community alike are
demanding that boards of educations set policy with a focus on student achievement (Land,
2002) in addition to continuing to carry out the budgetary, legal and constituent-response
functions. The ability of school boards to directly influence student achievement is unclear and
10
under-studied. As Land points out (2002), many previous studies that have attempted to make a
connection between board structure and student achievement have not been data-based or suffer
from unreliable and invalid measures.
In her research, Land (2002) articulates how the school board and its decision-making
and policy processes play a prominent role in influencing student achievement. Figure 1.1 below
is Land’s visual representation of the different actors and institutions that influence student
achievement. In her model, the school board is a key player, and although acknowledging that
the school board is not the sole institution in this equation, Land describes how the school
board’s
structure
and
processes
does
have
11
an
effect
on
student
achievement.
12
Taken from Land, 2002, p. 268.
a
Figure 1.1 Decision Makers Influencing Student Achievementa
Specifically, she suggests the importance of key institutional features of the school board that
influence student achievement, including: how much control the board can/chooses to exercise,
what the focus of the board is, the health and strength of relationships (which could include
superintendent and community) and the board’s efficiency, including board evaluation and
monitoring.
The Lighthouse Inquiry work (Rice, 2000, Delagardelle, 2008), completed in partnership
with the Iowa Association of School Boards has pioneered the discussion of connecting student
achievement and school board structure and practices. This work identifies a set of practices and
common themes of school boards who govern school districts with high student achievement. To
date, this research has been the most rigorous and comprehensive look at how school boards do
their work and what this means for student achievement. The findings of this study stressed the
importance of policy-making and how a board conducts its work and how these were a mark of
high achieving school districts. In addressing the question of whether or whether not school
boards can have an effect on student achievement, researcher and former school board member
Stringfield (2008) notes that “the school board provides the critical link without which
improvement would not happen” (p. 282).
On a more pragmatic note, Maricle in his 2014 synopsis of best school board governing
practices, remarks that the school board has a responsibility to model democracy and civic
engagement for future generations. To Maricle, the link between outcomes for students and how
locally elected school boards govern is more of a moral imperative than anything else. He notes
that:
“our country desperately needs schools that are committed to modeling, teaching
and engaging young people in the practice of democratic citizenship. Thus, the
importance of a clear and coherent understanding of how local school governance
can be most effective is directly related to one of our most important goals as a
13
free society…. Locally, school boards must make decisions that will prepare the
next generation not only to govern, but to want to govern” (Maricle, p. 2) 4.
How does the School Board Institution Support Student Achievement?
There are several ways in which the local board of education can influence student
achievement, and these are closely related to how the board does its business. School board
members are generally not in the classroom, delivering instructional content, or even directly
hiring teachers and other administrators, so how can school boards influence student
achievement? School boards can foster a climate that is supportive of student achievement. In
fact, some would argue it is not the purpose or role of the school board to directly influence
student achievement. Instead of the school board directing administrators and teachers on how to
produce student achievement, the board should foster an “’organizational climate’ and ‘culture of
the school’” (Rice et al., p. 33) that in turn allows teachers and administrators to foster student
achievement. Whether it is through policy that a board develops, directives given to the
superintendent, or even the level of community engagement a board seeks out, certain practices a
school board follows can indirectly influence student achievement (Johnson, 2011, Rorrer, Skrla
and Scheurich, 2008). As Delagardelle notes, school boards must provide the vision and policy
that ultimately “control the conditions allowing successful teaching and learning to occur
through the system” (2008, p. 192). Citing Former U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige,
McAdams (2006) says that because of their proximity and power, school boards are the most
4
Maricle’s perspective is not new, and in fact is echoed in some of the earlier education reform movements that
sought to increase focus on civic and democratic engagement. However, for the purposes of this study, the ability of
the school board to engender civic engagement and democratic citizenship is not studied as a primary outcome as
data is not readily available to measure this. In order to address this, student-level data (through student surveys)
would be preferable, but were not conducted as part of this work. Alternatively, this could be addressed by looking
at testing data for proficiency in civic knowledge. However at the time of this writing, current state standardized
tests do not measure this content area. Within the upcoming years, it is expected that social studies will be more
robustly tested via a state standardized assessment tool. Maricle is cited as an example of the changing tide—that is
more and more scholars and practitioners recognizing the connection between and importance of the school board as
a governing body and student outcomes.
14
appropriate entity to create this broad scale change and improvement in education; he believes
schools boards have the capacity to be change agents.
Research Question and Hypotheses
Using the belief that the school board can indeed have an effect on student achievement,
this research will consider if the institutional design of Colorado school boards alters outcomes
such as student achievement and other outcomes of importance for a local board of education.
While the Lighthouse work or other seminal research does not specifically identify Policy
Governance as an explanation for increased student achievement, many of the conditions these
scholars find present in high performing districts are related to what a board would do under the
rules of the Policy Governance model. Furthermore, Land’s (2002) work makes a clear
connection between school board practices and structures and student achievement. This
extrapolation forms the theoretical base of this work that indeed there are distinguishable board
structures, norms and practices in local school districts of high academic achievement. The
primary research question is:
R1: Are differences in outcomes, including high student achievement and effective board
processes, associated with variations in institutional structures?
Two measures of outcomes, improved student achievement and efficient board processes, are
specified in this research question because finding a direct and causal relationship between the
presence of a Policy Governance model and high student achievement is unlikely. Because there
are so many factors that influence student achievement, it is difficult to isolate any single
explanatory factor for high student achievement. It is expected however, that certain, and
favorable governance conditions are present when boards are intentional about selecting a
governance model, in this case, Policy Governance.
15
The expectation, which will be further developed in chapter two, is that Policy Governance, as an
institutional model, provides structures and dictates operational procedures and norms that force
a board to be focused on its ends. Therefore:
H1: Higher academic achievement is more likely in school districts where the local board
of education utilizes Policy Governance.
H2: Efficient board processes are more likely in school districts where the local board of
education utilizes Policy Governance.
Organization
This dissertation proceeds as follows: the rest of chapter one discusses the methods used
to test said expectations and then presents a review of relevant literature. Chapter two explores
the key institutional structure of interest, Policy Governance, and offers initial tests of how
Policy Governance boards look different from non-Policy Governance boards on student
achievement and other operational measures of interest. With a limited ability to draw direct and
causal relationships between Policy Governance and student achievement, chapter three
discusses the more complex and nuanced relationship of a board structure and its outcomes and
also considers that boards may follow Policy Governance practices to varying degrees (rules in
use). In chapter four, survey and interview data are used to provide further context and the
unpack assumptions of trends identified in chapter three. The overall conclusions are presented
in chapter five, along with a consideration of broader implications, and a discussion of
limitations and future research agendas.
Methods and Data
To study the relationship between school board institutions and outcomes, this study uses
a mixed methods design to collect original data and analyze both quantitative and qualitative
16
data. The three primary data sources include: descriptive data collected from the Colorado
Department of Education (CDE); a survey of Colorado school board members; and keyinformant interviews with Colorado school board members and superintendents. The qualitative
data not only provide additional context, but also serve to triangulate findings and assumptions
of the quantitative analysis.
Data collected from CDE sources included descriptive and demographic information
about each of the state’s 178 school districts. These included enrollment size, budgetary
information, racial and ethnic demographics, community size and a variety of student
achievement measures. Descriptive data about school boards (size, governance model and
superintendent tenure) were not available in a previously compiled source and therefore were
collected individually from each school district. Student achievement data served as the primary
dependent variables of interest and other descriptive data provided controls and allowed for
exploration of other important features of school boards.
An electronic survey was sent to Colorado school board members. 5 The 173 complete
responses provided key insights and evidence of how school boards do their work. A series of 56
questions were divided into the following categories: demographic information; structure and
functionality of the board; voting and decision-making; student achievement; boardsuperintendent relationship; and community engagement. The survey contained a variety of types
of questions including scaled questions, identification questions, and open-ended responses.
These data were the core of the analysis presented in chapters two and three.
Finally, key-informant phone interviews were conducted to gain a deeper understanding
of board members’ perceptions of their role and their work. Through a random sample, with an
5
See appendix A for a full discussion of survey delivery and the survey instrument
17
oversample of urban districts 6 (Hess, 2002), twenty school board members were identified to
participate in key-informant interviews and a total of eighteen of these interviews were
successfully completed. During the semi-structured interviews, board members were asked to
elaborate on some of their survey responses and provide further context about their board work,
focus on student achievement, representation of their community and relationship with their
superintendent. Additionally, a group of superintendents was selected for key-informant phone
interviews. The selection of participating superintendents was done using information generated
from the survey and school board member interviews as a way to triangulate school board
member survey and interview trends, perceptions and findings.
The scope of this research was confined to Colorado school boards in large part due to
the accessibility of both quantitative and qualitative data. Additionally, the Colorado Association
of School Boards has estimated a relatively high occurrence of school boards adopting Policy
Governance compared to other states. 7
School Boards as Political Institutions
School boards are a local form of a political institution and have similar basic functions
to Congress: “the distribution of tangible and symbolic goods.” Both are “governed by
identifiable rules enforced by sanctions and rewards” (Nachmias and Greer, 1982, p. 112). These
local-level institutions represent excellent test cases or “laboratories” in which to study the
causal relationship of institutional structure and policy outcomes. School boards epitomize the
local governance model in the United States; since the early 1800s, when control was first
granted to a local body of lay citizens (Kirst, 2008), school boards have been the governing
6
This oversampling was necessary as the number of rural districts far outweigh the number of urban districts in
Colorado. Hess 2002 uses a similar protocol for a nation-wide school board member survey.
7
This is based on personal communication with staff members at CASB and informed from their interactions with
other state school board associations and the international Policy Governance alliance.
18
institution charged with running schools. School boards, similar to Congress, are governed by
institutional rules. The nature of this research uses institutional theory to explore how the
relationship between institutional structures and outcomes functions at a different legislative
level: the local school board.
Traditional School Boards: Failed Political Institutions?
Many question the role and place of school boards today and believe that school boards
are not able to complete the task at hand—governing schools and producing results. The
traditional governance model was designed in a way such that school boards were responsible for
overseeing legislative, executive and judicial functions of a school district. The tasks contained
within these functions range from setting the budget, to making personnel decisions to hearing
appeals when a student is expelled or an employee is terminated (Kirst, 1994). In the traditional
school board model, business is conducted as a traditional business meeting where the school
board acts as a board of directors for the school system (Hess, 2002)—much like a board of
directors overseeing a private sector corporation. The traditional governance model leaves a wide
array of decisions to the discretion of the board: budget, special education, teacher quality,
parental engagement, discipline, and over-crowed schools, to identify a few (Hess, 2002). Given
all of the legislative, executive and judicial decision-making the traditional school board is
responsible for; it is not surprising that this model may no longer be working.
School boards, as currently structured, are believed by some to be out of date, to be
impotent when it comes to cultivating academic achievement, and to be incapable of delivering
adequate performance in general (Land and Stringfield, 2005 and Chubb and Moe, 1990). There
are several reasons why school boards are viewed as failing institutions: first, the environment in
which we educate children is changing; second, there are increasing demands and pressures
19
facing education; and third the traditional school board structure may not be well-suited to
function in the 21st century.
Boyd (2007) discusses the drastic changes in the field of education since the mid 1900s.
For instance, today the educational system is focused on achievement (outputs) instead of inputs;
local and national unions are ever-present and involved in education policy making; there is an
increase in student populations requiring specialized or additional support services (English
language acquisition, special education, at-risk populations, etc); there is increasing choice in
education (charters, homeschooling, online programs etc); and the movement toward data-driven
decision-making. Today’s education environment looks very different than the education
environment of fifty years ago, yet the entity charged with running this field—the school board,
largely looks the same as it did fifty years ago. Today’s educational landscape can be
characterized as more complex and with more players involved and many have questioned
whether or whether not the school board as an institution is equipped to deal with the increasing
complexities and remain responsive to the diversity of stakeholders.
The changes seen in the educational landscape are exacerbated by increasing demands
and pressures from the federal government. The federal government first took an active role in
local education in the 1950s to oversee desegregation efforts. With the publication of “A Nation
at Risk” in 1983, along with growing skepticism from politicians and the public, the federal
government began assuming a more significant role in public education policy making—which
traditionally had been left to local control. The federal government justified its newly expanded
role and the introduction of new programs and mandates by claiming to raise achievement, or to
serve specific, previously underserved populations of students (Kirst as cited in Land and
Stringfield, 2005). This involvement continued to increase, leading up to the passage of No Child
20
Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001. With NCLB legislation, the federal government was directing
much of what had previously been controlled by states and localities. More alarming for the local
public education community was that many of the mandates included in NCLB were unfunded,
adding to the pressures facing local school boards (Land and Stringfield, 2005 and Kirst, 2008).
Effectively, federal government has usurped school board power, dictated what school boards
should do, but neglected to fund these directives. School boards historically, and still today, often
struggle to implement and fund these federal initiatives, which in turn calls into question the
board’s relevance, and whether complete control and accountability should be turned over to the
federal government.
The challenges of today’s educational environment coupled with the demanding
relationship local school boards have with the federal government, beg the question if the current
institution of local school boards is the best entity to govern schools today. The institution that
we know as the school board has not changed significantly since its inception in the 1800s. With
the creation of the first school board, it was intended that schools would be governed by “lay
boards of education” (Kirst, p. 37) and that policy decisions would reside within the local
community. Noting all of the challenges that school boards face and the level of decision-making
boards are accountable for, it is questionable that a lay board of citizens elected by their
neighbors to serve in what are generally low or unpaid positions (Glass, 2008) is responsible for
finding the answers. It would appear that many of the problems facing schools today, particularly
the issue of how to raise student achievement would be best addressed by professionals with a
background in education. However nationally, only 27% of school boards members have an
education background (Hess and Meeks, 2010). So why would it be appropriate to demand
results from an institution comprised predominately of non-experts? Essentially, school boards
21
are being asked “to do things they are largely unequipped to do… and are being asked to assume
responsibilities they are largely unequipped to assume” (Elmore, 2000, p. 2). Elmore goes on to
summarize why the traditional school board model is a problem when he states that, “the risks
and consequences of failure are high for everyone, but especially high for children” (p. 2).
Alternative Institutional Designs for School Boards
In the face of these critiques, some argue for a complete dissolution of the local
governance structure, and dismantling of school boards while others argue for a redesigned
governance structure oriented toward producing better results for students (Hess and Meeks,
2010). There are several reforms championed as the institutional fix for school boards such as
mayoral take-over, reform governance, school-based decision-making, comprehensive school
reform, and Policy Governance. 8 Each of these models, which represent institutional changes in
how decisions are made and how schools are governed, are briefly discussed below, with a more
detailed focus on Policy Governance in the chapter two. The table immediately below provides a
snapshot of each of the governance models discussed.
8
These various models represent a sample, but not a complete listing and are presented for comparison. Most often,
these alternative models, especially reform governance and mayoral take-over are occurring in large, urban and
high-profile communities such as Washington D.C., Atlanta or Houston. However in Colorado, based on the survey
data collected, the majority of local school boards use one of two models: Roberts Rules of Order or Policy
Governance. For those Colorado survey respondents who indicated some other form of governance, it was most
commonly a combination of the two, or a reference to running their meeting in accordance with state statute.
22
Table 1.1 Comparison of School Board Governance Structuresa
Model
Traditional School
Board Model
Mayoral Take-Over
Reform Governance
School-Based
Decision Making
Comprehensive
School Reform
Policy Governance
Primary
Role/Responsibility of
School Board as
Determined by
Governance Structure
Decision-Making Style
As Determined by
Governance Structure
Relationship with
Executive as
Determined by
Governance
Structure
Executive, legislative and
judicial responsibilities:
oversee entire district
Simple majority (unless
otherwise stated in
bylaws)
Varies. Board
should control bigpicture vision. But
often times power
struggle between
executive and board
occurs
Limited independent
responsibility. Role is to
carry out Mayor’s
directives
Defer to Mayor’s
recommendations
Executive (mayor)
has upper hand and
is authority figure
Focus on closing
achievement gap and
raising student
achievement: turn around
failing schools
Individual board
members’ values and
beliefs should drive
decision-making
School board
governs and
executive manages
within the priorities
the board
establishes
Monitor individual school
buildings and provide
oversight
Decision-making
authority resides with
individual
schools/administrators
Unclear—not
discussed in model
Develop a rough
framework aimed at
promoting achievement
and that details
implications for authority
Decision-making (within
framework provided by
board) authority resides
with individual
schools/administrators
Unclear—not
discussed in model
Establish ends priorities
and executive limitations.
Monitor the executive and
board
Defer to
Superintendent’s
recommendations so
long as he/she is not
violating board policies
or is unethical
School Board
governs (deals with
ends) and Executive
manages (deals with
means)
a
The above summaries are informed by the authors and sources noted in the full discussion of each model
immediately following this table.
23
Mayoral take-over of a school is a model of governance that removes the authority and
autonomy from the school board and relocates the power with the mayor. While a school board
is usually still physically present, instead of being publicly elected and having primary authority
over schools, the mayor appoints people to the board to carry out directives of the mayor (Wong
et al., 2007). This model is intended primarily for urban districts facing significant performance
challenges and budgetary threats. Cities such as Boston, Chicago, Cleveland and New York have
adopted this model of school governance (Wong and Shen, 2008). This model represents perhaps
the starkest contrast from the traditional institutional structure of schools boards. The literature
on whether or whether not mayoral take-over has been successful in elevating student
achievement is mixed and may in part be plagued by limited research and small-n studies (Wong
and Shen, 2008).
Another model of governance that represents a deviation from the traditional institutional
structure of the school board is “reform governance” (McAdams, 2006). This model is also
primarily intended for urban districts that are by all accounts, failing to perform. In McAdam’s
work (2006), he specifies what the school board should focus on: “effective and efficient district
operations, high achievement for all children and the elimination of the achievement gap” (p.
13). “Reform governance” (McAdams) dictates that decision-making revolves around what
individual board members identify as their core values and beliefs for education. Reform
governance proposes to advance student achievement by changing the rules to focus on specific
tasks and by relying on individual board members’ visions.
A third model of governance, school or site-based decision making, promotes a higher
level of autonomy and decision-making power at the building level. In this model, the school
board takes a backseat to other entities and actors, namely individual schools and building-level
24
administrators, staff, teachers and parents, who jointly hold the primary decision-making
authority for budgeting, instruction, personnel and scheduling. The school board loses its power
and is relegated to a monitoring and oversight entity (Opfer and Denmark, 2001). While this
model is praised as a structure that is more responsive to stakeholders and that give the
practitioners and experts decision-making power, Drury (1999) worries that student achievement
is sacrificed. This decentralized model inhibits the school board from setting over-arching policy
to guide district-level issues, such as student achievement.
In a similar structure, where the decision-making capacity rests with individual schools,
Desimone (2002) offers the comprehensive school reform model of governance. In this model,
the board develops a general framework that promotes school improvement. This framework
consists of five policy attributes: level of specificity of authority; consistency of authority;
degree of authority; level of power; and policy stability (Desimone p. 433-434). Once the board
develops and articulates improvement-focused goals via this framework, the individual schools
then take on the responsibility for decision-making and implementation. While this institutional
design demands the board to set a tone for improved academic achievement, it is at the discretion
of individual schools to determine what will actually be implemented and attained.
And finally, while not a specific type model of governance for the existing school board,
parent takeover or parent trigger laws are a mechanism that effectively and completely alters a
school’s governance. This model first surfaced in 2010 as part of California’s Race to the Top
grant initiative (Blausey, 2013). In these cases, usually via a parent referendum, the parent and
family community at a given school can vote to change the structure and governance of a school
when they feel the school is failing or otherwise unable to meet the needs of their students. Most
commonly, when a parent takeover or trigger is invoked, the result is that the school is removed
25
from the school district/board’s purview and a private management or charter school operator is
brought in to run the school (Lubienski et al, 2012). This model’s adoption remains fairly limited
at this point with only seven states having authorizing legislation for parent triggers
(Cunningham, 2012). However, this tool does represent an institutional reform that, when
implemented, drastically alters the operation, structure and accountability of an individual
school.
Summary
Each of the models suggested above represent different examples of how a local board of
education can adopt different institutional structures to do its work. At the core of each of these
models are different values, policy preferences and beliefs about where the lever of change
resides in the educational system. For instance one reform model attempts to remove politics and
return decision making authority to school leaders; other models reflect a value for parent and
community leadership and autonomy. While the models vary greatly (and demonstrate even
greater variation when implemented), inherent in each is a desire to change the management
structures, institutional rules, and actors involved all with some level of interest in improving
student achievement. There are varying degrees of adoption of each model and equally varying
literature to evaluate if any of these institutional structures correlate to higher student
achievement. Survey data collected for this research of Colorado school board members revealed
that when Colorado school boards decide to alter their institutional structures, at this point in
26
time, the reform model of choice is Policy Governance 9. Chapter two will focus specifically on
the Policy Governance model and the connection of its associated institutional features with
student performance outcomes.
9
It is possible that at previous points in history, Colorado boards have considered and adopted some of the other
examples of reform models as discussed in the preceding text. However based on current data, Policy Governance or
some variation thereof, appears to be the alternative option of choice. Additionally, some of the reforms such as
mayoral take-over, school-based decision making and the parent trigger laws have been confined to large (100,000
plus student enrollment) urban districts, which do not exist in Colorado.
27
CHAPTER TWO
Policy Governance as an Institutional Design to Improve Outcomes
In response to the critiques leveled at local school boards across the country, many of
these bodies are changing their institutional structures and operating rules—sometimes by
choice, or sometimes at the pressure of external stakeholders. The basic rationale is that by
changing the rules and structures of a seemingly outdated and antiquated governing system, the
outcomes will also change. In this case, the desired change in outcome is most often increased
student achievement and trust in school board members as elected officials. Several reform
models were discussed in the preceding chapter, ranging from a paradigm shift of reform
governance to the extreme of displacing the board for mayoral takeover. Another governance
model that has been growing in popularity is John Carver’s model of Policy Governance. This
model, while not developed exclusively for school boards, has gained traction and recognition in
the education community as a way to improve school board governance and in turn, improve (or
at least offer the perception of improvement) educational outcomes, efficiency and transparency
(Gehring, 2005).
The Policy Governance model originates from John Carver’s work in the mid-1980s.
Carver, along with several other scholars at the time, was writing from the perspective that
existing board practices and governance were not working; boards were not efficient and spent
too much time managing instead of governing. Particularly in the nonprofit and public sectors,
boards were quick to get bogged down in management and failed to demonstrate leadership and
vision, both critical for long-term success of these types of organization (Fletcher, 1999). In a
supplemental piece published in the American School Board Journal, Carver (2000b) describes
the application and value-add of his Policy Governance model. He underscores the need for a
28
new institutional design when he suggests that school boards as they are most often run “are [the]
least disciplined, least rational and the most disordered element in any school system… [and are]
the weakest link” (p. 1). In Carver’s model, the board is responsible for governing, not for
managing. To effectively govern, a board operates under four principles:
•
the board must focus on the ends while leaving the means to staff;
•
the board constructs policy in the form of executive limitations, telling the executive what
they cannot do;
•
the board must have a healthy and balanced relationship with their executive; and
•
the board will engage in regular monitoring.
These four components of the Policy Governance model together define what boards as an entity
and board members as individuals can and cannot do—these four operating rules set parameters
for the governance process and theoretically should influence the outputs. Each of the four
components is briefly discussed below.
Focus on Ends. To focus on ends, a board must first be able to articulate why the system
it is governing exists. The ends should be a logical extension of this organizational purpose.
When a board focuses its decision making on ends rather than means the board accomplishes
several things. First, it is a mechanism by which the board signals their preferences and values.
Secondly, the board is more efficient with their time. Carver describes the universe of policy
choices as a set of nesting bowls, where some decisions are larger and in effect, contain smaller
decisions within them. By focusing on the larger, ends-oriented decisions, the board focuses their
limited capacity and resources at the level that will simultaneously drive the smaller policy
choices nested inside (Carver, 2006, p. 61-62). Thirdly, the board empowers and affirms those
29
with the expertise, namely the superintendent and his or her staff, to execute the decisions made
by the board.
Executive Limitations. A board that operates by issuing policy via a set of limitations on
the executive is also signaling its preferences and prescribing a big-picture vision, while leaving
the details to the discretion of the person(s) with the knowledge and expertise. According to
Carver (2006), one way to avoid crossing the line into management is for a board to focus on
whether or whether not the executive’s actions are prudent and ethical (p. 120-122). Instead of
telling the executive what is prudent and ethical, the board must be forward-thinking and decide
what actions would be considered imprudent and unethical and write policy accordingly. In other
models, the board might be focused on predicting every possible behavior from the executive
and staff and write policy accordingly. Alternatively, the board might be reactionary and write
policy in attempts to change a behavior or outcome after the fact. Policy Governance simply
communicates to the executive figure broadly what not to do; the executive then is responsible
for overseeing and directing their own actions as well as the actions of staff to ensure board
policy is not violated and the board’s vision is upheld.
Strong Board-Executive Relationship. A successful operation must have a healthy boardexecutive relationship. While the board sets the tone and leads, the executive has the power to
ensure that tone is demonstrated throughout the organization. This is accomplished by the
superintendent guiding staff to implement the directives of the board. While the superintendent
and the board have distinct roles and responsibilities, and the executive is ultimately accountable
to the board, they are interdependent entities. Two critical tools for ensuring a healthy boardexecutive relationship Carver provides include monitoring and evaluation. The board utilizes
30
these tools to hold the superintendent accountable and these tools provide the superintendent a
clear set of directives to work within.
Board Monitoring. Finally, a Policy Governance board will demonstrate a heightened
awareness of and commitment to the quality of its own governance process. Carver explains that
if a board is going to be responsible and accountable for the governance of an organization, it
must be responsible and accountable for its own actions. To achieve this, the board shall set forth
rules and guidelines and continually revisit and self-evaluate the board’s effectiveness and
adherence to their governance rules and guidelines
If these elements are implemented, a board should have processes that look different and
are more effective. The model represents a new paradigm for boards and how they conduct their
business. In addition to providing clear and concise direction and delineation of roles, Carver’s
model helps boards and executives know whether or whether not they are successful in their
performance toward stated performance goals (Brudney and Nobbie, 2002).
The four elements of Policy Governance as outlined above according to Carver, can be
applied to just about any board structure in the nonprofit or public sector. Speaking about school
boards, Carver argues that school boards, much like other nonprofit and public sector boards
have become distracted and overly focused on management responsibilities. School boards have
come under attack from other policy makers, the education community and public stakeholders,
and Carver believes the remedy lies in a total restructuring of the governance process. The same
four core principles of Policy Governance can be applied to school boards: the school board
should shift their focus from discussing what flavor of milk to serve to articulating and
constantly reviewing metrics of student achievement (focus on the ends); the school board
should clearly articulate priorities for the district in the form of boundaries for the superintendent
31
of schools (executive limitations); the school board must be purposeful in cultivating an
appropriate relationship with the superintendent where the board primarily interfaces with the
superintendent who then directs staff (executive-board relationship); and the school board must
hold themselves accountable and monitor their board work (board self-monitoring). In short,
Carver (2000a) claims that when the school board is less “preoccupied with what schools do [and
instead] define[s] clearly what schools are for” (p. 30) the school board can most effectively
govern and can redeem itself in the eyes of critics and skeptics.
Although Policy Governance was not designed solely for school boards, Carver does see
the model as useful for school boards as they work to fulfill their organizational purpose:
educating students (Carver, 2000a). By extrapolating the principles of Policy Governance, it is
possible to see how Policy Governance changes the institutional structures of the local school
board and could then in turn support increased student achievement (or at least increased focus
on student achievement). The table below summarizes the four key tenants of Policy Governance
and how this looks in a school district.
32
Table 2.1 How Policy Governance Should Drive Increased Student Achievement
Element of PG Model (Institutional Rule)
Expected Outcomes
Board focuses on ends, not means
The school board reaffirms why the
educational system exists and as a result,
defines its ends as student achievement.
With this laser-like focus on achievement,
the board leaves the means to those with
the expertise and resources.
Board defines executive’s work in terms of
executive limitations
The school board directs the primary
operational decision-maker (the
superintendent) to focus on student
achievement and tells the superintendent to
not do anything that would harm or limit
progress toward that achievement.
Board-Executive Relationship
The school board maintains an appropriate
and effective relationship with the
superintendent (the executive), leaving the
means to the executive and monitoring the
superintendent to ensure student
achievement is increasing.
Board is diligent in self monitoring
The school board monitors itself regularly
to see if student achievement (the board’s
ends) is increasing.
Expectations of why Policy Governance Boards Should Experience Higher Academic
Achievement
The above discussion of the model has highlighted key ways in which Policy Governance
alters institutional structures and operational functions. Table 2.1 summarizes each of the four
primary elements and shows what that means for a school board’s operations. This articulates the
institutional design framework of this research by specifying the key ways in which Policy
Governance’s structures, norms and practices are expected to produce more favorable outcomes
including student achievement outcomes and other key board process outcomes. These more
favorable outcomes are expected in districts where the board is using Policy Governance because
33
of how the model’s four institutional features induce certain behaviors, change priorities and
prescribe specific actions within the School Board.
Focus on Ends. If a board is to focus on their ends, it must first define said ends. When
outlining the use of Policy Governance for school boards, Carver reminds board members that
their ends should flow from the definition of “why the educational system exists” (2000a, p. 28).
For a corporate board whose organizational existence might be about selling a product, their ends
could be increased profit margins; for a local board of education whose organizational existence
is about educating students, the primary output of interest is student achievement. This tendency
to focus on ends is a behavior that boards may not naturally do. Particularly if a board is
operating under a business model format, the board is more likely to focus on the day-to-day
means (how the work is getting done) as this is what a meeting agenda would prescribe. On the
other hand, the act of a board being very intentional about articulating its ends and then allowing
this to drive its every move should make a meaningful difference for the work it is doing. At
some level, all school boards see (or at least should see) their role in relation to increasing
student achievement. However the key expected difference is that a Policy Governance board not
only sees this relationship, but prioritizes it and focuses all policy making efforts on satisfying
the ends of student achievement, leaving operational details (means) to the superintendent and
his or her staff.
Policy in the form of Executive Limitations. When a board concerns itself with writing
policy that governs every element and possible occurrence in its school district, it suggests that
the board knows best and the board knows how to operate the school district. However, research
has shown that school boards are most often not comprised by a majority of individuals with a
background in education; therefore, it may be unlikely that the board is equipped with the
34
necessary skills or knowledge to run a large and complex educational organization. Not only
would policy-making in this instance potentially be misguided and politically driven, it would
also take away from the ability of those with the expertise and innovation to do their jobs. Also
this overarching form of policy-making would make it difficult to monitor and assess progress
toward academic achievement, given the number and scope of policies the board may write. An
alternative way to set policy, as in Policy Governance, is to set executive limitations for the
superintendent. This form of policy making allows the board to remain focused on its primary
task of increased student achievement. The Policy Governance board should not be occupied
with describing what every teacher and office does; but instead, giving the superintendent full
range (within the executive limitation’s of board policy) to do what he or she finds necessary to
fulfill the board’s ends and vision. Also, when a board has crafted policies all related directly to
student achievement, the board can more readily monitor progress toward stated goals and ends.
Board-Superintendent Relationship. Closely related to the preceding condition of policymaking through executive limitations, the nature of the relationship a board has with its
superintendent should also drive student achievement. The board cannot run the district, nor can
the board tell the superintendent how to run the district: the board does not have the level of
expertise, access to information or receive the paycheck to do so. Instead, when the board forms
a healthy and supportive relationship with the superintendent with clear expectations for student
achievement, he or she becomes empowered to address the board’s ends.
Board Monitoring. In order to make progress toward any goal, regular and rigorous
evaluation is necessary. The Policy Governance model provides an expectation that the board
engages in regular monitoring—of the superintendent as well as of the board itself. When the
superintendent is subject to regular monitoring by the board, the superintendent must perform.
35
When the monitoring is related to whether or whether not ends were met, everyone, from the
superintendent down the chain of command, is more going to be focused on meeting the stated
outcomes.
Expectations of why Policy Governance Boards Should Experience More Favorable Process
Outcomes
In addition to considering the relationship between institutional structures, such as Policy
Governance, and the outcome of student achievement, this work also considers outcomes related
to board processes. These are derived largely from Land’s (2002) scholarship on what conditions
must be present for a school board to influence student achievement. While Land was not writing
specifically about Policy Governance, the key principles she identified translate to practices of
Policy Governance. Table 2.2 highlights how Policy Governance would meet the conditions laid
out in Land’s study.
36
Table 2.2 How Policy Governance Mirrors Key Board Processes
as Defined in Previous Researcha
Element of PG Model
Land’s Criteria
Board focuses on ends, not means
Appropriate Focus: Land notes that a
board must have appropriate focuses, as
defined as things the board can control and
that are policy related, not management
driven. In PG, Carver believes a laser-like
focus on ends is critical.
Board defines executive’s work in terms of
executive limitations
Amount of Control: Land calls for the
board to exercise the right amount and
type of control. A board must realize its
scope and authority, but at the same time,
realize what is not within its control. The
latter must be intentional designated to the
superintendent. In PG, giving the
superintendent control in the form of
executive limitations is how the board
operates.
Board-Executive Relationship
Good Relationships: Land’s research finds
a central importance of the board’s ability
to nurture positive relationships. In PG,
the health and strength of the boardexecutive relationship is also a key
governance principle.
Board is diligent in self monitoring
Effective Performance and Evaluation: A
commonplace practice that boards must
use according to Land is regular reviewing
performance data as well as conducting
evaluations. While Land’s focus on
evaluation is more general, it does parallel
Carver’s PG model which has an emphasis
on board and superintendent evaluations.
a
Derived from Land’s 2002 study of school boards and characteristics of boards that positively influence
student achievement.
37
Policy Governance in Colorado School Boards
Of the 178 local boards of education in Colorado, 17.4% (n=31) have formally adopted
Policy Governance and claim to be operating under the model. 10 The adoption of the model first
began in the 1990s in primarily small, resort communities. Over time, more and more boards
have adopted that model. The most recent wave of boards moving to Policy Governance has
come as a result of CASB’s training and support offered 11. Table 2.3 below shows demographics
of the boards currently using Policy Governance in Colorado.
10
It is possible that other boards of education use a similar structure to Policy Governance or have adopted specific
elements of the model, but have not formally labeled it as such. For the purposes of this research, only boards that
have publicly or otherwise officially adopted Policy Governance are being considered as Policy Governance Boards.
In part this is due to the difficulty in ascertaining which other boards might be using the model, as well as the fact
that there is something important about formally adopting the model: upon formal adoption, the local board of
education is making an official statement, taking official action etc and can be held accountable to such action.
11
In an interview with the Policy Governance consultant at CASB, he shared that over the past five years, he and the
deputy executive director have been actively encouraging and coaching boards in Policy Governance. This renewed
focus, he explained, was part of a concerted effort on CASB’s part to respond to board members who were asking
for specific tools to govern better.
38
Table 2.3 Characteristics of Colorado School Boards Implementing Policy
Governancea
District Name
Student
%
Board
Rural/Urbanb
Enrollment
Minority Size
Type of
Seat
Date of
PG
Adoptiond
Academy 20
Adams 12
Aurora
Adams 50
Aspen 1
Brighton 27J
Buena Vista
Colo Springs 11
De Beque
Douglas County
Durango
Eagle County
East Grand
Estes Park
Frenchman
Hinsdale County
Jefferson County
Keenesburg
Lake County
Lewis-Palmer
Mapleton 1
Moffat County
Park County
Poudre
Sheridan
St. Vrain
Steamboat Springs
Telluride
Trinidad
Weld County RE-8
23,657
42,990
39,696
10,124
1,712
15,649
1,013
25,509
194
63,114
4,537
6,344
1,273
1,175
185
91
85,751
2,276
1,224
6,076
7,760
2,299
571
27,510
1,641
28,109
2,282
752
1,365
2,470
Rural
Urban
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Urban
Rural
Rural
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Urban
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
12.0%
33.9%
65.0%
80.8%
6.0%
34.9%
42.6%
52.9%
41.2%
10.9%
32.1%
42.5%
31.7%
34.1%
46.5%
26.4%
31.7%
50.1%
61.9%
11.6%
68.6%
41.1%
43.8%
30.1%
79.6%
31.8%
12.3%
24.1%
59.3%
67.4%
5
5
7
5
5
7
7
7
5
7
7
7
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
5
7
5
5
5
7
At-Large
Districts
At-Large
At-Large
At-Large
Districts
Mixedc
At-Large
At-Large
At-Large
Districts
Districts
Districts
At-Large
At-Large
At-Large
Districts
Districts
At-Large
Districts
At-Large
At-Large
Districts
At-Large
Districts
Districts
Districts
At-Large
At-Large
Districts
2005
2000
2009
2001
1998
unknown
2000
2007
unknown
2000
1996
1998
1998
1998
2005
1998
2000
1998
1998
unknown
unknown
2001
2001
2007
2001
unknown
1998
1998
2004
unknown
Woodland Park
RE-2
2,753
Rural
31.4%
5
Districts
1998
a
Data gathered from Colorado Department of Education Fall 2011local school district directory
Based on classifications from National Center for Education Statistics. Their categories were
more sensitive, with more distinction for example between small and mid-size town, but for a
general overview, these were collapsed into a dichotomous urban/rural.
c
In Buena Vista, 3 seats are at-large and 4 seats are district-based.
d
Dates provided by the Colorado Association of School Boards.
b
Who Adopts Policy Governance?
In Colorado, there is no dictated structure or operating procedures that would specify a
governance model for school boards with the exception of key legal obligations such as setting
39
the budget, hiring and firing a superintendent and approving curriculum selection. However,
within the past five years, The Colorado Association of School Boards (CASB) has been
encouraging boards to focus on effective governance and has even offered professional
development and training to boards around the topic of governance. This focus has been apparent
in annual conference themes, conference proposals, supplemental webinar trainings and other
professional development resources CASB has made available on its website and email listserv.
And while this does not always have to look like Policy Governance, CASB provides a wealth of
resources, training and support for boards who look at Policy Governance as a way to govern
well. In an interview with the Policy Governance Consultant at CASB, Jim Weigel shared that
Policy Governance is viewed as a strong model because it can support board members, allowing
them to do the important work of school boards. Weigel notes that a school board must “be
excellent, and it must be consistent at being excellent. Policy Governance should help boards not
be bad” (Weigel, 2011).
CASB has shared that based on their knowledge of other states and their state school
board associations, Colorado has a comparatively high number of boards of education using the
Policy Governance model (Weigel, 2011). Is there something unique about Colorado boards that
lead them to adopt Policy Governance?
Characteristics of the School or Greater Community. While Policy Governance is not
necessarily marketed for one type of community or another, it does seem reasonable to expect
that the model with an expressed focus on ends and governance rather than operations would be
present in larger communities. In a larger community with more schools and more staff, it makes
sense that the board would seek a streamlined way to do their work and would opt for the tenthousand foot view, if for nothing else than because of time constraints: it would be challenging
40
for a board in a large community to have the time to get involved at the operational level. Table
2.4 also considers features of the district such as student stability and diversity.
Characteristics of the Board. Similarly, are there features of the actual school board that
predict whether or whether not a board is going to adopt Policy Governance? In a similar type of
reasoning to community size, it also seems likely to expect a board that is comprised of at-large
membership to be more inclined to adopt Policy Governance: board members have to focus on a
larger area, have to be responsive to more stakeholders, and it therefore becomes harder to stay
abreast of operational or personnel issues in a single building. Also it is important to consider if
superintendent turnover correlates to boards using Policy Governance. Superintendents appear to
appreciate the Policy Governance model 12, so a superintendent should be incentivized to stay in
a district where the board uses this model.
A key feature of Policy Governance is that board and superintendent roles are clearly
defined and each focuses their time and attention on their respective functions. Dawson and
Quinn (2000) find that “the dominant attraction [of the model] for superintendents seems to be
the promise of role clarity” (p. 4). While the model and its use of executive limitations at first
read might sound restrictive, it is intended to help define roles, spheres of accountability and
ensure that the board and superintendent are each fulfilling their respective tasks. Typical
executive limitations under Policy Governance set broad parameters for the superintendent rather
than issue specific directives. Such boundaries usually include actions that would be illegal,
unethical, financially imprudent or otherwise harmful to the school district. Superintendents tend
to like Policy Governance because essentially they have (or perceive that they have) more power
because they are not expected to come to the board and seek approval for each and every action
12
Based on author’s personal conversations and formal interviews with superintendents, and CASB staff.
41
they take 13. In their early work with superintendents, Dawson and Quinn routinely heard
superintendents felt “…freedom to do their jobs without constantly seeking the board’s
permission or approval of an operational choice” (2000, p.4). In key informant interviews, one
Colorado superintendent summarized this well by saying that “Policy Governance gives me both
the responsibility and the authority from the board to do my job. Until the board tells me
otherwise, I will do whatever it is I need to do to focus on and serve our kids” (Superintendent
A.1, 2013).
When comparing boards that use Policy Governance and boards that do not use Policy
Governance, there are some interesting differences. As shown in table 2.4, Policy Governance is
more likely to be present in districts with a large student enrollment, in urban areas and among
larger school boards. There is no difference between boards that use Policy Governance and
those which use Robert’s Rules of Order in terms of the structure of the board (districts or atlarge seats), the diversity of the community, the stability of the community (as measured by
student mobility) or even superintendent turnover.
13
In example of this would include hiring and personnel actions. During an informal conversation at a school board
meeting with a board member from another community that does not use Policy Governance, he shared how his
board was in the middle of reviewing principal applications and resumes. In my district, where we use Policy
Governance, the board would never get involved at this level (reviewing applications or resumes). Rather this is a
decision that is fully left to the superintendent. In our board executive limitations, we have policy that talks about
how the superintendent must hire qualified staff and sets some general parameters for what that includes. But aside
from that directive, we do not get into personnel specifics. This in turn, arguably allows the superintendent quite a
bit of latitude because there are many ways he could interpret “qualified.”
42
Table 2.4 Comparison of District Demographic Features
between Policy Governance and Non Policy Governance Boards
Variable
M
SD
t
df
p
Characteristics of the School District/Community:
Student Enrollment+
Policy Governance Boards
Non Policy Governance Boards
Student Stability+b
Policy Governance Boards
Non Policy Governance Boards
Student Diversity+c
Policy Governance Boards
Non Policy Governance Boards
Urban/Rural+d
Policy Governance Boards
Non Policy Governance Boards
2.77a** 33.31a
12,927.45
2,796.95
3,592.10
700.13
1.82
0.74
0.73
0.37
0.31
0.55
0.18
0.00
176
0.71
0.08
0.10
1.33
176
0.19
3.86a**
37.57a
0.00
-0.93
176
0.35
2.16a*
38.65a
0.04
1.05
174
0.30
0.24
0.21
0.51
0.38
Characteristics of the School Board:
Superintendent Turnover+e
Policy Governance Boards
Non Policy Governance Boards
Board Size
0.15
0.17
0.10
0.10
+f
Policy Governance Boards
Non Policy Governance Boards
Board Typeg
Policy Governance Boards
Non Policy Governance Boards
5.81
5.40
0.52
0.39
+
0.98
0.79
0.57
0.64
Data collected from the Colorado Department of Education annual Education Directory publication
The t and df were adjusted because assumed variances were not equal.
b
Student stability is a measure of the percentage of students who remain at the same school throughout the
duration of the school year
c
Student diversity is measured as a percentage of non-white students.
d
The Colorado Department of Education uses census data to code each school district in the state as urban or
rural.
e
This turnover reflects the percentage of superintendent turnover from a twelve year period (school years 20012012). Table 2.5 below further details this variable.
g
Data collected from individual board websites and communication with board administrative assistants when
information was not otherwise available. Possible variations of type include at-large, ward-based or a
a
43
combination.
It is not surprising that Policy Governance is more likely to be found in large, urban
communities relative to smaller, rural school districts. The Policy Governance structure is
intended to provide a framework for governing, not managing; for focusing on ends, not
means; and for employing one person (the executive), not an entire school district. In larger
communities, simply the size and demands on a school board member’s time suggests that
they would be focused more on big-picture policy making and less on day-to-day operations
of the school district. In smaller communities, school board members have the time and ability
to be involved with the district at a micro level. This was confirmed in interviews as board
members from smaller communities made reference to talking with neighbors, community
members at the grocery store, or church functions in response to questions about community
engagement and soliciting feedback from their voting constituents. This is not to say that all
school boards in small communities focus on management, but it is understandable why there
would be statistically significant differences between boards of education in small, rural
communities and in larger, urban communities.
It was surprising to find that superintendent turnover did not have the anticipated
results, with Policy Governance boards having lower rates of turnover. Table 2.5 and figure
2.1 below show the variation in superintendent turnover across the districts. While the
difference is not statistically significant, one trend worth noting is that of the 17 boards with
the highest turnover (as defined by having five or six superintendents within the 12 year
period), only two of these boards are Policy Governance boards.
44
Table 2.5 Superintendent Turnover Rates for Policy Governance Boards
Number of
District Name
Superintendents
from 2001-2012a
Trinidad
6
Sheridan
5
Brighton 27J
4
Buena Vista
4
De Beque 49JT
4
Eagle County
4
Lewis-Palmer 38
4
Steamboat Springs
4
Adams 12
3
Aspen 1
3
Colo Springs 11
3
Douglas County
3
Durango 9-R
3
Moffat County RE1
3
Park Country RE-2
3
St. Vrain Valley RE-1J
3
Woodland Park RE-2
3
Academy 20
2
Aurora
2
Adams 50
2
East Grand 2
2
Estes Park
2
Frenchman
2
Jefferson County
2
Keenesburg
2
Poudre
2
Telluride
2
Weld County RE-8
2
Mapleton
1
Hinsdale County
1
Lake County
1
Average for all PG Boards
2.8
Average for all Non-PG Boards
3.0
a
Percentage
of Turnoverb
41.7%
33.3%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
0%
0%
0%
15.1%
16.9%
Data were not available for the 2004-2005 school year, so it is possible that these turnover
numbers may be higher. However the percentage presented on the table is adjusted
accordingly to measure turnover during the twelve school years for which data were
available.
b
This turnover measure was constructed using available data from the Colorado Department
of Education and reflects the percentage of turnover from a twelve year period. It is a
measure of the total number of new superintendents during that twelve year period of time.
45
Figure 2.1: Superintendent Turnover
from 2001-2012
46
45
Number of school districts
45
32
30
15
12
11
9
9
6
3
1
3
1
0
1 Superintendent
2 Superintendents 3 Superintendents 4 Superintendents 5 Superintendents 6 Superintendents
Non Policy Governance Boards
Policy Governance Boards
While there is not a statistically significant difference in the rate of superintendent
turnover for Policy Governance boards and those boards using a different model, there is an
interesting trend with regards to when turnover happens following the adoption of Policy
Governance. Figure 2.2 shows, among boards for which both Policy Governance adoption dates
and superintendent turnover data were available, if a superintendent leaves, it is more likely to
happen within the first year following the adoption of Policy Governance. Although, it should be
noted that many superintendents, (46.2%) elect to stay in their district even after their board
switches to Policy Governance. This confirms the general support superintendents noted for
Policy Governance in interviews. The fact that within this sample of school districts the second
most common outcome is that a superintendent leaves within the first year of adoption could
suggest that the board’s move to Policy Governance represents a significant departure from the
status quo. And as such, this potential disruption in how the school board conducts district
46
business is so great that a superintendent no longer feels they can be effective or feels welcome.
This finding would support the overall story that Policy Governance does indeed create a
noticeable difference in how boards operate.
Figure 2.2: Superintendent Turnover Following Policy Governance Adoptiona (n=13)
46.2%
30.8%
15.4%
7.7%
No Immediate After One Year
Turnover
After Two
Years
7.7%
After Three
Years
Multiple
Turnovers
a
Data from the Colorado Department of Education were used to construct this visual
representation of superintendent turnover. The image depicts how soon, if at all, after a given
board adopts Policy Governance, their superintendent leaves the district.
Does the Adoption of Policy Governance Make a Meaningful Difference?
While it is interesting to understand what types of boards of education self-select into the
Policy Governance model (and there is certainly more room for research here), there is a
theoretically interesting extension of this question. That question is why do boards adopt Policy
Governance? Carver (2000) acknowledges that the Policy Governance model is a complete
overhaul of what it means to be a school board, and it is not just a simple checklist of changes to
implement. He warns that this institutional structure necessitates a paradigm shift, and that when
the model is not implemented with fidelity, the board cannot expect full improvement. But he
promises a wide range of outcomes for boards that use Policy Governance with fidelity. While
47
implementing the model with full fidelity is the ideal, there is likely some level of variation in
how boards actually implement the model. When a board elects to change their institutional
structure and operate under a Policy Governance model, the board is then enabled to
“…govern the system, rather than run it; to define and demand educational results
rather than poke and probe in educational and administrative processes; to redirect
time from trivial and ritual actions to strategic leadership; to give a superintendent
one boss rather than several; to grant administrators and educators great latitude
within explicit boundaries; to be in charge of board agendas instead of dependent
on staff; and to guarantee unbroken accountability from classroom to taxpayer”
(p. 27).
Proponents of the model have said that by operating under the structures and rules of
Policy Governance, boards are able to have a laser-like focus on their ends, which in a school
board setting, would be student achievement. According to Carver, the primary way for a board
to have a meaningful effect on outcomes is through defining and monitoring ends. When boards
fall short of achieving their outcomes, he states it is because boards “routinely fail to describe the
ends and then intervene in what they’ve hired professionals to do. No amount of telling people
how to run the system can substitute for simply demanding designated results and getting out of
the way” (Carver, 2000 p. 28).
Does the shift in institutional structure and governing rules (Policy Governance) produce
the anticipated shift in outcomes, namely student achievement (the key output of a board of
education)? Based on the literature and claims made by Carver and other proponents of the
model, there is an expected relationship between boards that use Policy Governance and high
student performance: if boards are operating effectively, articulating specific ends related to
student achievement, and working effectively with their superintendents, student achievement
should increase. To test this, a basic t-test is conducted comparing Policy Governance boards to
48
non-Policy Governance boards 14. Three measures of student achievement are examined: student
performance framework ratings, student performance rating scores, and graduation rates. Table
2.6 shows that there is no statistically significant difference in these key student achievement
measures between local boards using Policy Governance and those who do not use the model 15.
Table 2.6 Comparison of Student Achievement Measures
between Policy Governance and Non-Policy Governance Boardsa
Variable
M
School Performance Framework Ratingb
Policy Governance Boards
Non Policy Governance Boards
School Performance Rating Pointsb
Policy Governance Boards
Non Policy Governance Boards
3.58
3.53
66.33
65.65
SD
0.83
0.85
df
p
-0.23c
39.17c
0.82
-0.24c
37.71c
0.81
0.90
173
0.37
1.06
0.87
14.71
11.08
Graduation Rates
Policy Governance Boards
Non Policy Governance Boards
T
0.13
0.16
a
Performance Framework rating data and points and graduation rates as reported by the Colorado Department of
Education.
b
While the School Performance Framework Rating and Rating Points are similar measures (the total number of
points accumulated (1-100) determines the framework rating (1-5), it was important to see if a more sensitive
measure generated a significant difference).
c
The t and df were adjusted because assumed variances were not equal.
14
These data were collected from CASB and Colorado Department of Education (CDE) records. CASB maintains
an active list of boards using Policy Governance, which was verified by contacting each district as well as through
the survey responses. Annually, CDE reports key student achievement data such as graduation rates and
standardized test scores. In 2009, the Colorado State Legislature adopted SB09-163, which significantly changed
how the state measures educational success. No longer would a district or school’s performance be solely evaluated
based on test scores, but now it would consider a more robust measure. Each year, school districts submit data along
with a Unified Improvement Plan and CDE reviews these and establishes a rating and accompanying score for each
district in the state. The overall score is based on academic achievement, academic longitudinal growth, academic
gaps and postsecondary and workforce readiness. This measure of academic achievement is preferable given that the
level of analysis in this research is the district level. Standardized test scores are reported at the school and grade
level and for three unique subjects; there is not a single measure of academic achievement for test performance
reported at the district level. Additionally, the more robust measure of the school performance framework rating
addresses key areas that a school board should have some degree of control over in terms of policy setting and
regularly discussing.
15
It is however also plausible that there is no discernible difference between boards that adopt Policy Governance
and those that do not because of a selection bias. In other words, an already high performing district may see the
model as a way to solidify its governance practices and as a framework with which to increase its accountability
through monitoring and community engagement. While at the same time, low performing districts are drawn to the
model for its promise of improved outcomes.
49
Another way to assess whether or whether not the adoption of Policy Governance leads to
increased academic achievement is to evaluate academic performance before and after the school
board has moved to Policy Governance. As figures 2.3 and 2.4 show, among five 16 sample
districts for which dates of Policy Governance adoption were known, there is no universal trend
in regards to academic performance after the adoption of Policy Governance. For some districts,
after their boards of education move to a Policy Governance model, there is a slight uptick in
performance, while other districts see a decline in performance.
16
PG adoptions dates were available for 25 districts. These dates were provided from the Colorado Association of
School Boards and represent a compilation of their records and institutional knowledge they have from working
with districts that made the transition to Policy Governance. While these dates were known for 25 districts, the
corresponding student achievement data for those same 25 districts had significant gaps. This is due to limitations in
the Colorado Department of Education’s available student performance data and the fact that CDE only makes
available student performance data going back to the early 2000s, which meant any early Policy Governance
adopters would not have corresponding achievement data needed to run the paired t-test analysis. Also, because the
student achievement data are lagged, any brand new adopters of Policy Governance could not be included in this
analysis because they do not yet have test scores. The preferable analytical tool would have been an interrupted time
series, which could have been used to assess if there were significant changes in academic performance after the
adoption of Policy Governance. However due to the data limitation described here, there was not a large enough
sample to be able to conduct a meaningful time series analysis.
50
Figure 2.3: Proficiency Rates on State Math Tests Over Time
as Reported by the Colorado Department of Education
(note: large marker on each line represents year Policy Governance was adopted in respective district)
87.0%
74.5%
71.3%
71.0%
69.9%
70.3%
67.7%
70.8%
69.7%
68.9%
66.6%
67.3%
65.9%
55.5%
64.9%
55.6%
65.4%
65.6%
56.1%
54.5%
55.5%
53.1%
33.8%
2007 Math
53.1%
34.5%
2008 Math
54.3%
37.3%
2009 Math
70.6%
69.5%
69.1%
67.5%
54.6%
37.6%
2010 Math
55.4%
53.4%
52.6%
53.6%
36.6%
36.7%
36.3%
2011 Math
2012 Math
2013 Math
Aurora
Colorado Springs D-11
Poudre
Academy 20
Fleming
State Average
51
57.1%
56.3%
Figure 2.4: Proficiency Rates on State Literacy Tests Over Time
as Reported by the Colorado Department of Education
(note: large marker on each line represents year Policy Governance was adopted in respective district)
88.7%
85.0%
85.9%
84.9%
84.8%
83.0%
83.5%
78.5%
69.8%
68.9%
67.1%
67.6%
78.3%
78.1%
78.5%
80.6%
79.5%
70.0%
68.5%
68.3%
68.5%
69.3%
67.9%
68.4%
68.0%
66.3%
48.3%
46.0%
43.6%
84.5%
83.0%
79.0%
79.3%
84.6%
46.8%
79.4%
77.3%
69.5%
68.3%
48.6%
46.4%
45.1%
2007 Literacy 2008 Literacy 2009 Literacy 2010 Literacy 2011 Literacy 2012 Literacy 2013 Literacy
Aurora
Colorado Springs D-11
Poudre
Academy 20
Fleming
State Average
To further investigate if there is a statistical difference after a school board adopts Policy
Governance, a paired sample t-test was conducted on achievement data from school districts with
known Policy Governance adoption dates (n=5) as well as corresponding achievement data from
the appropriate date range. As table 2.7 shows below, this comparative analysis of five districts
fails to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in academic achievement (as measured
by performance on state standardized tests for math and literacy) before and after the local
school board adopts Policy Governance.
52
Table 2.7 Comparison of Student Achievement as Measured by Performance on State
Standardized Tests before and after Policy Governance Adoptiona
Variable
M
Academic proficiency on state math tests
Prior to PG adoption
After PG adoption
Academic proficiency on state literacy tests
Prior to PG adoption
After PG adoption
SD
T
-1.14
0.52
0.53
2
p
0.37
0.16
0.14
-0.72
0.64
0.65
df
2
0.55
0.18
0.16
a
Academic proficiency data on state tests as reported by the Colorado Department of Education. After PG
adoption data are lagged 3 years after the date of adoption to account for the fact that it is unlikely that test scores
would have changed in year immediately following the board’s adoption of a new governance model.
Admittedly, it may be difficult to anticipate a direct relationship between board
governance structure and student achievement measures. There are many factors at different
levels that drive student achievement. Even within the education community, there is not a
conclusive answer for how to increase student achievement. With that in mind, this research is
not attempting to say that the governance model of a school board is directly or singularly
associated with student achievement; but instead this research seeks to understand if the school
board’s operation has any effect on a district’s student achievement performance relative to other
factors and if that varies when using a model such as Policy Governance. As stated previously,
when extrapolating the principles of Policy Governance, a correlation was expected between
board governance and student achievement for boards using the Policy Governance model, and
that have an explicitly stated a focus on student achievement and aligned all of their actions
accordingly. However as the analyses above show, there are not notable differences in academic
performance between types of boards (PG and non-PG), or within boards adopting Policy
Governance (pre and post).
53
Other Factors Hypothesized to be Associated with Policy Governance
While the reform literature would suggest that a primary motivation for adopting a new
governance structure, such as Policy Governance is to respond to demands for increased student
achievement, there are also other reasons a board might adopt a new governance structure. In
defining benefits of the Policy Governance model, Carver has indicated that boards should
become more efficient with their time and energy as they move away from management-level
discussions and instead focus on big-picture ends. Another outcome he identifies is an improved
board-executive (superintendent) relationship and an increased ability for the board to be in
touch with its owners (in this case, voters/community members in a school district) 17. Using
survey data from more than 170 school board members representing 81 school districts in
Colorado, it is possible to test some of the assumptions Carver and other proponents have made
about Policy Governance. Specifically these data can show whether or whether not there is a
difference in these outcomes between boards that have formally adopted Policy Governance and
those who have not. The outcomes of interest examined here are board process outcomes and
include perceived efficiency, a focus on ends, the board-superintendent relationship, and a
board’s connectedness to its community. These are thought to be important process outcomes as
defined in literature and specifically highlighted in the Colorado Association of School Boards
Leadership handbook for school board members (CASB, 2013, p. 30-33). Table 2.8 below shows
the test statistics for these outcomes and the discussion immediately follows the table.
17
Furthermore, these four additional outcomes, efficiency, focus on student achievement, positive boardsuperintendent relationships and connections to the community were common themes that school boards members
voiced in open-ended survey questions and interviews. These recurring themes shifted the focus and broadened the
scope of this original research agenda.
54
Table 2.8 Comparison of Expected Operational Outcomes
between Policy Governance and Non-Policy Governance Boards
Variable
Perceived Efficiencyb
Survey Respondents from Policy Governance Boards
Survey Respondents from Non Policy Governance Boards
Focus on Ends (Prioritizing Student Achievement)c
Survey Respondents from Policy Governance Boards
Survey Respondents from Non Policy Governance Boards
Focus on Ends (Discussing Student Achievement)d
Survey Respondents from Policy Governance Boards
Survey Respondents from Non Policy Governance Boards
Relationship with Superintendente
Survey Respondents from Policy Governance Boards
Survey Respondents from Non Policy Governance Boards
Communication with Communityf
Survey Respondents from Policy Governance Boards
Survey Respondents from Non Policy Governance Boards
M
SD
4.21
4.10
0.93
0.93
3.63
3.47
3.68
3.92
4.26
4.48
1.49
1.39
t
df
p
-0.78
168
0.44
-1.61
169
0.11
1.45
170
0.15
1.39a
84.90a
0.17
-0.97
165
0.32
0.59
0.61
0.99
1.03
1.04
0.74
0.66
0.59
a
The t and df were adjusted because assumed variances were not equal.
Efficiency was measured by asking by school board members to self-report: “On a scale of 1-5, how would you
rate the efficiency of your school board meetings?”
c
Focus on Ends—prioritizing SA was measured by asking survey respondents, “In your opinion, is increasing
student achievement a priority in your district.” They could select from a 5 point range of responses from the
most pressing priority to not a priority at all.
d
Focus on Ends—time spent discussing SA was measured by asking survey respondents, “How often does the
board discuss student achievement?” Respondents were asked to select from five choices: at every meeting; at
most meetings (>80%); a some meetings (50%-79%); at a few meetings (<50%); or only when voting on a matter
directly related to student achievement.
e
Relationship with Superintendent was measured by asking survey respondents, “How would you characterize the
relationship between the Board and the Superintendent?” They could select from a 5 point range of responses
from very negative to very positive.
f
Communication from Community was measured by asking survey respondents, “How often are you contacted by
external community members (including parents, students, community members etc)?” They could select from 3
responses: daily, once or twice a week; or once or twice a month.
b
Efficiency. In the survey, respondents are asked to evaluate the efficiency of their board
meetings. For a board that is uses Policy Governance, the institutional structures that board
utilizes are hypothesized to make it more efficient. This is perhaps one of the biggest selling
points Carver makes for adoption of Policy Governance. When boards are focused on policy
55
making to achieve ends and monitoring the superintendent to ensure said policies are met, boards
are not focused on day-to-day management in the weeds and can be more efficient. Policy
Governance board meetings should be markedly different than a traditional business meeting and
in turn, be more efficient. In this analysis, efficiency is measured as a self-report by school board
members on a five-point scale. Policy Governance encourages boards to delegate the operational
activities to the appropriate personnel and by doing so, it is “freed from endless crowding of its
agenda” (Carver, 2000, p. 27). However a t-test shows no statistically significant difference in
board members’ self assessments of efficiency 18 between Policy Governance boards and nonPolicy Governance boards (p = 0.44).
Focus on Ends. Another distinguishing mark of Policy Governance boards is that they
have articulated clear ends (instead of means) and everything the board does it to the fulfillment
and monitoring of those ends. For a school board, since the organizational purpose is to
education students, one end is student achievement. Above, assumptions about raw student
achievement in terms of performance data were tested and the difference between the two types
of boards was inconclusive. Another way to evaluate a board’s focus on ends is to consider how
they prioritize and discuss their ends. Differences that might be expected include that a Policy
Governance board has prioritized student achievement (an end) above any other end or means.
Additionally, it would be plausible that a Policy Governance board would spend more of its time
discussing this key end. As Carver states, “informed obsession with the system’s ends should be
the dominant work of the board” (Carver, 2000 p. 28). However based on survey respondents’
self-reports of their boards, Policy Governance boards and non-Policy Governance boards do not
look strikingly different. The survey data show no statistically significant difference between the
18
Efficiency is measured by school board members self-reports to the following question: “On a scale of 1-5, how
would you rate the efficiency of your school board meetings?”
56
two types of boards as to how much they prioritize student achievement 19 (p = 0.11) nor how
frequently they discuss student achievement at their meetings 20 (p = 0.15).
Board-Superintendent Relationship. A third expectation of Policy Governance is that
there is a healthy relationship between the board and its executive, the superintendent. This
positive relationship is expected because the board and the superintendent have very clearly
defined roles and the board provides direction and the superintendent is able to act within their
expertise to direct operations. Overall, survey respondents indicate a fairly positive relationship
between their board and their superintendent. On a scale of 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive),
the mean as reported by Policy Governance board members was 4.26. Board members from nonPolicy Governance boards reported a similarly positive relationship, only a slightly higher mean
of 4.48. This difference is minor and not statistically significant (p = 0.17). Perhaps an important
test of differences between board-superintendent relationships in different governance models
would come from asking superintendents to rate the relationship. However this was not included
in the scope of this project, but would be an area for further research.
Board Engagement with Community. Finally, a defining feature of the Policy
Governance model is that boards are connected to their “owners” in meaningful ways. School
boards’ owners are taxpayers and other members of their respective communities. Policy
Governance boards should be using a purposeful method of engaging its community and
receiving feedback. This connection between a school board and its community should
“reinforce the public’s sense of ownership of its schools” (Carver, 2000 p. 30). In the survey,
19
This was measured by asking survey respondents, “In your opinion, is increasing student achievement a priority in
your district.” They could select from a 5 point range of responses from the most pressing priority to not a priority at
all.
20
This was measured by asking survey respondents, “How often does the board discuss student achievement?”
Respondents were asked to select from five choices: at every meeting; at most meetings (>80%); a some meetings
(50%-79%); at a few meetings (<50%); or only when voting on a matter directly related to student achievement.
57
school board members indicated how often they were contacted by community members (their
“owners”). While this is not a perfect measure of connectedness between a board and its public,
it can serve as a proxy. As with each of the other measures evaluated, there is no statistically
significant difference (p = 0.32) between Policy Governance and non-Policy Governance
boards—both types of boards members report very similar levels of contact from communities
members.
In addition to looking at survey data, an alternative way to assess school boards’
connectedness to their communities is to consider the success of local education-related tax
questions. In Colorado, the state constitution allows local school districts to place tax questions 21
on their ballots for voter approval. One would expect that if a local board was well connected to
its community, its community would be more inclined to support such a tax question. A board
that is connected to its community arguably would be successful at relaying the need for new
revenues to voters and assessing voters’ appetite for approval of a new funding stream.
21
Tax questions could include mil levy overrides, the ability to issue debt via bonds for capital construction, or the
ability to issue bonds to match dollars awarded to a local district as part of a competitive state funding program for
capital construction.
58
Table 2.9 Percentage of Boards and their Relative Success Rate
for Passing Local Tax Questions 2010-2014a
Success Rateb
0%
20%
25%
33.3%
50%
66.7%
100%
No
Question
on Ballotc
Policy
Governanc
e Boards
(n=31)
35.48%
0.00%
0.00%
3.23%
3.23%
3.23%
29.03%
25.81%
Non-Policy
Governanc
e Boards
(n=81)
19.75%
2.47%
2.47%
1.23%
11.11%
2.47%
60.49%
0.00%
a
Calculated from The Colorado School Finance Project data. Available data from five elections between 2010 and
2014.
b
The success rate is the ratio of education-related tax questions passed over education-related tax questions
placed on the ballot. For example: 0% indicates that the district was not successful in any of their education tax
questions; 50% indicates that between 2010-2014 the board perhaps placed four education related tax measures
on the local ballot and only two passed; while 100% indicates that every education-related tax question put to
voters in a given district between 2010 and 2014 was passed
c
”No Question on the Ballot” indicates that during the five elections from 2010-2014, the local board of education
did not place any type of tax measure on the ballot for consideration from the local community. This could be for
a variety of reasons: there was no need for additional dollars; there was no remaining mil or bonding capacity due
to previous mil levy overrides or bonds issued; or because a district did not want to spend the money putting a
measure to the community if they had strong reason to suspect it would not pass (districts commonly conduct
polling as a tool to gauge likely success of a measure before putting it on the ballot).
As table 2.9 shows, there is not a clear pattern as to which boards experience higher
success passing a local education tax question. One notable finding however is that a higher
percentage of non-Policy Governance boards (60.49%) are able to pass each education-related
tax question put before their voters as compared to the only 29% of Policy Governance boards
who pass 100% of education-related tax measures Also interesting is the fact that Policy
Governance boards were the only boards to not go before their voters with an education tax
measure during the time period for which data was available between 2010-2014 as reflected in
the “No Question on Ballot” column of table 2.9. This could signal that Policy Governance
59
boards had a strong understanding and awareness of their local community’s appetite for tax
increases and therefore knew when it would be counterproductive to seek voter approval for new
revenues. This is an imperfect measure of board connectedness to its community as it does not
take into account economic or political conditions, but it does provide an additional way to look
for patterns and differences between specific outcomes and board governance structures.
Summary
The above analyses are only correlational measures; the effort to trace associations of
institutional structure with outcome data (CDE achievement data and school board members’
self-reports in survey data) proved inconclusive. All of the tests conducted lacked statistical
significance. This suggests that the causal dynamic explaining the difference between Policy
Governance and non-Policy Governance boards of education is more complex than initially was
hypothesized in this research design or espoused by Carver. This finding challenges the key
assumption of the Policy Governance model that different institutional rules result in different
outcomes. When local school boards adopt different institutional rules, in this case by moving to
a Policy Governance model, key outcomes such as student achievement or even basic operational
outcomes like increased perceptions of efficiency do not look different than similar institutions
operating under different rules (non-Policy Governance). This finding highlights two key points.
First, the expectations political scientists have developed about legislative bodies and how their
outcomes can change when institutional structures are changed, may not fit the locally elected
school board. The implications of this will be discussed in greater detail later, but this may
suggest that local school boards are distinctive legislative bodies. The seeming lack of significant
difference between Policy Governance and non-Policy Governance boards challenges the
support for and adoption of the Policy Governance model among Colorado school boards.
60
CHAPTER THREE
Does Policy Governance Still Matter?
Based on the analysis presented in chapter two, locally elected school boards who use
Policy Governance do not look different on key measures from boards that do not use Policy
Governance. Contrary to what was hypothesized, high academic achievement, efficient meetings,
and positive relationships with the superintendent were not found to be statistically more
common in one type of board over another. In short, the answer to the primary research question
of whether or whether not more favorable outcomes are found in districts that use Policy
Governance is generally no. The inability to determine a statistically significant difference
between the two types of boards may solicit an initial reaction that Policy Governance does not
matter. However an alternative interpretation is to consider that Policy Governance is only part
of the equation in explaining what makes an effective or high achieving school board. Perhaps it
is not the sole act of adopting Policy Governance that accounts for variation in outcomes, but
rather a more nuanced explanation. Chapter three presents additional analyses to answer the
second primary research question of what structures and operating procedures are present in
highly effective school boards.
Policy Governance independently, does not seem to be related to higher student
achievement, increased perceived efficiency or even better board-superintendent relationships.
So consider instead that it is a combination of features, not just the school board’s institutional
structure that correlates to higher academic performance. To analyze this, a two-way ANOVA
was completed. An ANOVA allows for the exploration of whether or whether not Policy
Governance interacts with another variable to have an effect on student achievement. For this
analysis, efficiency is selected as the variable of interest because the Carver literature and the
61
CASB training manual underscore board efficiency as a result of good governance practices.
Also, the ANOVA will indicate if the effect of efficiency on student achievement is dependent
upon the governance model a board uses.
This model considers three variables. The dependent variable of interest is still student
achievement, which is a measure of each districts’ performance rating according to the state
department of education. But this model uses two independent variables, governance model (a
dichotomous measure of whether the board uses Policy Governance or not) and the efficiency
rating (based on school board members’ survey responses) to test the relationship. While the
analysis in chapter two showed that Policy Governance alone does not correlate to higher
performing districts or even more time discussing and prioritizing student achievement, there
could be other implications of Policy Governance. If CASB has taken a position of support for
the model, and school boards continue to adopt the model, it would be expected that there is
some value-add of the structures. It is expected that the perceived level of efficiency of a board
meeting is related to the use of Policy Governance; after all, this is one of the primary claims of
the model. As such, the effect of efficiency on student outcomes should be magnified for Policy
Governance boards. The ANOVA will test each of these as well as the interaction of the two
elements.
Policy Governance and Perceived Efficiency: An Interaction
Table 3.1 confirms that neither perceived efficiency nor the governance type alone
contribute to increased student achievement (p = 0.3 and p = 0.39 respectively). However the key
finding is the statistically significant interaction term of Governance Model*Efficiency (p =
0.02). This suggests that a board’s degree of efficiency, as perceived by survey respondents, and
its governance model are both at play in explaining the district’s academic performance. Figure
62
3.1 provides a visual representation of this interaction between the governance structure and
board members’ self-reports of efficiency and the effect on student achievement.
Several notable trends are apparent in Fig 3.1. First, Policy Governance boards at each
extreme of the efficiency scale look fairly similar in terms of student achievement outcomes.
This means that boards who self-rated as “not at all efficient” have similar academic outcomes to
boards that were rated in the survey as “very efficient.” Interestingly, the mean student
achievement for inefficient and highly efficient boards, it is relatively high at 4.0 and 4.12
respective (out of 5). This is yet another indication of the complexity of the relationship between
board functions and structures and student outcomes and suggests that there can be high
academic performance regardless of efficiency when certain institutional structures are in place
(via Policy Governance in this case). Another notable finding in the graphical representation of
the data is the difference between Policy Governance and non-Policy Governance boards at the
lowest and highest levels of efficiency. For boards that were labeled as highly inefficient, it
would be expected that this would adversely affect student outcomes; and it does for boards not
using Policy Governance. However Policy Governance boards, even at the highest level of
inefficiency show higher mean levels of student performance. This trend is also apparent at the
highest level of efficiency: Policy Governance boards when compared to equally efficient nonPolicy Governance boards post slightly higher mean student performance ratings. Perhaps most
interesting is interaction of governance model and efficiency at the “neutral” efficiency rating
(survey respondents indicated that their board was “neither inefficient nor efficient”). At this
level, there is a difference in mean student achievement between the two types of boards and it is
63
the non-Policy Governance boards that have a higher mean student achievement rate, which is
counter to what was expected 22.
Table 3.1 Two-Way Analysis of Variance for Student Achievement
as a Function of Governance Model and Perceived Board Efficiency
Variable
Governance Model
Efficiency
Governance Model*Efficiency
Error
MS
F
p
η2
1
4
4
158
0.64
1.05
2.56
0.85
0.75
1.24
3.02*
0.39
0.30
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.07
Figure 3.1 Mean Student Achievement
as a Function of Governance Model and Perceived Efficiency
5
Estimated Mean Student Perofrmance
df
4.0
4
4.12
3.88
3.6
3.67
3.5
3.48
3.29
3
2.75
2.5
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
Perceptions of Board Efficiency
Policy Governance Boards
Non Policy Governance Boards
22
This finding could suggest that boards in low performing districts adopt Policy Governance as a mechanism of
last resort. This hypothesis was not tested further at time because survey data were not collected to be able to
address this motivation question.
64
Is “Doing” Policy Governance Different from “Being” Policy Governance?
The above inferential statistic begins to suggest that while Policy Governance is not
singularly a significant explanation for higher performance, it may be one part of the story and
that other elements of how a board functions and what it looks like are important as well.
Furthermore, Policy Governance as it was formally designed by Carver is subject to multiple
interpretations and variable implementation. In some instances, these governance characteristics
are not unique to Policy Governance and in fact can be practiced independent of formal adoption
of Policy Governance. A measurement issue emerges if a board has not formally adopted the
model but still follows procedures and practices that look very similar to what might be expected
in a Policy Governance board.
At a conceptual level, this situation can be characterized as one in which rules in use
differ in significant ways from rules in form. To analyze this possibility, it is helpful to abandon
the dichotomous measure of Policy Governance—rules in form—and look more closely at the
rules in use by school boards. Some initial confirmation of this assumption that rules in use may
be more meaningful than rules in form is evident in survey data from school boards members
detailing how their time is spent at meetings. School board members were asked to identify and
rank-order items that consumed the majority of the board’s time at a typical meeting. Using this
data, it is possible to ascertain whether or whether not boards are spending time engaged in work
that is characteristic of Policy Governance. These characteristics could include a variety of
agenda items including board self-evaluation, superintendent evaluation, or issuing policy
directives in the form of general boundaries instead of specific management. Of the prepopulated list, there were thirteen options respondents could select as well as an “other” option.
Table 3.2 shows the various options and denotes whether or whether not these items could also
65
be characteristic of a Policy Governance Board (see table footnotes for justification of when
something is not considered characteristic of Policy Governance).
Table 3.2 Topics on a Typical Board Meeting Agendaa
Frequency of
Mention as
Frequency of
One of Top
Agenda Item
Mention
Three Drivers
of Meeting
Timeb
Policy making (big-picture)
85.6%
11.8%
Hearing from teachers/staff
82.7%
10.2%
c
External community engagement
80.4%
3.9%
Agenda Topics
Evaluating student achievementd
76.3%
10.2%
Expected under
Evaluating programs
73.4%
7.3%
Policy Governance
Hearing from students
71.1%
2.9%
d
Defining student achievement
64.7%
6.6%
Conducting self-assessment
56.5%
1.5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Agenda Topics Not
Traditionally
Expected under
Policy Governance
Setting the budgete
Discussion between board
membersf
Policy making (day-to-day)g
Personnelh
Non-agenda itemsi
Otherj
a
81.5%
10.4%
81.5%
9.1%
69.9%
67.6%
46.8%
40.5%
10.2%
1.5%
0.4%
2.1%
Survey respondents were asked to select from a pre-populated list of thirteen common agenda topics as well as
an “other” category. This list was constructed by reviewing Carver’s Policy Governance materials, CASB
training materials and an analysis of Colorado board agendas. Respondents were asked to select “all that apply”
which is why percentages do not add to 100%.
b
Percent of the time in which item was identified by survey respondents as a top, second or third primary driver
of meeting time
c
External community could include parents, family members, businesses, community organizations, higher
education partners.
d
When Policy Governance is implemented as intended, it would be expected that a board is intensely focused on
its ends (student achievement being an important end for the school board). However as table 3.2 shows, based on
survey respondents’ reports of the top three drivers of their meeting time, student achievement does not occupy as
much space on the agenda as might be anticipated. This seems to suggest a disconnect between what is expected
in Policy Governance and the practice of Policy Governance. It is also possible, however that board members
remain focused on student achievement in all avenues of their board work and might not necessarily identify a
focus on student achievement as a separate, stand-alone activity, but rather woven into other responsibilities and
board discussions. If the latter is the case, the survey question and forced choices as constructed would not
provide survey respondents the ability to articulate this focus. I think of my own board experience when offering
this possible explanation: there is nothing on our board agenda that specifically says “evaluate student
achievement.” Rather the task of evaluating student achievement is at the heart of nearly everything we do. When
we vote on the recommendations for new programs, we look at it through the lens of whether or whether not said
program will improve student achievement. It would be difficult to isolate student achievement as a specific
agenda item on my board. In hindsight, the survey wording could have been better defined to capture this
66
sentiment.
e
Setting the budget, while a statutory responsibility of school boards, is about means. So if a board is spending a
great deal of time discussing the budget, this suggests the board has crossed into management instead of
governance.
f
While discussion between board members is important, more often than not, discussion that occurs at a board
meeting is off topic. A board that is following Policy Governance (whether in name or in practice) would spend
time prior to the meeting in work sessions or other forums engaging in discussion. But if the majority of time at a
board meeting is spent in discussion, this is characteristic of managing not governing.
g
Day-to-day policy making generally deals would operations, which would be considered means and is not where
the board should focus its time and effort in a Policy Governance model.
h
Personnel would include hiring of teachers and staff. Extensive discussion of this would not be expected under a
Policy Governance model as this should be left to the purview of the superintendent. Policy Governance
prescribes that the board has one employee—the superintendent. It would be feasible for the board to have
personnel policy/executive limitations that gave general guidance to the superintendent, but should not occupy
significant discussion time at meetings.
i
Similar to board discussion, if the majority of a meeting is dominated by things other than what was on the
agenda, the board may not be focusing on its ends—as these should be what is reflected in the agenda.
j
Most commonly, “other” responses were not agenda items necessarily expected in Policy Governance, but these
responses were coded on a case-by-case basis and in the instance that the “other” text reasonably corresponded to
one of the other categories, it was coded as such. Other responses that were not recoded into other agenda topic
categories commonly included topics such as honoring community members or staff at meetings; student
performances etc.
As Table 3.2 suggests, practices that would be expected from a Policy Governance board
are widely reported by board members as agenda items at their board meetings. For instance, it is
a widely reported practice to engage with the external community or to conduct program
evaluations. This becomes problematic if analysis is confined to the official labeling of a board
as Policy Governance, when in reality, there could be other boards that are utilizing the same
practices at their board meeting, but for all intents and purposes, would be reflected in the data as
a non-Policy Governance board. Not only do school board members report highly similar types
of governance practices (e.g. community engagement, hearing from teachers and staff etc), but
also a high percentage of survey respondents report that evaluating student achievement is a part
of their board work. Similarly, the fact that many respondents report spending meeting time
talking about student achievement suggests that this is likely not a practice confined to Policy
Governance boards and becomes equally problematic for analysis purposes. However, at the
same time, from a pragmatic standpoint, it is encouraging to know that so many board members
spend time engaged in this important work of focusing on student achievement.
67
The following table, table 3.3 highlights the breakdown of boards subscribing to Policy
Governance in form versus actually applying Policy Governance in use. Using the information
from survey respondents about top drivers of time at board meetings, table 3.3 shows the level of
implementation of Policy Governance practices (based on board member self reports) for boards
that are officially labeled Policy Governance and for boards that do not have an official
designation as Policy Governance. As table 3.3 shows, among those who completed the survey,
there are a handful (3.8%) of boards that claim to be Policy Governance in form, but in use,
demonstrate little evidence of Policy Governance in use. In these cases, it meant that only one of
the top three drivers of time at a typical board meeting was a practice concurrent with Policy
Governance. Interestingly, based on these self-reported data, there are more boards that apply
Policy Governance to some degree in use but are not necessarily identified as Policy Governance
in form. As table 3.3 shows, the most common occurrence (38.8% of sampled boards) was a
board that was not a Policy Governance board in form, but still reported following some
practices (two of their three top drivers of meeting time) like those associated with Policy
Governance.
Boards that are PG in Form
Boards that are not PG in
Form
a
High Reported
Fidelity to PG
Medium Reported
Fidelity to PG
Low Reported
Fidelity to PG
No Reported
Fidelity to PG
Table 3.3 Comparison of Policy Governance Rules in Form and Rules in Usea
0%
3.8%
(n=3)
17.5%
(n=14)
6.3%
(n=5)
3.8%
(n=3)
21.3%
(n=17)
38.8%
(n=31)
8.8%
(n=7)
Scale based on school board member survey responses (total n=80): “low reported fidelity” was
68
when one of three top drivers of meeting time was a practice expected under PG; “medium reported
fidelity” was when two of three top drivers of meeting time were practices expected under PG; and
“high reported fidelity” was when all three top drivers of meeting time were practices expected under
PG. This scale does not apply different weights to different drivers of time. For example, in
constructing the measure, defining student achievement and conducting board self evaluation would
be treated equally important and equally indicative of Policy Governance-like practice. This is largely
because it is difficult to develop a theoretical rationale for why one practice would be more important
than another. Carver does not apply any rank ordering to practices, but is more concerned with the
board implementing the model in full.
Measuring Fidelity to Policy Governance: Rules in Use
As table 3.3 reflects, by using survey data and school board members’ self-reports of
what the primary drivers of board meeting time are, it is reasonable to consider a more robust
characterization of school boards that is based on their actual practices rather than relying on
whether or whether not they (or CASB) say they are using the Policy Governance model. This
new variable—Policy Governance fidelityiids a constructed scale that reflects how many Policy
Governance-like practices a board has in place based on survey responses, regardless of whether
or whether not the board is identified as a Policy Governance board 23. This new variable reflects
a board’s level of fidelity to the Policy Governance model, based on board members’ self
reports. Subsequent analysis will employ this more sensitive measure of Policy Governance.
Table 3.4 below presents the original list of Colorado school districts that were identified
by the Colorado Association of School Boards and/or self-proclaimed by the individual school
23
This newly created variable is a four-point scaled variable that assesses whether or whether not the self-reported
topics that consume board meeting time are characteristic of PG. To measure this question, survey respondents were
asked to identify what the top drivers of their meeting time were at a typical board meeting. They could select from
a pre-populated list, which included some things that would be iconic PG practices, agenda items or topics and other
items that might be found at a typical business meeting as well as an “other” category. This list was generated by
analyzing a random sample of over twenty different districts’ agendas and coding for common themes. The new
variable’s range was from 0-3, with 0 to be interpreted as no implementation of PG and 3 being a high level of
implementation of PG. A respondent would be coded 0 if none of their top three time drivers were PG-like features;
a 1 if one of their top time drivers was PG and so on. A respondent who indicated all three drivers of meeting time
were PG-like activities would be coded a 3. The appropriate test was conducted to determine the construct validity
of this new measure relative to the original dichotomous PG measure. The resulting Cronbach’s alpha was 0.34. The
fact that there is not a clear relationship between PG in form (the dichotomous variable) and PG rules in use (the PG
fidelity measure) strengthens the ability to draw the conclusion that PG in form does not matter and also likely
explains why any analyses using the dichotomous PG measure failed to reach statistical significance.
69
board with the new fidelity variable. As noted on the table, among the boards that claim to be
Policy Governance boards, they vary in the degree to which they implement Policy Governance
practices. Also, as noted in table 3.3 above, there are 55 school boards that do not appear on the
original Policy Governance list, but based on self-reports in survey data, are implementing
practices that would be coherent with Policy Governance.
Table 3.4 Reported Level of Fidelity to Policy Governance
in Use for Original Policy Governance Boards
Date of PG
Reported Fidelity to
District Name
PG Modela
Adoption
Medium
n/a
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
n/a
High
High
Medium
n/a
Medium
n/a
n/a
Some
Low
Low
Low
Medium
n/a
n/a
Medium
n/a
High
High
Medium
n/a
Medium
Medium
Woodland Park
1998
a
Based on survey data that asked board members to identify the top three
drivers of meeting time. In cases where a board member identified 1 of 3
drivers as Policy Governance-like, they are noted as reporting low fidelity to
PG in use; 2 of 3 drivers is medium fidelity; and 3 of 3 drivers is high
fidelity. Entries that read n/a mean there was not sufficient survey data from
Academy 20
Adams 12
Aurora
Adams 50
Aspen 1
Brighton 27J
Buena Vista
Colo Springs 11
De Beque
Douglas County
Durango
Eagle County
East Grand
Estes Park
Frenchman
Hinsdale County
Jefferson County
Keenesburg
Lake County
Lewis-Palmer
Mapleton 1
Moffat County
Park County
Poudre
Sheridan
St. Vrain
Steamboat Springs
Telluride
Trinidad
Weld County RE-8
2005
2000
2009
2001
1998
unknown
2000
2007
unknown
2000
1996
1998
1998
1998
2005
1998
2000
1998
1998
unknown
unknown
2001
2001
2007
2001
unknown
1998
1998
2004
unknown
70
which to evaluate evidence of implementation.
As was noted previously, while specific characteristics are expected with Policy
Governance, it is possible that boards not using Policy Governance may also exhibit the highly
similar characteristics. The new Policy Governance fidelity measure captures these rules in use.
Therefore, boards with higher reported fidelity to Policy Governance are expected to also have
greater student achievement, efficiency and a positive board-superintendent relationship. To test
these presumed relationships, the following series of ANOVAs were conducted and the results
are presented on table 3.5.
71
Table 3.5 ANOVA Tests Between Fidelity to Policy Governance and Key Outcomes
Variable
M
SD
School Performance Framework Ratinga
Boards with no reported fidelity to PG
Boards with low reported fidelity to PG
Boards with medium reported fidelity to PG
Boards with high reported fidelity to PG
2.71
3.50
3.63
3.59
56.67
65.89
66.59
66.40
0.80
0.81
0.83
0.83
4.00
3.55
4.22
4.46
a
4.38
4.24
4.48
4.54
4.38
159
0.09
1.41
159
0.24
0.36
159
0.79
6.67
161
0.00***
0.97f
74.13f
0.41
0.53
1.12
0.93
0.61
Relationship with Superintendente
Boards with no reported fidelity to PG
Boards with low reported fidelity to PG
Boards with medium reported fidelity to PG
Boards with high reported fidelity to PG
Boards with no reported fidelity to PG
2.15
0.14
0.20
0.11
0.08
Perceived Efficiencyd
Boards with no reported fidelity to PG
Boards with low reported fidelity to PG
Boards with medium reported fidelity to PG
Boards with high reported fidelity to PG
p
12.47
12.65
12.33
12.12
Graduation Ratesc
Boards with no reported fidelity to PG
Boards with low reported fidelity to PG
Boards with medium reported fidelity to PG
Boards with high reported fidelity to PG
df
1.25
0.96
0.92
0.87
School Performance Rating Pointsb
Boards with no reported fidelity to PG
Boards with low reported fidelity to PG
Boards with medium reported fidelity to PG
Boards with high reported fidelity to PG
t
0.74
0.96
0.85
0.65
0.74
As reported by the Colorado Department of Education (ranges from 1-5, lowest to highest rated districts)
As reported by the Colorado Department of Education (ranges from 39.5-91.0 out of a possible 100 points)
c
As reported by the Colorado Department of Education (ranges from 0.0-1.0)
b
72
d
Perceived efficiency was measured by asking by school board members to self-report: “On a scale of 1-5, how
would you rate the efficiency of your school board meetings?” (responses range from 1-5)
e
Relationship with Superintendent was measured by asking survey respondents, “How would you characterize the
relationship between the Board and the Superintendent?” They could select from a 5 point range of responses
from very negative to very positive (responses range from 2-5).
f
tf and df adjusted because assumed variances were not equal
significant at p = 0.000
***
73
Table 3.5 reports whether there were meaningful differences in outcomes between boards
with different reported levels of Policy Governance fidelity. While there generally were few
instances of statistical significance, one variable that stands out is perceived efficiency (p =
0.000). Further analysis indicated statistically significant differences in how board members
perceived their board’s efficiency between those boards reporting low fidelity to Policy
Governance and those reporting medium fidelity to the model. In this instance, boards that
reported a medium level of fidelity to implementing Policy Governance experienced higher
perceptions of efficiency compared to boards with lower reports of fidelity. Additionally, there is
a statistically meaningful difference in perceived efficiency between low fidelity and high
fidelity boards, with high fidelity boards more likely to perceive higher levels of efficiency. In
general, this suggests that with greater fidelity to the Policy Governance model, or in other
words, implementing practices that would be expected under Policy Governance, board members
perceive greater efficiency at board meetings. It should also be noted that the performance
framework rating, a 1-5 scaled representation of a district’s relative academic success,
approaches statistical significance in the ANOVA presented on table 3.5 with p = 0.09. The
between group differences that hint at statistical significance are found between boards with no
reported fidelity and those indicating a medium level of fidelity to implementation.
Modeling Student Achievement
Thus far, the analysis presented has explored whether or whether not the institutional
structure of a school board, specifically Policy Governance, makes a difference as measured by
comparing means and between subject effects. These analyses have returned mixed results.
While the effect of Policy Governance was not shown by survey data to be as significant as
anticipated, the statistical analysis did highlight some significance. Namely, that relying on
74
whether or whether not a board identifies as Policy Governance is not as analytically useful as
knowing the degree to which a board actually implements practices in line with Policy
Governance. In addition to confirming or refuting variables hypothesized to be important to
student achievement, these findings help inform further models to test outcomes as a feature of
governance structure.
Student Achievement and Governance Structure. Table 3.6 presents models that use
governance structure as the independent variable of interest to explain student achievement. For
comparison, both versions of the Policy Governance (in form and in use) variable are presented.
The first model is largely contextual in nature and looks only at demographic features of a school
district and community that are expected to be related to student achievement and does not
include a governance structure variable. As expected, the model demonstrates that lower student
achievement tends to correlate to districts with high rates of poverty (as measured by the percent
of students on free and reduced lunch) and to districts with highly diverse student populations.
Additionally, model one and the subsequent models show that districts with more per pupil
money than that state average 24 tend to be higher performing.
Model two introduces the governance structure (Policy Governance in form) and reveals
that when controlling for descriptive and demographic factors, the label of being a Policy
Governance board is not significant in explaining student achievement. Model three represents a
more nuanced look at the governance model: instead of presenting a dichotomous measure of
Policy Governance in form, the variable Policy Governance Fidelity is used. This third model
demonstrates that even with the inclusion of a more discrete measure of Policy Governance, the
24
A district would have more money than the state average if they received federal dollars for at risk student
populations (based on poverty, homelessness, English language learners etc) and/or local tax dollars from a mill levy
override.
75
institutional structure of a school board still does not have a statistically significant impact on
student achievement 25.
Table 3.6 Student Achievementa and Institutional Structure
Variable
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
% Poverty+b
-0.53***
-0.54***
-0.52***
% Minority+c
-0.34***
-0.33***
-0.34***
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
0.22***
0.22***
0.23***
PG in form (yes/no)f
--
-0.02
--
PG Fidelity (in use)g
--
--
0.58
66.23***
66.43***
65.23***
78
4
0.75
0.73
78
5
0.75
0.73
78
5
0.75
0.73
Student Stability+d
Per Pupil Funding (relative to
avg)+e
Constant
Observations
df
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
a
Student achievement DV data as reported by the Colorado Department of Education and reflects the
assigned academic performance rating on a 100 point scale..
b
Percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, the federal measure of poverty in
education.
c
Percentage of non-white students.
d
Student stability is a measure of the percentage of students who remain at the same school throughout
the duration of the school
e
A measure of the difference relative to the state per pupil funding base rate. It varies based on funds
received for at-risk student or from local tax questions.
f
Dichotomous 1/0 for being identified by CASB records as a Policy Governance board
g
The more nuanced, 4 point measure that reflects survey data of how many Policy Governance-like
practices are used in meetings.
+
Variables standardized were standardized as a result of high standard error terms.
To rule out problems of multi-colinearity, tolerances and variance inflation factors were tested and
confirmed to be within acceptable ranges.
* significant at p <0.05 ** significant at p <0.01 *** significant at p < 0.001
25
It should be noted that in model 2, the PG coefficient is negative. While this is not emphasized in the discussion
because the variable is not statistically significant, it would mean that there is a negative relationship between boards
that claim to use Policy Governance and student achievement. In model 3, the PG fidelity coefficient is positive
which suggests a positive correlation to student achievement when boards fill their meeting time with Policy
Governance-like practices. However this coefficient also fails to reach levels of statistical significance so this
finding cannot be stated with confidence.
76
When School Board Members Perceive their Function is to Increase Student Achievement
While the above analysis has demonstrated a lack of direct correlation between
institutional rules and student achievement outcomes, an alternative explanation could lie in the
board members’ perceptions of their role. It is reasonable to expect that personally held beliefs
about the function and purpose of the school board would be stronger explanatory predictors of
outcomes than labels of institutional rules.
To test this, the model presented on table 3.7 introduces a variable that captures when a
board member self-reports that the primary function of the school board is to increase student
achievement 26. It would follow that in these cases the perception of board purpose being to
increase student achievement would be a predictor of increased student achievement. However,
as reflected in table 3.7, this does not appear to be the case: a perceived function of increasing
student achievement does not correlate at statistically significant levels to actual increased
student achievement. This could be explained by the fact that among those respondents who
reported the purpose of the school board is to increase student achievement also happen to most
often be from boards with already low student performance. The variables that consistently are
statistically significant and inversely related to student achievement include high percentages of
poverty and high percentages of minority student populations. This observation is significant and
serves as a reminder that there are factors that correlate with student achievement that cannot
directly be addressed by changing governance rules. The structure of the public school system in
26
This was measured by the survey question that asked, “In your perspective, what do you see as the primary
function and purpose of the school board?” In response, there was a set of choices that could be selected, one of
which was increasing student achievement.
77
the United States is such that any and every student that shows up must be educated. The school
board cannot (and should not) attempt to change this reality.
Table 3.7 Modeling Perceptions and Student Achievement
Variable
Model 4a
% Povertyb
-0.52***
% Minority+c
-0.35***
Student Stability+d
-0.03
Per Pupil Funding (relative to avg)+e
0.22
PG Fidelityf
0.03
Perceived Function is to Increase
Achievementg
0.03
Constant
65.18***
Observations
df
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
78
5
0.75
0.73
a
Model 4 DV is student achievement as reported by the Colorado Department of
Education.
b
Percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, the federal measure of
poverty in education.
c
Percentage of non-white students.
d
Student stability is a measure of the percentage of students who remain at the same
school throughout the duration of the school year
e
A measure of the difference relative to the state per pupil funding base rate. It varies
based on funds received for at-risk student or from local tax questions.
f
Measure of how many PG-like practices are top drivers of board meeting time.
g
Measured with responses to survey question, “In your perspective, what do you see as
the primary function and purpose of the school board?”
+
Variables were standardized as a result of high standard error terms.
***significant at p < 0.001
Additional Analysis of Board Member Perceptions
With the survey data collected from school board members, it is also possible to isolate
how individuals’ perceptions vary across boards using different institutional structures. The
78
following analyses consider individual level perception data. In these models, instead of
considering what factors influence student achievement, the dependent variable of interest is
what the individual board member perceives to be the primary function of the school board 27.
There are two sets of models presented in tables 3.8 and 3.9 respectively. These models represent
an attempt to better understand other outcomes that may be influenced by institutional structure.
While previous analyses do not show higher student achievement outcomes for boards that use
Policy Governance or boards that practice Policy Governance in use, by modeling role
perception data as the outcome, it is possible to test whether or whether not Policy Governance,
in form or in use, correlates to specific perceived functions of the board. The three functions
considered include whether the job of the board is to increase student achievement, oversee the
superintendent, or set policy. Arguably, in Policy Governance, any one of these three perceived
functions would be considered appropriate. Therefore, it would be expected that Policy
Governance correlates to function in each model at a statistically significant level. In the first set
of models on table 3.8, the analysis uses the Policy Governance in form variable—that is the
dichotomous PG or non-PG based on CASB data. The second set of models found on table 3.9
use the more sensitive measure that reflects Policy Governance principles in use as captured in
the Policy Governance fidelity variable.
27
In response to a series of questions that ask, “Is ______________ [increasing student achievement/overseeing the
superintendent/setting policy] the primary function of the school board?”
79
Table 3.8 Modeling School Board Member Perceptions of the Primary Function
of the Board for Policy Governance in Form Boards
Model 5a
Model 6b
Model 7c
Function is to
Increase Student
Achievement
Function is to
Oversee
Superintendent
Function is to Set
Policy
0.09
(0.07)
-0.09
(0.05)
0.07
(0.06)
0.06*
-0.02
-0.02
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.02)
-0.01
0.06
-0.01
(0.01)
(0.03)+
0.01
PGf
-0.08
(0.07)
0.02
(0.02)
-0.14*
(0.07)
Constant
0.03
(0.02)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.33+
(0.19)
158
4
0.07
0.04
158
4
0.04
0.02
158
4
0.04
0.01
Variable
Gender
Length of Time on
Boardd
Quality of BoardSuperintendent
Relationshipe
Observations
df
R2
Adjusted R2
a
DV is school board members self report primary function of the board is to increase student achievement.
DV is school board members self report primary function of the board is to oversee the superintendent.
c
DV is school board members self report primary function of the board is to set policy.
d
In the survey, school board members were asked to identify how long they had been serving on their local
board of education.
e
As measured in response to survey question that asks board members, “How would you characterize the nature
of the relationship between the board and the superintendent?” Responses range on a five point scale from very
negative to very positive.
f
The measure that captures whether or whether not a board is officially identified as a PG board.
b
Standard errors are reported in parentheses.
significant at p <0.1 * significant at p <0.05 ** significant at p <0.01 *** significant at p < 0.001
+
80
While previous analyses did not show a correlation between a board that was Policy
Governance and student achievement, the results in Table 3.8 suggest other outcomes that might
be present when a board operates under Policy Governance. There is a statistically significant
relationship between the length of time that an individual has served on his or her local board
and whether or not they see the board’s primary function as increasing student achievement. A
brand new board member may come onto the board with grand notions of individual programs
they want to fix or a track coach they want to get fired; but the more seasoned board member
begins to see a more universal focus on student achievement as the primary function of the
board. This same finding is also present in table 3.9 below for boards that successfully
operationalize the characteristics of Policy Governance. Table 3.8 above also reports a
statistically significant, but negative relationship between being a Policy Governance board and
perceiving that the primary function of the board is to set policy. More likely than not, this
unanticipated significance is reflective of the problematic nature of the dichotomous Policy
Governance variable.
A third finding of note is the relationship (albeit weak) between perceiving the function
of the board is to oversee the superintendent and having a positive relationship with the
superintendent. This is not an unreasonable finding; if a board member has a strong and positive
relationship with his or her superintendent, it may be easier for that individual to perceive their
role to be about maintaining that relationship, which could occur through oversight of the
superintendent. However, it seems more logical (although this was not the case) that if the boardsuperintendent relationship was negative, this would correlate to an increased likelihood that a
board member feels their function is oversight of the superintendent. For instance if the board-
81
superintendent relationship suffered from a lack of trust and transparency, individual board
members may be more sensitive to the need to closely monitor the superintendent.
Table 3.9 Modeling School Board Member Perceptions of the Primary Function
of the Board for Policy Governance in Use Boards
Model 8a
Model 9b
Model 10c
Function is to
Increase Student
Achievement
Function is to
Oversee
Superintendent
Function is to Set
Policy
0.07
(0.04)
-0.05
(0.05)
0.08
(0.07)
0.06*
-0.02
-0.02
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.03)
0.03
0.05
-0.01
(0.02)
(0.03)
0.01
PG Fidelityf
0.02
(0.02)
0.04
(0.03)
-0.06
(0.05)
Constant
-0.15
(0.12)
-0.06
(0.05)
0.43*
(0.21)
149
4
0.07
0.04
149
4
0.03
0.01
149
4
0.03
0.01
Variable
Gender
Length of Time on
Boardd
Quality of BoardSuperintendent
Relationshipe
Observations
df
R2
Adjusted R2
a
DV is school board members self report primary function of the board is to increase student achievement.
DV is school board members self report primary function of the board is to oversee the superintendent.
c
DV is school board members self report primary function of the board is to set policy.
d
In the survey, school board members were asked to identify how long they had been serving on their local
board of education.
e
As measured in response to survey question that asks board members, “How would you characterize the nature
of the relationship between the board and the superintendent?” Responses range on a five point scale from very
negative to very positive.
f
The measure that captures the scale of implementation of Policy Governance like practices.
b
Standard errors are reported in parentheses.
significant at p <0.1 * significant at p <0.05 ** significant at p <0.01 *** significant at p < 0.001
+
82
Other than the relationship between length of time on the board and the perception that
the function of the board is to increase student achievement, which was discussed above, table
3.9 reveals no further statistically significant relationships. In none of these models does Policy
Governance (in use or in form) influence board members’ perceptions of what their job is. This
could suggest that they already have strongly held convictions about what their role is that are
apart from their gender, how well they get along with the superintendent or the institutional rules
by which their board operates.
Explaining Unexpected Results: A Glimpse inside the Black Box via Telluride and Salida
The above analyses offered mixed results: some of the key assumptions failed to achieve
statistical significance while other interesting and unexpected interactions surfaced as important
to explaining the variation in student achievement. The interaction terms that did show statistical
significance, including efficiency and governance structure along with what occupied the
majority of the agenda at a typical meeting and governance structure, highlight that the effect of
the institutional structure does not provide a straightforward explanation for student achievement
outcomes. Instead, more context is needed. While chapter four will use survey and interview data
to explain some of the findings in chapter three, it is useful to first unpack some of the
assumptions of this model and take a look inside the governance processes. The following
discussion highlights two boards, Telluride and Salida, both with similar board and community
dynamics (inputs) and high student achievement (outputs), but with the key difference being the
institutional design (one using Policy Governance, and the other not using Policy Governance).
Table 3.10 shows the similarities of these two districts.
83
Table 3.10 Profile of Telluride and Salida School Districtsa
Telluride
Salida
School District
School District
(Policy Governance)
(Non-Policy
Governance)
Community Type
Type of Community
Small Rural
Small Rural
3
842
6
1,176
20.08%
25.81%
19.42%
39.27%
80.66%
0.32%
87.84%
21.15
80.12%
0.34%
86.05%
20.70
School District Size
number of schools
total number of students
Student Demographics
% Non-White
% Free and Reduced Lunch
Academic Performance
% Proficient and Advanced on Standardized Tests
Drop-Out Rate
Graduation Rate
Composite ACT Score (out of possible 36 points)
a
Data from the Colorado Department of Education’s public online database, SchoolView
Supporting Student Achievement. In interview and open-ended survey questions, it is
clear that both boards have similar goals of focusing on student achievement. However there
were slight differences that distinguished the two boards and help shed light on how the
governance mechanism translates to outcomes. In Telluride, the Policy Governance board, the
board member shared that the primary way the school board supports increased student
achievement is through articulating clear expectations and performance targets for the
superintendent who in turn, would direct staff and teachers to align their work with the board’s
goals and objectives. In Salida, the non-Policy Governance board, the mechanism the board uses
to promote student achievement is different. The Salida school board member indicated that it
was the board’s job to provide teachers and administrators the tools they needed; ensure a safe
84
learning environment and to have good curriculum in place to achieve the goal of student
achievement. Both board members share a similar goal of focusing on student achievement, and
note that this function is expected both externally by the voting community and parents, but also
internally as a self-proclaimed board goal. However in the Policy Governance case, the board is
leveraging policy and its ability to set and monitor expectations to gain compliance around
increased student achievement. In Telluride, the board sets its goals for student performance and
then monitors the superintendent to ensure student performance targets are being met. When
targets are not met, the board reprimands the superintendent (in superintendent evaluations) or
changes policy in attempts to gain compliance with board expectations. On the other hand, the
non-Policy Governance board believes they increase student achievement through more direct
means like ensuring teachers have textbooks and technology in their classrooms. In Salida,
instead of using policy and monitoring of the superintendent to direct student achievement, based
on the board member interviewed, it appears that board members are much more active in
resource allocation and direct communication with classroom teachers as means to support
student achievement.
Monitoring and Oversight. Another notable difference between the two boards is how
they engage in monitoring and oversight and more generally, what they perceive their oversight
function to be. In Telluride, the school board member shared that the board monitors the
activities of the district by regularly reviewing key achievement data and seeking out feedback
from staff, teachers and students. The board then uses these data to assess progress toward their
stated goals and ends. In Salida, the school board member shared a more passive approach to
monitoring that relegated some of the direct oversight function away from the school board. In
this case, Salida leverages existing accountability committees within each school building. These
85
committees (comprised primarily of school personnel and parents) regularly report back to the
board of education, allowing the board to monitor what is going on and hear about any building
concerns. Again, in both instances, the boards recognize the importance of using progress data
and monitoring what is happening in school buildings to evaluate overall progress toward goals.
One board engages in a more direct oversight role, as would be expected by the Policy
Governance model, while the other fulfils their monitoring by relying on the perceptions and
reports of others in the existing organizational structure.
Role of Superintendent. Another feature of each board’s governance processes to
evaluate is the role of the superintendent. No matter the governance structure, a positive and
strong working relationship between the board and its superintendent is critical for success. The
respondent from the Policy Governance board in Telluride notes that function of the
superintendent is to share the goals that the board has outlined with the district community and
align necessary resources (financial and human) to turn these goals into reality. According to the
Salida board member, the Salida superintendent’s role is to manage the district and ensure
implementation of compliance with all state and federal mandates. While it is unlikely that the
Telluride board member would disagree that basic management is an important function of the
superintendent, the telling difference is that the Telluride board sees the superintendent as a
direct employee of the board, responsible and accountable to the board. The Salida board on the
other hand, has a structure where the superintendent is accountable to outside entities (the state
and federal government).
While both the Salida and Telluride school districts have relatively high performance
(both receiving high marks of accreditation by the state and boasting graduation rates above
90%), the two school boards govern differently. The preceding discussion has attempted to
86
highlight these differences and in doing so, illuminate differences in board governance processes.
The two figures below summarize the governance models in Telluride and Salida, with a focus
on how each board operationalizes three key aspects of board governance (increasing student
achievement, oversight, and board-superintendent relationship). This analysis begins to confirm
the lack of statistical significance of previously presented models, which sought to understand
student achievement as a function of institutional board governance structures. Instead, as these
figures show, high student achievement is not isolated to one type of governance.
Figure 3.2 The Policy Governance Black Box
The Black Box:
POLICY GOVERNANCE
INPUTS
•
•
•
•
Elected board
members
Small, rural
community
Approx. 1,000
students
.
Stated board goal on
increasing student
•
•
Increase Student
Achievement: Board
articulates student
achievement priorities in the
form of policy and
expectations for
superintendent.
Oversight: Board monitors
progress toward board goals
by reviewing data and
gathering stakeholder
feedback.
87
OUTPUTS
•
•
•
High accreditation by
state
95% graduation rate
Students outperform
state averages on
standardized tests
Figure 3.3 The Non-Policy Governance Black Box
The Black Box:
NON POLICY GOVERNANCE
INPUTS
•
•
•
•
Elected board
members
Small, rural
community
Approx. 1,000
students
Stated board goal on
increasing student
•
•
Increase Student
Achievement: Board ensures
staff have resources; students
have safe learning
environment; and district uses
appropriate curriculum to
support high student
achievement
OUTPUTS
•
•
•
High accreditation by
state
90% graduation rate
Students outperform
state averages on
t d di d t t
Oversight: Board relies on
existing feedback loops to
carry out monitoring
functions.
Differing Implementations of the Same Model: Aspen and Adams 50
Another useful comparison to consider when reviewing the analyses presented in the
above chapter is to look at a high and low performing district, each of which uses Policy
Governance. The correlational measures and other models show limited evidence of a direct
relationship between board structure and outcomes, but instead an interaction of the governance
model with efficiency and what the boards spends doing. This is evident when looking at Aspen,
which is the second highest performing district in the state, and Adams 50, which is among the
lowest in the state for student achievement and is facing takeover by the state Department of
Education within the next year if trends continue. Both boards use Policy Governance, yet only
in the case of Aspen is there also high student achievement. Table 3.11 shows the stark
differences in student achievement between these two districts, both users in form of Policy
Governance.
88
Table 3.11 Profile of Two Policy Governance Districts: Aspen and Adams 50a
Aspen
Adams 50
School District
School District
Community Type
Type of Community
Small Rural
Large Suburban
5
1,728
20
10,101
13.77%
5.38%
80.60%
80.75%
86.61%
<0.5%
96.69%
24.41
46.57%
4.33%
64.07%
15.84
School District Size
number of schools
total number of students
Student Demographics
% Non-White
% Free and Reduced Lunch
Academic Performance
% Proficient and Advanced on Standardized Tests
Drop-Out Rate
Graduation Rate
Composite ACT Score (out of possible 36 points)
a
Data from the Colorado Department of Education’s public online database, SchoolView.
Both boards, in form, follow Policy Governance: both have policy language and vision
statements that speak to the board’s involvement in the process of increasing student
achievement and both articulate the importance of, and have processes and policies outlining the
need for meaningful community engagement. School board members from both boards even
state that they find the model of Policy Governance beneficial and believe this model makes it
easier to do their board work by providing a clear process and decision making framework.
However, when looking at Policy Governance in use in Aspen and Adams 50, there is a
key difference in how the two boards operationalize the same model. In Aspen, the board
member notes that the function of the school board is to increase student achievement, but also
and equally important, the board’s task is to monitor the superintendent. When discussing how
the board can support student achievement, the Aspen school board member references back to
89
the function of monitoring the superintendent and states that the board increases student
achievement by monitoring the superintendent to ensure that the board’s policies and ends are
being met. In Adams 50, the board member does not place as much significance on monitoring
the superintendent. This school board member shares the board supports increased student
achievement by regularly reviewing student performance data. While this is important and
certainly represents a way by which the board can conduct its monitoring responsibilities, this
approach lacks the focus on monitoring the superintendent, which Carver would say is an
important element of the full Policy Governance approach.
The differences between these two boards show how slightly different interpretations and
enactments of the Policy Governance matter. In Aspen, the board makes a commitment to
closely monitoring the superintendent in addition to student achievement data and connecting
their ends to this monitoring; whereas Adams 50 appears to focus more narrowly on student
achievement data. Aspen does boast significantly higher student achievement scores than Adams
50. However as noted on Table 3.9, it is likely there are other factors, such as the high percentage
of impacted and at-risk students in Adams 50 that explain some of these differences. However
their difference in implementation of Policy Governance begs the question whether or whether
not adherence to a true form of Policy Governance would help Adams 50.
Summary
The relationships that were hypothesized, both from the literature as well as from the
findings in chapter two, largely failed to be confirmed with statistically significant results. The
immediately preceding discussion provides a glimpse into the decision making processes
associated with board governance to further illustrate how high student achievement may be
90
agnostic to board governance structure and in other cases, how a board can use Policy
Governance and still experience chronically low student achievement. To further investigate the
complexity of the variations found in Colorado school boards, not attributable to their
governance model, chapter four considers additional qualitative data from surveys and
interviews.
91
CHAPTER FOUR
Providing Context: Survey and Interview Data
In addition to informing the quantitative analysis presented in chapters two and three,
survey data provide context to explain and interpret the research findings. Interview data also
help answer the research question about the role of institutional designs found in Colorado
school boards. As noted in chapter three, the quantitative data analysis provided mixed results
and failed to support the anticipated findings. However qualitative survey and interview data are
used to discuss four primary findings: first, how do board members describe their governance
models; second, what board members see as the value-add of their respective board governance
processes; third, what do board members see as their role in increasing student achievement and
how, if at all, is this related to the institutional structures of their boards; and finally how do
board members characterize their relationships with the superintendent?
Interview data were collected from 16 board members representing 15 different boards in
Colorado. Table 4.1 describes interview participants. Interview participants were identified from
a random sample process. Survey participants had the opportunity to indicate their willingness to
participate in a follow-up phone interview. From that pool of willing interviewees, a sample of
10 board members from Policy Governance boards and 10 board members from non-Policy
Governance boards was drawn. Of the 20 individuals contacted with requests for interviews, 16
were completed, for an overall participation rate of 80%. While the distributions are not
completely equal between categories, the sample of participants provides a rich diversity.
92
Table 4.1 School Board Member Interview Participants
Policy
Accreditation
Approx.
Districta
Rural/Urban
Ratingb
Enrollmentc
Governance
A
yes
2
urban
40,000
B
yes
2
urban
10,000
C
yes
5
rural
1,700
D
no
4
urban
>50,000
E
no
3
urban
30,000
F
no
4
rural
<100
G
no
4
rural
500
H
yes
4
rural
6,000
I
yes
4
urban
>50,000
J
yes
5
rural
200
K.1d
yes
4
urban
28,000
K.2d
yes
4
urban
28,000
L
no
4
rural
1,000
M
yes
5
rural
2,000
N
yes
5
rural
800
O
no
3
rural
2,000
a
To maintain anonymity, district names were removed. In the analysis, districts and board
members are referenced by letter.
b
5 point scale with 1 being the lowest (turnaround) and 5 the highest (accredited with
distinction) as assigned by the Colorado Department of Education
c
Enrollment rounded from Colorado Department of Education’s reports to prevent identification
of district
d
Due to a sampling error, ended up with two board members from the same board. Both board
members’ responses were included as they provide rich analysis.
In addition to the 16 phone interviews conducted with school board members, 4 phone
interviews were conducted with school superintendents. All of these respondents were from
Policy Governance boards. These interviews were conducted to provide additional insight and
context about the utility of the Policy Governance model as well as the board-superintendent
relationship. Table 4.2 below shows the characteristics of the districts for superintendent
interview participants.
93
Districta
A.1
A.2
N
P
Table 4.2 Superintendent Interview Participants
Policy
Accreditation
Approx.
Rural/Urban
Ratingb
Enrollmentc
Governance
yes
2
urban
40,000
yes
2
urban
40,000
yes
5
rural
800
yes
1
urban
6,500
a
To maintain anonymity, district names were removed. In the analysis, districts and
superintendents are referenced by letter.
b
5 point scale with 1 being the lowest (turnaround) and 5 the highest (accredited with
distinction) as assigned by the Colorado Department of Education
c
Enrollment rounded from Colorado Department of Education’s reports to prevent identification
of district
How Board Members View Institutional Structures
During the interviews, board members were asked to describe the governance model or
structure under which their board conducts its business. An interesting observation was that for
board members on boards that use Policy Governance, these participants universally were able to
identify the model and key structures. When asked to describe the unique characteristics of this
model, the most common responses included mention of using policy to govern or policy as a
framework for making decisions (n = 8) and the importance of monitoring (n = 4); either
monitoring the superintendent or regularly reviewing monitoring reports. When the same
question was posed to the six interview participants from non-Policy Governance boards, a
common response was to ask for clarification about what was meant by structure or governance
model. This suggests that these board members from non-Policy Governance boards do not
immediately associate Robert’s Rules of Order with governance or an institutional framework.
A follow-up question was asked of all participants as to whether their board’s model
facilitated easier decision-making processes. Nearly everyone indicated that decision-making
was easier, but for differing reasons. Decision-making was reported as easy under Robert’s Rules
of Order because there was a clear order and rationale within which to make decisions. For board
members on Policy Governance boards, they reported value in the structure and format of board
94
policies. Policy Governance board policies provided clear boundaries and scopes of
responsibility for the board and the superintendent and outlined specific decision points, all of
which facilitated easier decision-making processes for interviewed board members. Only two
interviewees said that their board’s model complicated their individual decision-making
processes. In both cases, these respondents were from Policy Governance boards. Respondent A
said that at times, they felt constrained by the model; unable to ask the questions and receive all
of the information needed to make an informed decision. School board member N shared that the
expectation of governing through policy was at times, unrealistic simply because it was difficult
to keep track of which policies had already been enacted and which policies were still needed.
In describing their board models, it was clear that Policy Governance board members are
able to talk about their boards in the context of a structure with a set of rules or expectations.
Non-Policy Governance board participants on the other hand, spoke of their board structures in a
much more relaxed way, often times to the extent that their board did not appear to have a formal
structure. There are however, two conditioning factors that may lead members of Policy
Governance boards to be more likely to speak of their board work as a set of institutional
structures and norms. First, the very terminology of the model, Policy Governance lends itself to
a formal structure. Second, many boards that have adopted Policy Governance over the years
have worked with the CASB consultants or receive other formal training on the model. This may
have resulted in a better understanding of Policy Governance as a formal structure and set of
rules that fundamentally alter how the school board as an institution functions.
The Value-Add of Each Governance Model
As board members described benefits and the value-add of their respective operating
structures, many participants began to draw the connection to efficiency. Board members from
95
non-Policy Governance boards described the value of the model was in the order it provided; the
continuity for decision making, and the ability to control a meeting. These responses can be
characterized as things that contribute to an efficient meeting. Policy Governance board
members also specifically noted that part of the value of the model was increased efficiency of
board meetings. These board members noted that they were able to more efficiently make
decisions; there was a meaningful way to have an impact. Board member C shared that prior to
adopting Policy Governance, there was frustration from board members that the board as a whole
was ineffective at producing meaningful change for their students in terms of high school
graduation and college readiness. This frustration was shared by Superintendent A.2 who
indicated that at the beginning of his superintendency, the board did not use Policy Governance.
He often felt that the board was ineffective and quick to lose sight of the larger picture. Board
members from both Policy Governance and non-Policy Governance boards talked about the
efficiency of their meetings and structures, but in very different ways. Robert’s Rules of Order
boards highlighted efficiencies that were much more procedural in nature: the meeting ran more
smoothly, there was a clear order in which to conduct business. The efficiency described by
Policy Governance board members dealt with efficiencies related to securing outcomes: how to
be effective decision-makers and how to be effective at making a difference for students.
In addition to the insights provided by interview participants, the survey also provides
qualitative data about efficiency. Survey respondents who indicated a high level of efficiency at
board meetings, were asked to explain what made meetings efficient. Common responses,
regardless of institutional structure, included: the importance of a well structured agenda that was
adhered to during meetings; strong leadership from the board president and superintendent; and
having work sessions prior to board meetings to receive information and ask questions. The high
96
commonality of board members from both types of boards in describing why board meetings
were efficient may explain why this measure in the quantitative data analysis did not have as
strong of a relationship as anticipated. The strongest evidence that efficiency had significance
was as an interaction with governance model. So perhaps the majority of board members see
their meetings as efficient, but this perception may be exaggerated for Policy Governance board
members. This would be supported by the fact that so many board members speak of similar
efficiencies in their board meetings regardless of governance model. A distinguishable difference
in open-ended survey responses among Policy Governance board members was board members
attributing efficiency to a focus on ends, student achievement and monitoring the superintendent.
In one survey response, a Policy Governance board member notes that, “[we are efficient
because] we have defined the sole reason for existence as a board is to focus on student
achievement and we do this by monitoring the superintendent on policy.”
According to Superintendents. Superintendents interviewed from Policy Governance
boards also spoke to efficiencies of the governance model. One of the primary benefits
superintendents reported was that Policy Governance provides a clear framework that delineates
board and superintendent responsibilities. This delineation of roles and responsibilities makes it
easier for superintendents to do their job. When asked specifically how Policy Governance
affected them and their ability to do their job, the superintendents interviewed universally stated
that they were better able to do their job when the board knew its role and acted accordingly.
Superintendent A.2 stated that prior to having the framework of Policy Governance, “the board
wanted to make operational decisions and told me I couldn’t make certain decisions. This made
it impossible to do the job I needed to, which was accelerating student achievement and closing
the achievement gap.”
97
Overall, for the superintendents interviewed, they valued Policy Governance because the
framework provided a clear distinction of roles and when implemented with fidelity, helps board
members fulfill their roles, which in turn allows superintendents to do their work. The
superintendent in district A.1 summarized this value well: noting that school boards are most
often comprised of individuals with varying degrees of experience and knowledge, the Policy
Governance model provides a needed framework to bring all board members to the same level.
He compares this to a corporate board, for example, that may be more likely to have members
with more professional board experience and a better understanding of their role and the
separation of responsibilities between the board and executive.
In addition to role and responsibility definition, superintendents reported value in having
Policy Governance for the protections it offered. Three of the superintendents discussed how
when the board’s work is rooted in policy and they are supposed to govern from said policies, it
makes it easier to identify when there is a violation of the process or a disagreement. Instead of a
disagreement or problem becoming personal, it can be addressed and resolved with the
boundaries of a policy. Superintendent P shared an example of when a board member may have
been upset about a personnel decision made by the superintendent, the superintendent could fall
back on the policy in place, thereby justifying his actions instead of having to get into a more
intensive debate with the individual board member.
In these qualitative data, a number of board members and superintendents alike,
regardless of type of board, see value in the Policy Governance model. Much of this value is
reported as increased efficiency. However the interview data suggest there may be different types
of efficiency such as procedural and outcomes based. And the survey data also suggest some
98
differentiation of efficiency as Policy Governance board members point to very specific features
of the model that they believe to increase efficiency.
School Board Members’ Role in Increasing Student Achievement
It is unlikely that a school board member would not say their job is about increasing
student achievement. As one survey respondent stated in their open-ended response, “the role of
the board in increasing student achievement is substantial. This is what we are here for, isn’t it?”
However this research did anticipate that Policy Governance boards, due to the structures, rules
and norms, would have different outcomes (higher student achievement) compared to boards not
using the same institutional structures, or at the least, an increased focus on student achievement
through the alignment of policy and board work. Yet the quantitative analysis did not show a
significant difference in student achievement outcomes between the types of institutions. Survey
respondents and interview participants from both types of board structures all discuss student
achievement and acknowledge that the board of education plays a role in increasing student
achievement. The difference however, is not that one board member talks about student
achievement and the other does not talk about student achievement; the difference is in how the
two types of board members talk about student achievement and what they see as their role.
Interview participants from non-Policy Governance boards discussed a much more active role in
student achievement: visiting classrooms, talking with teachers and staff about their needs,
identifying appropriate professional development for teachers, or even providing technology
resources to fund a one-to-one laptop initiative. Similar themes were shared in open-ended
survey responses. The most frequently written-in survey response to how the non-Policy
Governance board of education supports student achievement was related to hiring of teachers
and staff.
99
At the other extreme, two interview participants from non-Policy Governance boards
stated they did not believe the board had a role in increasing student achievement. It was not for
lack of wanting to increase student achievement, but rather because board members F and J felt
their hands were tied. Board member J exclaimed that “the school board doesn’t have a damn
thing to do with student achievement since we can’t be in the classroom and we have little
interaction with students.” School board member F said as a result of federal and state testing
mandates, there was little room left for the local school board to have a say in shaping
curriculum and in turn, student achievement. In both cases, these school board members
appeared to want more direct ways by which to influence student achievement and absent such
mechanisms, relegated the board’s role in addressing student achievement.
Policy Governance board members universally expressed a strong belief in the role and in
some cases, moral imperative of the school board in increasing student achievement. However
the tone Policy Governance board members used to talk about student achievement was
markedly different and in many instances could be tied directly back to the norms and practices
of the institutional design. For instance, all but one of the interview participants stated that the
board’s role in increasing student achievement was some form of setting policy and monitoring
policy, the superintendent and/or achievement data results. But not a single Policy Governance
interviewee discussed a direct hand in increasing student achievement such as going into a
building or determining staff training. Board member I acknowledged that they wished they had
more of a direct role in student achievement, specifically as it related to meeting with
instructional staff. However this interview participant also shared that because the board had
agreed to the Policy Governance model, it was not appropriate to have that level of conversation
with teachers and staff. Instead, it was the superintendent’s job to direct their staff to engage
100
instructional staff to learn about what those staff members needed to improve instructional
practices in the classroom. Board member I’s comment shows how the institutional structure of
Policy Governance, when implemented with fidelity, constrains board members’ behaviors and
promotes an indirect involvement in student achievement.
The survey data were not structured in a way to differentiate between indirect and direct
ways the board might affect student achievement. Instead, the data were structured to look at
specific measures of student achievement—performance ratings and graduation rates. Had this
analysis also explored how the board specifically fosters student achievement, as these
qualitative data suggest, then some variation between types of institutional structures may have
surfaced. This would require a different research design with different data collected. This could
certainly be an area for further research, but is beyond the scope of this work given the
limitations of the data collected.
This difference between direct and indirect involvement of the school board in increasing
student achievement is also apparent in how superintendents discuss the role of the board. When
asked how school boards could support increased student achievement, all four of the
superintendents (all from Policy Governance boards) stated that the board’s role was to define
the big-picture vision and give this charge to the superintendent. The superintendent from district
P shared that the way in which boards have the greatest influence on student achievement is to
“bring the community voice to the table and set the tone for district; determining the vales and
priorities. I then go on to do the operational work to make sure those values and priorities are
met.” One superintendent from district N shared that when he first came to the district two years
ago, the board and superintendent had to renegotiate what Policy Governance looked like in
practice. From time-to-time, the board would slip into what the superintendent felt was
101
operational in nature; he said that when this happened, the district lost sight of what was
important and “consequently student achievement suffered.” However when the board refocused on its ends and the long-term goals of the district, discussions once again centered on
maintaining high student achievement. This superintendent shared that he recognizes this role
can be a difficult one for board members to assume. Many board members, especially in small
communities, get on the school board out of a desire to make meaningful and more immediate
change. According to the superintendent from the smaller rural community in district N, Policy
Governance provides that framework to help keep board members focused on the governance
level instead of the management or operational level.
The superintendent, A.2 in district A sees a very clear connection between how a board
functions and student achievement outcomes.
“To successfully run an organization, you must have a strategic plan in place and
know where you’re going. The strategy is about connecting ends with means. The
board focuses on the ends and gives direction through policy to the superintendent
to pursue the means. Without these [the ends and means], there cannot be a
strategic plan: without an actionable strategic plan you aren’t getting anything
accomplished. In [district A], this would mean we weren’t accelerating student
achievement or working to close the achievement gaps.”
When the board provides the essential focus on ends, the superintendent is able to move along
the path of fulfilling the overall vision and strategic plan for the district, which should be related
to student achievement. Again, as noted above in relation to Policy Governance school board
member responses, this mechanism for the board to affect student achievement is indirect.
Getting Along with the Superintendent
The nature of the Policy Governance model, not to mention claims that have been made
by proponents of the model, sets up the expectation that the board’s relationship with the
superintendent will look different. This is expected because the Policy Governance board is
102
supposed to deliver directives to the superintendent in the form of executive limitations that
reflect board policy, while leaving the means to the superintendent. When the board is not
attempting to micromanage, this should foster a more positive relationship because the
superintendent has the ability to do his or her job. However neither the quantitative analysis nor
the qualitative data offer much support that there is a significant difference between board types.
Board members of both types of school boards report rather favorable relationships with their
superintendents and nearly all (n = 13) of the board members interviewed reported a high to very
high level of trust between the board and the superintendent. Figure 4.1 below shows the overall
lack of variation in how boards report the nature of the board-superintendent relationship as well
as the tendency for board members to rate their relationship with the superintendent as high.
Figure 4.1: School Board Member Assessment
of Board-Superintendent Relationship
60.9%
59.3%
56.1%
60.0%
45.0%
27.8% 28.1% 27.9%
30.0%
15.0%
14.0%
9.6%
7.0%
5.8%
1.7%
1.8%
0.0%
Negative
Neutral
Positive
Non Policy Governance Boards
Policy Governance Boards
103
Very Positive
Total
Examining the few outliers suggests that it is not about the institutional structure that
promotes a healthy and positive relationship between the two, but something else. Again, these
data measures were not sufficiently designed to fully assess this, so further research and data
would be needed. However school board member A points out that while they rated the level of
trust between the superintendent and the board as very low, this was more a feature of lack of
communication and trust. In this instance, the board member A shared that there was a culture of
mistrust between the board and the superintendent as a result of the superintendent withholding
information and belittling the role of the board as a whole and individual board members.
Similarly, some open-ended survey answers, in response to the question of what would improve
the board-superintendent relationship, revealed that a more open communication style would
help.
When asked how the governance structure or operating procedures of a school board
fostered a better board-superintendent relationship, besides the clearly defined roles, one
superintendent also noted the importance of communication. In district P, the superintendent
believes that the Policy Governance model and accompanying expectations encourage open
communication and the free flow of information. This in turn fosters high trust and a positive
relationship between the two entities. In district A, superintendent A.2 shared that the breakdown
in the board-superintendent relationship happened when board members began to venture outside
of their role (as prescribed in Policy Governance) and were focused on overseeing the
operational aspect of the district; getting embroiled in personnel matters for instance.
Perhaps the board-superintendent relationship is simply a feature of personalities,
communication and leadership styles; all of which are largely independent of a governance
structure. The ways in which it was thought Policy Governance structures would induce strong
104
board-superintendent relationships do not surface in these data. However there is some evidence
from the superintendent interview data to suggest that superintendents do see significant value in
the framework provided by Policy Governance as it relates to strong working relationships with
their board members. This would need to be further tested, namely by considering the
perspectives of superintendents from non-Policy Governance boards.
A Tale of Two School Boards: Policy Governance Rules in Form versus Rules in Use
Yet another important angle to consider when explaining why there are limited
differences between Policy Governance and non-Policy Governance boards is to acknowledge
existence of rules in form and rules in use. Indeed, the above analyses of interview and survey
data hints at this difference and is confirmed by different board members having differing
notions of what Policy Governance is or how it is operationalized like on their respective board.
In form, or as represented through codified policy language, Policy Governance reads
like a prescription: a set of rules and parameters outlining actions the board should and should
not engage in; how to relate to the superintendent; and the role of community engagement, just to
identify a few. Although there is a pure form of these institutional rules that a body of actors
(school board members) self-select to be bound by when they adopt Policy Governance, in
reality, there is no mechanism to enforce compliance with the exact rules of Policy Governance
as prescribed by Carver. To understand the intricacies of the institution that is the local school
board, one must consider not only the board’s policy handbook, but also the unspoken, noncodified norms and rules that govern members’ behavior (Ostrom, 1999).
In seeking to understand what Policy Governance looks like in action and how the
adoption of a specific set of institutional rules (Policy Governance) alters board behaviors and
outcomes, it is helpful to consider real-world examples. For illustrative purposes, the following
105
vignette details the school boards of Aspen School District and Jefferson County Public Schools,
and highlights key features of how each board has utilized Policy Governance. Through these
two examples, it becomes clear how a set of institutional rules (Policy Governance) can be
adopted in the same form, but ultimately looks different in use.
In selecting these two cases for consideration, a most different systems design framework
was used. This is appropriate because as the previous statistical analysis has revealed, the
explanatory lever connecting governance structures and outcomes lies not simply in whether or
whether not a board utilizes Policy Governance, but rather the explanation is more nuanced and
likely found at a sub-systems level (Guy, 1998). The boards from Aspen and Jefferson County
school districts make for a strong most different systems comparison as they have striking
dissimilarities in district size, community setting and student populations. Table 4.3 below
highlights these key features across the two school districts. The primary point of similarity,
however is that both boards have stated that they utilize Policy Governance, and furthermore,
both were relatively early adopters of the model in Colorado. Through the following discussion,
it will become apparent how Policy Governance as an institutional set of rules is adopted for
similar reasons and with similar expectations. However, the application of said rules can look
different across respective institutions.
106
Table 4.3 Profile of Aspen and Jefferson County School Districtsa
Aspen
Jefferson County School
School District
District
Community Type
Type of Community
School District Size
Small Rural
Large Suburban
number of schools
total number of students
Student Demographics
5
1,728
164
85,983
13.77%
5.38%
25.51%
32.8%
86.61%
84.51%
<0.5%
96.69%
24.41
2%
81.45%
21.04
% Non-White
% Free and Reduced Lunch
Academic Performance
% Proficient and Advanced
on Standardized Tests
Drop-Out Rate
Graduation Rate
Composite ACT Score (out of
possible 36 points)
a
Data from the Colorado Department of Education’s public online database, SchoolView
In 1998, the Aspen Board of Education was one of the first school boards in Colorado to
adopt Policy Governance 28. As a result of term limits and regular turnover, there is limited
information explaining why the board made the move to adopt Policy Governance. However an
Aspen board member who only recently came off the board due to term limits, shared based on
institutional knowledge that had been shared by former board members, that at the time of
adoption, individual board members had grown increasingly frustrated with their inability to
28
Aspen, as the first documented board in Colorado to adopt Policy Governance in 1998, was truly one of the
pioneers to apply the model and its principles to school board work. While John Carver first began writing about
Policy Governance in the mid 1980s, it is not until 2000 that he authored a specific publication about Policy
Governance’s applicability to school boards. One of the key informant interviews was conducted with an Aspen
board member who served on the board from 2005-2013 and who prior to the time as a board member was actively
involved in school and district policy, having served on school and district accountability committees. When asked
about what lead to the adoption of Policy Governance, this board member shared that CASB leadership in the late
1990s had brought the concept of Policy Governance forward and worked closely with Aspen to implement it. This
school board member did however have context as to why Aspen was selected or how the CASB staff members had
first heard about Policy Governance.
107
spend time discussing student achievement and other meaningful topics at the student level.
Policy Governance was introduced to them by an individual who at the time worked at the
Colorado Association of School Boards. According to accounts from the Aspen Board member
interviewed, Policy Governance was a welcomed model as it encouraged a focus on ends or
results and also allowed the board to better support the work that the superintendent was engaged
in. Comprehensive training in the form of a full-day work session, coupled with individual board
members studying Policy Governance and on-going coaching from the CASB staff members
brought Aspen board members up to speed on using Policy Governance.
Similarly in Jefferson County, a current board member recounts that Policy Governance
was touted by CASB as a strong governance model at the annual CASB conference for board
members and in a printed training resource. This board member also noted that individuals on the
board in 2000, at the time of adoption, sought to implement Policy Governance as a way to
increase the efficiency of their board work. As was the case in Aspen, Jefferson County board
members worked to gain fluency with the model via coaching with CASB staff and continue to
work with the dedicated CASB Policy Governance consultant as needed.
Both boards share a similar path to adoption of Policy Governance, and cite similar
desired outcomes by using the model of increased efficiency and honing the board’s focus on
meaningful work. Additionally, upon an analysis of each board’s governing documents, policy
statements and agenda formats, both demonstrate a codified commitment to Policy Governance.
Table 4.4 below summarizes key similarities in the Policy Governance policies of both the
Aspen and Jefferson County boards of education organized by the four key features of Policy
Governance. 29
29
As was originally presented in table 2.2 in chapter 2’s overview of the Policy Governance model.
108
A review of both boards’ policy language that sets out the rules and expectations of
Policy Governance suggests a high degree of similarity, even to the extent of common wording.
For instance, the two boards share nearly identical global constraints statements (also referred to
as Executive Limitation), governing the board-superintendent relationship. Additionally, both of
the boards in Aspen and Jefferson County have policy that captures similar sentiments regarding
the purpose of self-monitoring of board policy and governance. Also, both boards have language,
although slightly different, communicates a distinguishable priority on student achievement and
other qualities a student will gain from their respective school district.
Table 4.4 A Summary of Policy Governance Concepts Codified:
Aspen and Jefferson County Boards of Educationa
Element of PG Model
Jefferson County
Aspen Board of Education
(Institutional Rule)
Board of Education
Aspen has four ends statements
Jeffco has five ends
reflecting the board’s values and
statements reflecting the
priorities:
board’s values and priorities:
1. Students will realize their full
“Every student will be
potential, appreciate the relevance
taught by an effective
of their education, be excited to
teacher in a school led by an
learn, and be empowered for
effective principal so that
success.
they are prepared for
2. Students will excel academically continuous learning and the
to their full potential, and be able to world of work in the
apply knowledge and skills through changing environment of the
critical, independent thinking.
21st century. Therefore:
Board focuses on ends, Every student will show evidence
1. Every student will master
of reasonable growth each year in
the Colorado Content
not means
academic areas, depending upon
Standards at grade level.
students’ elective choices.
2. Every student will achieve
3. Students will demonstrate and
at least one year's growth, or
model life skills that lead to
more as needed to catch up,
fulfilling lives. Working in
in every year of school and
partnership with community and
be ready for the next level.
family, students will
3. Every student will
demonstrate…[key life skills]
graduate career and
4. Students will develop and model workforce and/or post
the important attributes that citizens secondary ready.
much have to contribute to and
4. Every student will learn in
participate in an effective and
a caring, safe, and engaging
109
productive local, national and
global community.”
(Policies E-1 – E4)
Aspen sets forth a general
statement, its Global Executive
Constraint:
“The superintendent shall not
cause, allow, or fail to take
reasonable measures to prevent any
practice, activity, decision
organizational condition which is
unlawful, unethical, unsafe,
disrespectful, imprudent, in
violation of Board policy, or
endangers the organization’s public
image or credibility.”
Board defines
executive’s work in
terms of executive
limitations
Board-Executive
Relationship
This is then followed by a series of
executive limitations setting
parameters around the following:
superintendent succession,
communication and support to the
board, instruction, textbooks,
district calendar, relationship
communication with the
community, personnel, budgeting,
asset protection, treatment of
students, facilities, recognitions and
sponsorships and student wellness.
(Policies EL-1 – EL-15)
Aspen recognizes the structure of
the board-superintendent
relationship, noting that the board
acts by giving direction to the
superintendent:
“The board’s main connection to
the operational organization is the
110
school environment that
maximizes parental
involvement and encourages
community support.
5. Every student will
become a responsible
citizen.”
(Ends Statements 1-5)
Jeffco sets forth a general
statement, its Global
Executive Constraint:
“The superintendent shall
not cause or allow any
practice, activity, decision or
organizational circumstance,
which is unlawful, unsafe,
and imprudent, in violation
of commonly accepted
business and professional
ethics.”
This is then followed by a
series of executive
limitations setting
parameters around the
following:
treatment of parents and
community, staff treatment,
staff compensation, financial
planning, financial
administration, asset protect,
facilities, succession
planning, treatment of
students, communication
and counsel to the board,
school safety, charter
schools and the school
calendar.
(Executive Limitations 1-15)
Jeffco recognizes the
structure of the boardsuperintendent relationship,
noting that the board acts by
giving direction to the
superintendent:
“The Board’s sole
superintendent. The Board will
direct the operational organization
only through the superintendent,
functioning as the Chief Executive
Officer.” (Policy B/SR-1)
Board is diligent in self
monitoring
a
connection to the operational
organization of the school
district is the superintendent.
The superintendent is the
Board’s only link to the
operational achievement and
conduct of the school
district. All authority and
accountability of staff… is
considered to be the
authority and accountability
of the superintendent.”
(Policy BSL-01)
Aspen has written policy language
Jeffco has written policy
regarding board self-monitoring:
language regarding board
“The purpose of monitoring the
self-monitoring:
board’s governance process is to
“The purpose of monitoring
determine the degree to which the
the Board’s governance is to
board adheres to and fulfills its own determine the degree to
policy commitments. Monitoring
which the policies are being
will be done as efficiently as
fulfilled. Information that
possible, balancing the need to
does not contribute to this
allow sufficient time and depth for
task will not be considered
this important function with the
monitoring. Monitoring will
need to use meetings to create the
be as automatic as possible,
future rather than to review the
using a minimum of Board
past.”
time so that meetings can be
Aspen notes that their policies are
used to create the future
reviewed annually.
rather than to review the
(Policy GP-4)
past.”
Jeffco then codifies a formal
monitoring schedule where
each policy comes up for
review at least annual and
some more frequently
depending on the topic.
(Policy GP-16)
Information reflected here is compiled from each board’s respective policy manual found online.
As the above examination of the boards of education in Aspen and Jefferson County has
shown, while there are notable differences across their communities and student populations, the
two boards share a common set of operational rules in form, as reflected by their adoption of
Policy Governance. Namely, this includes highly similar policy language that maps back to four
111
primary principles of Policy Governance and a clearly named focus on improved outcomes for
students. While on paper, it appears that the two boards are implementing the same governance
model, through interviews with board members and an analysis of each boards’ meeting minutes
and agendas, key differences emerge with regards to how these policies are operationalized. This
observation effectively represents a difference of rules in form versus rules in use; the latter of
which is thought to be more revealing of an organization’s actual priorities and day-to-day
functionality than its rules in form (Ostrom, 1999).
As Ostrom points out, for rules to work, there must be a common understanding of, and
agreement to the rules. Rules in form begin to break down and effectively become the rules in
use when those who “interpret the meaning of a rule…arrive at multiple interpretations”
(Ostrom, 2011 p. 7). This transition from rules in form to rules in use describes the realities of
Aspen and Jefferson County’s school boards. When considering both boards’ statements of
purpose, while they both reflect a commitment to governing through policy, there are notable
differences:
The Aspen board believes its job:
“Is to represent the citizens and to lead the organization by determining and
demanding appropriate and excellent organizational performance. To distinguish
the Board’s own unique job from the jobs of the superintendent and staff, the
Board will concentrate its efforts on [policy making]…” (Aspen Board of
Education Policy Handbook, 2014).
While the Jefferson County board states that it is:
“…the policy-making body of the school district. Its powers and duties are set by
state law. The Board is responsible for educational planning and evaluation,
staffing and appraisal, school facilities, financial resources and communication.
The Board acts as a court of appeal for staff members, students and the public on
issues involving board policy or implementation of that policy” (Jefferson County
Board of Education Policy Handbook, 2014).
112
So while both boards are in form, doing Policy Governance, their application of the principles of
Policy Governance are interpreted and operationalized differently. Aspen’s policy focus, as
reflected in their vision statement is at the ten-thousand foot level and the Aspen boards sees
representing their voting community as key to their function as a board. By contrast, Jefferson
County applies Policy Governance with a much more hands-on approach, acting as a “court of
appeal” to resolve and weigh-in on policy matters.
Another difference in interpretation of Policy Governance between the two boards is
apparent in how they each engage in monitoring. A simple example was considered for this
analysis: the annual district unified improvement plan (UIP) that each school district in the state
must submit to the Colorado Department of Education. The rules in form pertaining to
monitoring would suggest that boards review their UIP and hold it against their stated ends
policies for student achievement and make a determination as to whether or whether not the
superintendent met said policy. Based upon analysis of Aspen board meeting agendas and
minutes, it appears that the monitoring of the annual UIP was done at a single meeting in the
form of a thirty minute presentation from the district accountability committee about the status of
the UIP rating, changes since the previous year’s plan and the parents’ approval of the plan. The
result of this monitoring presentation was the board taking a vote indicating that it believed the
superintendent had done their job as it related to board policy and ends statements for increased
academic achievement.
In Jefferson County, while still committed to monitoring the superintendent, the board
engaged in a drastically different UIP monitoring process. In analyzing Jefferson County board
documents, it is apparent that the UIP was discussed at multiple meetings, sometimes over an
hour at a time with lengthy and pointed questions from board members. The actual discussion
113
and questioning of the UIP seemed to be the whole monitoring process, as the review of
Jefferson County board meeting minutes did not suggest a final vote was ever taken by the board
to formally take a monitoring position of the superintendent.
Summary
The discussion of qualitative interview and survey data presented here has provided
further context to explain the results found in chapters two and three. It was apparent in the
quantitative analysis and confirmed in with these data, that at best, the mechanism(s) by which to
explain differences in variations of school boards is complex. While these data are not intended
to be representative of the entire survey sample population, nor the general population, they may
help interpret why some of the anticipated findings failed to reach significance and why it is
difficult to establish a direct link between the local school board and student achievement.
While it was anticipated that Policy Governance structures would make for more efficient
boards, it was not statistically significant except in the form of an interaction. Survey and
interview data suggest this could be because board members experience different types of
efficiencies, which may also be manifestations of rules in use. Policy Governance, for example
helps create a more outcomes-based efficiency: boards are effectively able to influence student
achievement. While absent these structures, Robert’s Rules of Order provides for procedural
efficiencies for boards using this model. In regards to how boards believe they promote student
achievement, non-Policy Governance boards responded that their role was a more direct, handson approach (e.g. hiring and meeting with staff). While Policy Governance board members
reported that they increased student achievement by leveraging policy and monitoring of data
and the superintendent. The lack of apparent difference in board-superintendent relationships is
114
likely due to the fact that institutional structures do not influence this, as it was hypothesized. But
instead, this dynamic may merely be a feature of individual board member and superintendent
leadership and personality. Finally, when evaluating the actual rules of Policy Governance in
use, it is obvious that said rules are subject to the interpretations of each board and can vary
significantly as demonstrated in Aspen and Jefferson County. This finding challenges the
assumption that a given set of rules, Policy Governance, can alter behavior. And instead, this
finding implies that more important than operating under the banner of any given governance
model is how that model is interpreted and applied. This may also account for the noise and lack
of statistically significant findings in previous analysis—if each board is in essence,
implementing its own version of Policy Governance, it may be impossible to identify common
features in use and attribute any one institutional design feature to a given outcome.
115
CHAPTER FIVE
Discussion
This research began by taking a problem widely discussed in the education and policy
realms and attempting to evaluate it using the tools of political science. The public education
system, many say, is broken or under-performing at best and is riddled with low student
achievement. A host of reforms are being leveled at the system from revising teacher tenure, to
introducing new academic content standards and assessments; yet to date nothing has emerged as
the universal fix. Only recently have practitioners, scholars, parents and policy-makers started to
entertain the idea that restructuring the school board (or in some instances dissolving it
completely) may be a necessary part of the reform movement. Political science would offer that
if the institutional rules are changed, behaviors, incentive structures and ultimately outcomes
would change as well.
By adopting the Policy Governance model, local school boards also adopt a new set of
structures, norms and practices that shape their operations and focus. Proponents of the model
have suggested positive outcomes as a result of using the model. This research has tested
whether or whether not this institutional structure results in more favorable outcomes compared
to boards that use other institutional structures (primarily Robert’s Rules of Order). These survey
and interview data do not show a significant difference between Policy Governance and nonPolicy Governance boards when looking at key student achievement outcomes.
There do not appear to be significant differences to explain which types of boards are
more likely to adopt Policy Governance and boards that use Policy Governance do not look
strikingly different from boards that use Robert’s Rules of Order. However when additional
factors such as efficiency are considered, there does seem to be some meaningful difference
116
between Policy Governance and other boards. This also may be predictive of higher student
achievement. Furthermore, individual board members as well as superintendents report high
value of the Policy Governance model, noting that it helps them to make decisions that more
effectively influence student achievement (for board members) and that it provides an essential
framework to define roles and responsibilities, allowing the superintendent to do his or her job
more effectively.
When there did not appear to be a statistically significant relationship between a board
adopting Policy Governance and more favorable student achievement outcomes or board process
outcomes, alternative explanations were explored. This secondary explanation drew on Ostrom’s
discussion of rules in form versus rules in use. The majority of analyses that were not statistically
significant relied on a measure of Policy Governance that effectively modeled rules in form. This
lack of finding can be explained using the notion of rules of use. Indeed when boards were
measured against Policy Governance rules in use instead of merely rules in form, the descriptive
data looked different. By applying a Policy Governance rules in use lens, it was apparent that
boards that do not officially identify as Policy Governance in form still follow governance
practices that would be expected under the Policy Governance banner. This is likely why it was
difficult to identify statistically significant differences between the first two groupings of boards,
because in reality (in use) the boards were more alike than originally hypothesized.
These findings, while not completely confirming what was hypothesized, do confirm
what other scholars have started to uncover. The most significant conclusion of this work is that
although Policy Governance as a specific institutional structure cannot be linked to higher
outcomes for students, there remains value in having a codified set of rules that boards operate
under. The following table provides a synthesis of best practices, defining principles and
117
evidence-based techniques compiled by different researchers and practitioners. The chart
presents the summary of these other practices against the four defining features of the Policy
Governance model. The takeaway is that although scholars, experts and consultants all have a
flavor-of-the-day of governance models to offer for boards, there is a high level of overlap and
common themes emerge. Again, this underscores the notion that the ability to produce results is
not tied to any one set of institutional rules, but rather the practice of subscribing to a generally
accepted set of rules and the implementation of said rules is most important in achieving desired
results. Table 5.1 below summarizes key governance principles touted by four different
governance experts and scholars, along with Carver’s Policy Governance principles. While the
table offers only a synopsis of governance practices, the common themes emerge and it is
possible to see how many of the governance concepts represented in the literature and training
manuals map back to Policy Governance.
Table 5.1 Comparison of Governance Principles in Literature Mapped to Policy Governance Principles
LIGHTHOUSE INQUIRY
“Seven Conditions for Productive Change”
1. Emphasis on Building a Human Organizational System
2. Ability to Create and Sustain Initiatives
3. Supportive Workplace for Staff
4. Staff Development
5. Support for School Sites through Data and Information
6. Community Involvement
7. Integrated Leadership
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION
118
Other Component of PG
Regular Monitoring (of self,
superintendent and
policies)
Primary Relationship is
Board-Superintendent
Delivers Clear Direction to
Superintendent to fulfill
Ends
Focus on Ends, Not Means
Primary Components of PG
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
“Governing to Achieve”
1. Embrace a common set of core beliefs that reflect values and
priorities for governance
2. Build and sustain productive relationships with board members
and the superintendent
3. Practice systems-thinking
4. Use data to make decisions and monitor district performance
5. Set direction by making student achievement a high priority
6. Align district resources to ensure that student achievement goals
are supported
7. Establish a comprehensive framework for accountability that
includes the board, superintendent and is responsive to the needs of
parents and community members
NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION—
CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
“Eight Characteristics of Effective School Boards”
1. Commit to a vision of high expectations and define clear goals
toward that vision
2. Have strong shared beliefs and values
3. Are accountability driven, spending less time on operational issues
and more time focused on policies to improve student achievement
4. Have a collaborative relationship with superintendent and strong
communication structures
5. Are data savvy and monitor data
6. Align and sustain resources to meet district goals
7. Lead united as a team with the superintendent, each from their
respective roles
8. Take part in PD and training
BOARD SOURCE
“Twelve Principles of Governance that Power Exceptional Boards”
1. Govern in constructive partnership with the executive
2. Share and uphold a mission; articulate a compelling vision and
ensure congruence between decisions and values
3. Allocate time to what matters most. Align agendas and goals with
strategic priorities and evaluate the executive based on these strategic
goals
4. Seek information, question assumptions and advocate for solutions
based on data
5. Put interests of organization above all else when making decisions
6. Ensure the public has access to appropriate and accurate
information regarding operations, finances and results
7. Board promotes its values by establishing appropriate mechanisms
for active oversight
8. Link budgeting to strategic planning. Ensure that the organization
has infrastructure and capacity it needs
9. Measure progress toward mission and evaluation performance of
major programs and services
10. Purposefully structure themselves to fulfill essential governance
duties and to support organizational priorities
11. Evaluate their own performance and assess the value they add to
the organization. Embed learning opportunities into routine
governance work and activities outside the boardroom
119
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
12. See correlation between mission, strategy and board composition
✔
a
This table was constructed through a content analysis of four pieces of literature, all which outline best practices
and research-based practices for boards. The first three sources were specific to boards of education and the fourth
source was more general to non-profit boards. However since Carver’s Policy Governance model was developed
more generally for non-profit boards, this seemed appropriate to include.
Some of the concepts represented in table 5.1 above are nearly identical and a majority
of other concepts reflects high degrees of similarities to each other. A quick survey of these
principles reveals that more important than operating under an official banner of Policy
Governance, is the act of having a governance protocol in place that allows for: a clear vision
and focus; a regular review of data for accountability; prioritization of relationships; and a
commitment to evaluation or some form of continual learning. This overall conclusion is much
like that of the researchers who studied the effects of Policy Governance on outcomes within the
realm of non-profit boards. Similarly, they are unable to find statistically important differences
between boards that use Policy Governance and those that use some other structure. In their
concluding thoughts they suggest that Policy Governance with “…cannot be shown to be more
effective than other approaches to board improvement….What seems to be important is that
boards make some attempt to improve their performance and do so using one of [many]
approaches to improved governance” (Hough, McGregor-Lowndes and Ryan, 2004, p. 216).
While the relationship between Policy Governance and student achievement was not as
apparent or significant as originally hypothesized to be, factors related to poverty and impacted
communities did repeatedly surface as statistically significant predictors of student achievement.
This is not to be interpreted as an excuse, but rather as a call to action for board members.
Commitments to good governance that live on paper, but not in practice do not serve students.
But when principles of effective governance are implemented, school board members have the
120
chance to be “‘school reformers first… and use governance as a way to respond to the challenge
of achievement in [impacted] schools’” (McAdams, as quoted by Aarons, 2009, p. 6).
Limitations
While this work has made significant steps in collecting data that previously has not been
available or collected, there are several data limitations. One limitation within the collected data
relates to a selection bias issue and whether or whether not the sample population is reflective of
the true population. While the range of responses spans district size, geographic region, diversity
and other key descriptive features, there are some boards absent from the sample. Additionally,
because this was a natural experiment, there is always the risk that those participants who selfselected into the study may be systematically different than those electing not to participate.
However, again considering the wide range of survey and interview participants, the researcher
does not see this as a major threat to the validity of the study.
A second limitation of the survey data worth noting is the fact that many of the data used
in this research are self-reports from individual boards members. This is particularly a limitation
as it relates to the perceived efficiency measures and the drivers of time at school board
meetings. These two measures were constructed directly from survey responses. In future
research, it may be beneficial to consider corroborating these measures: through a review of
board documents, it would be possible to determine the actual amount of time spent and
prioritization of topics on the meeting agendas and then develop a coding framework by which to
independently assess the level of efficiency of an individual board.
Future Research
Some of the limitations of this research stated above could be resolved through
supplemental inquiry. Additionally, as was noted in the literature review, there is a dearth of
121
research connecting school boards and outcomes such as student achievement. This research
aims to contribute to this conversation, but the findings and its limitations certainly highlight the
need for further research.
Better Understanding Boards. In this study, it was difficult to identify key differences in
student achievement between the two types of board governance models. But the findings do
suggest a more nuanced assessment of school boards is necessary, especially as it relates to the
Policy Governance model. These analyses were based on a straight up/down classification of
boards: they were either coded as Policy Governance or not. However this may be more
complex. For instance in chapter three, the discussion is offered that a board can adopt similar
practices and have similar outcomes as to those principles expected in Policy Governance
without actually being deemed as Policy Governance boards. This highlights the need to look
more broadly at boards and isolate key features that make for successful boards and then crosswalk said features with institutional models such as Policy Governance. This work would be
similar in nature to what was done in Iowa with the Lighthouse Study (2001).
Rationale for Adopting Policy Governance. Because a direct relationship was not found
between the institutional governance structure and student achievement results, a better
understanding of why local boards of education adopt Policy Governance (or any other model
that fundamentally alters its operations) is needed. This question was in part considered in this
research—other value-adds of the model for local school boards. However a more robust study
with a primary focus on motivations and rationale for the adoption of Policy Governance would
be valuable. This would likely require more in-depth review of historical records such as board
meeting minutes as well as interviews with past school board members who were on their
respective boards at the time of adoption, but have since come off as a result of term limits.
122
Superintendent Perspectives. Additionally, further work capturing the perspective of the
superintendent is critical. Specifically, this would serve to triangulate some of the claims and
self-assessments made by school board members. This may be in the form of in-depth interviews
or a state-wide survey of the 178 superintendents across Colorado.
Measuring Student Achievement. This research used three primary measure of student
achievement including a school performance framework rating on a scale of 1-5, the raw points
associated with that framework rating as well as district graduation rates. These measures were
used because they are more holistic measure of student performance and relate closely to what
local boards of education often focus on and set policy around. However some raw measure of
student achievement such as standardized test scores or growth percentiles may also be useful to
evaluate, providing a more straightforward metric of achievement.
Implications
Upon considering the mixed and albeit inconclusive results of this research, one may be
tempted to affirm the voices rallying for the demise of the local board of education. However, as
this research highlights, there may be other ways in which school boards contribute to improved
educational outcomes. When local boards of education are focused on ends and prioritize their
work accordingly and regularly monitor themselves, they are more efficient. And more
importantly, superintendents want and need a school board that can represent the community’s
needs and preferences to set the big-picture vision. Without this, the superintendent may lack
direction and purpose. Conversely, the superintendent does not want a board that attempts to run
the district or gets overly involved with the operational and managerial aspects of the district.
When the board focuses on governing and not managing, a district can be successful.
123
Given that the school board as a local political institution is under attack, boards must
reclaim their relevance and value. While boards may not be able to say they have a direct hand in
generating higher graduation rates, they can say (and should be saying) that their role is to be
highly effective governing bodies that provide direction and vision to the superintendent based
on their communities’ needs and preference about education. As this research demonstrates, it is
less about whether or whether not a school board utilizes Policy Governance, but rather if a
school board adopts and implements a series of best practices. Before completely dismissing the
role of the board, the education community, the public and scholars all could stand to better
understand the local school board as a political institution and how its structures and practices
can promote (albeit indirectly) better outcomes for students.
This research endeavor was born out of a question from my experience as an elected
member of my local Aurora Public Schools Board of Education and a wondering as to why my
board decided to adopt Policy Governance. While the original expectations and connections I
hypothesized between the use of Policy Governance and outcomes for students could not
necessarily be proven with statistical certainty, I remain hopeful about the future of school
boards. As my research demonstrates, more important than “being” Policy Governance is
“doing” Policy Governance. This finding, coupled with other research about best governance
practices, emphasizes that the mark of a successful, impactful board is a commitment to good
governance. Policy Governance may simply be one framework that promotes good governance,
but it by no means is the only way a board can practice effective, responsive governance 30. No
matter the governance model, it is probable that “‘good school boards are not a sufficient
30
As further evidence of this continual churn of governance models, as I conclude this dissertation, I have learned
that the newest trend in school board governance is called, “Coherent Governance.” Upon a quick investigation, I
found that this model is largely the same practices of Policy Governance, but worded in the affirmative, as opposed
to the negative. An Aspen board member shared with me at a recent school board conference that the board was
moving to this model because the affirmative wording was better received and understood by the community.
124
condition for high-performing schools, but they are a necessary condition’” (McAdams as quoted
in Aarons, 2009, p. 7). Boards that commit to and implement good governance practices,
regardless of what those institutional rules are called, can have efficient meetings, strong
community representation, positive relationships with their superintendents and engage in
meaningful policy work that focuses on student achievement.
125
BIBLIOGRAPHY
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district I. 9 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district J. 10 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district M. 11 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district O. 11 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district A. 12 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district B. 12 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district F. 12 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district K.2. 14 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district G. 14 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district H. 16 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district C. 17 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district E. 17 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district K.1. 17 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district K. 17 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district N. 17 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district D. 21 July 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Superintendent, school district P. 13 August 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Superintendent, school district A.1. 14 August 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Superintendent, school district A.2. 14 August 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Superintendent, school district N. 14 August 2013.
_____, _____. Telephone Interview. Board member, school district E. 14 September 2014.
126
Aarons, Dakarai. 2009. “Governance Project Teaches Value of Policy Framework.” Education
Week 29(7): 6-7.
Aspen Board of Education. 2014. Board Policy Handbook. http://www.aspenk12.net/Page/48.
Blausey, Cassiopia Restrepo. 2013. “Bold Reforms or a Flash in the Pan: Parent Empowerment
and the Parent Trigger.” Journal of Law and Education 42(2): 363-372.
Board Source. 2005. Twelve Principles of Governance that Power Exceptional Boards.
Washington, D.C.: Board Source
Boyne, George and Kenneth Meier. 2009. “Environmental Turbulence, Organization
Stability, and Public Service Performance.” Administration and Society 40(8): 799-824.
Brudney, J. and P. Nobbie. 2002. “Training Policy Governance in Nonprofit Boards of
Directors: The Views of Trainer-Consultants.” Nonprofit Management and
Leadership 12(4): 387-408.
Carver, John. 2000a. “Remaking Governance.” American School Board Journal 187(3): 26-30.
_____. 2000b. “Toward Coherent Governance.” The School Administrator 57(3): 6-10.
_____. 2006. Boards that Make A Difference: A New Design for Leadership in Nonprofit and
Public Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Colorado Association of School Boards (CASB). “School Board Member Leadership
Workbook.” http://casb.org/publications/Special%20Publications/school-board-memberleadership-workbook. (20 July 2013).
Colorado Department of Education (CDE). Colorado Education Directory.
http://www2.cde.state.co.us/edulibdir/directory.htm.
Colorado Department of Education (CDE). SchoolView Data Center.
www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview.
Cunningham, Josh. 2012. “Parent Trigger Laws in the States.” National Conference of State
Legislatures. http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/state-parent-trigger-laws.aspx. (22
December 2014)
Dawson, Linda J. and Randy Quinn. 2000. “Clarifying Board and Superintendent Roles.” The
School Administrator 57(3): 12-19.
Delagardelle, Mary. 2008. “The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of School Board
Leadership in the Improvement of Student Achievement.” In Thomas Alsbury (Ed.) The
Future of School Board Governance: Relevancy and Revelation. Rowman and Littlefield:
Blue Ridge.
127
Dervarics, Chuck and Eileen O’Brien. 2011. “Eight Characteristics of Effective School Boards.”
Center for Public Education. Alexandria, VA.
Desimone, L. (2002). How Can Comprehensive School Reform Models be Successfully
Implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433-479.
Drury, D. (1999). “Reinventing School-Based Management: A School Board Guide to SchoolBased Improvements.” National School Boards Association, Alexandria, VA.
Elmore, Richard. 2000. “Building a New Structure of School Leadership.” A report of the
Albert Shanker Institute: Cambridge.
Fletcher, Kathleen. 1999. “Four Books on Nonprofit Boards and Governance.” Nonprofit
Management and Leadership 9(4): 435-441.
Erikson, Robert S., and Gerald C. Wright. 1980. “Policy Representation of Constituency
Interests.” Political Behavior 2(1): 91-106.
Fleuter, Jeri. 2011. Email correspondence with CASB Policy Governance representative 28
September 2011.
Gehring, John. 2005. “More Boards Mulling ‘Policy Governance.’” Education Week 23(24): 1-3.
Herman, Robert and David Renz. 2000. “Board Practices of Especially Effective and Less
Effective Local Nonprofit Organizations.” The American Review of Public
Administration 30(2): 146-160.
Hess, Frederick. 2002. “School Boards at the Dawn of the 21st Century: Conditions and
Challenges of District Governance.” National School Boards Association, Alexandria,
VA.
Hess, Frederick and Olivia Meeks. 2010. “School Boards Circa 2010: Governance in the
Accountability Era.” National School Boards Association. Alexandria, VA.
Hill, Carolyn J. and Laurence E. Lynn J. 2004. “Is Hierarchical Governance in Decline?
Evidence from Empirical Research.” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 15(2): 173-195.
Houghs, Alan, Myles McGrego-Lowndes and Christine Ryan. 2004. “Policy Governance: ‘Yes,
but does it Work?’” Allied Corporate Governance Key Issues Edition: 213-216.
Jefferson County Board of Education. 2013. Board of Education Policies.
http://www.boarddocs.com/co/jeffco/Board.nsf/Public.
128
Jennings, M. Kent and Harmon Zeigler. 1971. “Response Styles and Politics: The Case of
School Boards.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 15(2): 290-321.
Johnson, Paul. 2011. “School Board Governance: The Times They are A-Changin.’”
Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership 20(10): 1-20.
Kerr, Norman. 1964. “The School Board as an Agency of Legitimation.” Sociology of
Education 38(1): 34-59.
Kirst, Michael. 1994. “A Changing Context Means School Board Reform.” Phi Delta
Kappan 75(5): 378-381.
_____. 2008. “The Evolving Role of School Boards.” In Thomas Alsbury (Ed.) The Future
of School Board Governance: Relevancy and Revelation. Rowman and Littlefield: Blue
Ridge.
Land, Deborah. 2002. “Local School Boards Under Review: Their Role and Effectiveness
in Relation to Students’ Academic Achievement.” Review of Educational Research
72(2): 229-278.
Linck, James, Jerry Netter and Tina Yang. 2008. “The Determinants of Board Structure.”
Journal of Financial Economics 87: 308-328.
Lubienski, Christopher, Janelle T. Scott, John Rogers, and Kevin Welner. 2012. “Missing the
Target? The Parent Trigger as a Strategy of Parental Engagement and School Reform.”
National Education Policy Center Boulder, CO.
March, James and Johan Olsen. 1984. “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in
Political Life.” The American Political Science Review 78(3): 734-749.
Maricle, Christopher. 2014. “Governing to Achieve: A Synthesis of Research on School
Governance to Support Student Achievement.” California School Board Association.
http://www.nsba.org/sites/default/files/reports/Governing%20To%20Achieve.pdf (20
September 2014)
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
McAdams, Robert. 2006. What School Boards Can Do: Reform Governance for Urban
Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Millers, Warren E. and Donald E. Stokes. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” The
American Political Science Review 57(1): 45-56.
Mitchell, Nancy. March 1, 2011. “District Faces another Round of Cuts.” Education News
Colorado.
129
Opfer, D and Denmark, V. 2001. “Sorting out a Sense of Place: School and School Board
Relationships in the Midst of School-Based Decision Making.” Peabody Journal of
Education 76(2): 101-118.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1991. “Rational Choice Theory and Institutional Analysis: Toward
Complementarity.” The American Political Science Review 85(1): 237-243.
_____. 1999. “Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and
Development Framework” In Paul Sabatier (Ed.) Theories of the Policy Process.
Westview Press: Boulder, CO.
_____. 2011. “Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework.” Policy
Studies Journal 39(1): 7-27.
Ostrom, Vincent. 1980. “Artisanship and Artifact.” Public Administration Review 40(4): 309317.
Peters, B. Guy and John Pierre. 1998. “Governance without Government? Rethinking Public
Administration.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8(2): 223-243.
Peters, B. Guy. 1998. Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods. New York City: New York
University Press.
Rice, Ron, Mary Delagardelle, Margaret Buckton, Carolyn Jons, Wayne Lueders and May Jane
Vens. 2001. “The Lighthouse Inquiry: School Board/Superintendent Team Behaviors in
School Districts with Extreme Differences in Student Achievement.” Paper presented at
the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
Rorrer, Andrea, Linda Skrla and James Scheurich. 2008. “Districts as Institutional Actors
in Education Reform.” Education Administration Quarterly 44(3): 307-358.
Stinebrickner, Bruce. 1982. “Comparing and Contrasting School Districts and GeneralPurpose Local Governments: An Agenda for Research.” Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis 4(3): 293-300.
Whitson, A. 1998. “Are School Boards Obsolete?” Childhood Education 74(3): 172-173.
Weigel, Jim. Personal Interview. Colorado Associations of School Boards. Denver, CO. 24
October 2011.
Wong, Kenneth and Francis Shen. 2008. “Education Mayors and Big-City School Boards: New
Directions, New Evidence.” In Thomas Alsbury (Ed.) The Future of School Board
Governance: Relevancy and Revelation. Rowman and Littlefield: Blue Ridge.
130
Wright, Gerald C. 2007. “Do Term Limits Affect Legislative Roll Call Voting?
Representation, Polarization and Participation.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7(3):
256-280.
131
APPENDIX A:
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER SURVEY
The following 56 item survey was hosted on Survey Gizmo, an electronic web-based
survey tool. The survey was first piloted by a local school board member and the Policy
Governance consultant at CASB. They were able to provide feedback on the questions as well as
the instrument design.
There is no comprehensive listing of school board members’ contact information for the
entire state. Therefore a list of email addresses was compiled through original data collection of
email addresses and contact information from individual school board websites. Not every local
school district had a website and/or contact information available for their school board
members. After searching for contact information electronically, 256 valid email addresses were
identified to be used to contact board members with the survey request. Additionally, the
Colorado Association of School Boards (CASB) graciously agreed to include a link to the survey
in one of their bi-monthly electronic communication that goes out to school board members
across the state. They were not, however able to track how many individual board members
received this communication and it was not possible to track how many survey responses came
from the CASB communication as compared to the individual request via email. It is difficult to
determine a total response rate since the total number of school board members who saw the
request is unknown. The best approximation can be generated by looking only at the response
rate prior to when CASB sent out the communication bulletin with the survey request. 78
individuals responded to the survey as a result of a direct email invitation before CASB sent out
the general request in their email communication. This is a response rate of 30.47%. By the end
of the survey period, there were 244 responses, of which 173 were determined to be complete.
132
The district-level response rate was 45.5%, with members from 81 of the 178 school districts in
Colorado responding. On average, there were 2.1 individuals from each district that responded.
Table A.1 shows the responses by district.
Table A.1 Survey Responses by District
District
Response
Ratea
n
District
Response
Ratea
n
Academy 20*
80.0%
4
Jefferson County*
80.0%
4
Adams 14
40.0%
2
Johnstown-Milliken RE-5J
60.0%
3
Adams/Westminster 50*
40.0%
2
Keenesburg RE-3J*
40.0%
2
Agate School District #300
20.0%
1
Lake County*
40.0%
2
Archuleta 50 JT
80.0%
4
Lewis-Palmer 38*
20.0%
1
Aspen*
80.0%
4
Limon Public Schools - RE4J
20.0%
1
Aurora Public Schools*
85.7%
6
Littleton
20.0%
1
Big Sandy School District 100J
40.0%
2
Mapleton District 1*
40.0%
2
Boulder Valley School District
85.7%
6
Mesa Valley 51
20.0%
1
Brighton School District 27J*
42.9%
3
Miami Yoder 60
20.0%
1
Buena Vista R-31*
42.9%
3
Moffat*
28.6%
2
Burlington RE-6J
40.0%
2
Monte Vista Schools
20.0%
1
Calhan RJ-1
40.0%
2
Montezuma Cortez RE 1
14.3%
1
Canon City RE-1
20.0%
1
Montrose Olathe RE1J
28.6%
2
Cheraw
20.0%
1
North Park R-1
42.9%
3
Cherry Creek School District
20.0%
1
Norwood r2-jt
20.0%
1
Cheyenne Mountain D-12
20.0%
1
Ouray R-1
40.0%
2
Clear Creek School District RE1
20.0%
1
Park County RE 2*
28.6%
2
Colo Springs School District 11*
42.9%
3
Peyton District 23JT
20.0%
1
Creede School District
60.0%
3
Poudre School District*
71.4%
5
Cripple Creek/Victor RE-1
20.0%
1
Pueblo City Schools 60
40.0%
2
Custer County C-1
60.0%
3
Pueblo District 70
60.0%
3
Deer Trail 26j
40.0%
2
RE1Valley
28.6%
2
Del Norte C-7
20.0%
1
Ridgway R2
20.0%
1
Delta County
100.0%
5
Rocky Ford
60.0%
3
Denver
14.3%
1
Salida School District R32-J
42.9%
3
Dolores RE-4A
40.0%
2
South Routt School District
42.9%
3
Douglas County*
14.3%
1
St. Vrain Valley School District*
42.9%
3
Durango School District 9-R*
42.9%
3
Steamboat Springs RE2*
20.0%
1
Eagle County Schools*
42.9%
3
Summit
20.0%
1
Elizabeth C-1 School District
20.0%
1
Telluride R-1*
60.0%
3
Ellicott 22
20.0%
1
Thompson R2J
57.1%
4
Falcon School District 49
40.0%
2
Walsh RE 1
20.0%
1
Garfield 16 Parachute
20.0%
1
Weld Re-1
20.0%
1
Garfield RE2
40.0%
2
Weld Re8*
28.6%
2
Greeley-Evans D6
42.9%
3
Weldon Valley
40.0%
2
Gunnison Watershed RE 1J
40.0%
2
West Grand
42.9%
3
Harrison School District 2
20.0%
1
Wiggins School District
20.0%
1
Hayden District RE 1
40.0%
2
Windsor RE-4
20.0%
1
Holyoke RE-J1
14.3%
1
Woodland Park RE-2*
20.0%
1
Huerfano RE 1
42.9%
3
Total Responses: 173
a
Response rate based on total number of board members on respective board; not necessarily reflective of how
many people the survey request was sent to since email addresses were not available for all board members.
*Denotes Policy Governance board
133
Survey Participants Demographics
The following table, A.2 shows key demographic distributions of survey respondents:
Table A.2 Demographics of Survey Respondents
Descriptive
Percentage of
Total Respondents
Gender
Male
46.0%
Female
54.0%
Age
25-34
3.5%
35-44
18.2%
45-54
35.3%
55-64
30.6%
65-74
11.8%
75+
0.6%
mean
52.5
Race/Ethnicity
Asian/Pacific Islander
0.6%
Black/African American
0.6%
Latino(a)/Hispanic/Chicano(a)
5.2%
Native American/Alaska
1.2%
Native
White/Caucasian
86.1%
Other/Multi-Racial
2.9%
Prefer not to disclose
3.5%
Highest level of education completed
High school or equivalent
5.8%
Some college, no degree
15.0%
Associates
4.0%
Bachelors
32.4%
Masters
Doctorate
4.6%
Other advanced professional
6.9%
level (e.g. JD, MD)
Prefer not to disclose
1.8%
Type of Seat
At-Large
42.0%
District/Ward Based
53.8%
Other
4.1%
Term
First term (elected 2011)
27.2%
First term (elected 2009)
18.3%
Second term (elected 2007)
14.8%
134
n
74
87
6
31
60
52
20
1
1
1
9
2
149
5
6
10
26
7
56
51
8
12
3
71
91
7
46
31
25
Second term (elected 2005)
Other (generally appointments
to fill vacancies or recalls)
Professional Background
in Education
Yes
No
Connections to the School
District
Child(ren) attend(ed)
Grandchild(ren) attend(ed)
Worked for district
Someone in immediate family
works(ed) in district
16.6%
23.1%
28
39
23.1%
68.8%
40
119
79.8%
12.1%
16.8%
28.3%
138
21
29
49
Text of Survey
Part 1 | Introduction
Dear School Board Member:
I am currently a school board member on the Aurora Public Schools Board of Education. I am
also in graduate school, studying school boards in Colorado. I am interested in learning more
about school boards in Colorado and the men and women, such as yourself, who volunteer their
time and talents to serve our students.
As part of my research, I am conducting a web-based survey. The survey will ask questions
about your district's school board and your experiences and insights about serving on the board.
It will take 15-25 minutes to complete. Specifically, I am hoping to better understand how school
boards operate, how they support student achievement and how they engage their community.
There is very little research to date about the work we do, and although there are no direct
benefits or compensation for participating, your survey responses will help inform research about
how we govern and the important work of school boards! I plan to share some best practices
gleaned from this study.
Your participation in this research is voluntary. I will make every effort to keep the information
confidential and will remove your identifying information. The analysis and presentation of the
data will not include anything that can identify you personally unless you give me permission
(for example to use a direct quote). If you have any questions about the survey at any time,
before, during or after completing it, please contact me at [email protected] or at
720.207.7556.
I would appreciate your response by Friday 8 February 2013. Thank you for your time and
service in your school district!
135
Part 2 | Demographic Information
Please take a moment to complete the following demographic questions. This information is
voluntary (with the exception of your school district) but is helpful for the overall analysis. No
individual identifying information will be reported in the final write-up
1. School District
2. Name:
3. What is your current position on the school board:
Member
Office—President
Officer—Vice President
Officer—Secretary
Officer—Treasurer
Other:
4. When were you first elected to the school board?
November 2011
November 2009
November 2007
November 2005
Other (please write date and briefly explain):
5. Is your position at-large or district/ward based?
At-Large: I represent the entire community within the school district boundaries
District/Ward Based: I represent a portion of the community within the school district
boundaries (e.g. "District A" or "Ward 4")
Other:
6. Age (in years):
7. Race/Ethnicity
8. Gender:
9. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
10. Check any of the following statements that apply to you (check all that apply):
I have a child/ren who currently or previously attended the school district
I have a grandchild/ren who currently or previously attended the school district
I am currently employed by the school district (other than your role as school board
member)
I was previously employed by the school district
136
Someone in my immediate family (spouse, parent, child) works or has worked in the
school district
n/a
11. Are you an education professional? This could include P-12 general education, special
education, paraprofessional, higher education or anything related to education policy/work
etc.
Part 3 | Structure and Functionality of Your School Board
The following series of questions ask you to share about how your board is structured and how it
operates
12. How many elected members are on your board (not including the superintendent)?
13. Colorado Revised State statutes govern the structure of school board business meetings
(typically following Robert's Rule of Order). Does your board use any additional policy or
governance model to structure the Board's work? If so, please select:
We only use standard Robert's Rules of Order
Policy Governance (John Carver's model of policy ends and means)
Reform Governance (Don McAdam's model for urban districts)
I’m not sure
Other (please explain):
14. Think about a typical board meeting: what consumes the majority of the board's time during
the meeting? Please order them from most time consuming to least time consuming. Please
answer according to how time is actually spent, not how you think it should be spent Note:
not all of the items in the list may be relevant to your board.
Policy-making—day-to-day decisions
Policy-making—big picture outcomes
Defining student achievement metrics
Evaluating student Achievement
Conducting board self-evaluation
Setting the budget
Evaluating existing programs/departments
Personnel (hiring/firing decisions)
Engaging with the external community
Hearing from teachers/district staff
Hearing from students
Discussion between board members
Non-agenda items
Other
15. In your perspective, what do you see as the primary function and purpose of the school
board?
To represent the community from which you were elected
137
To set the budget
To set policy
To oversee the superintendent
To increase student achievement
Other (please briefly explain)
16. On a scale of 1-5, how would you rate the efficiency of your school board meetings?
1-not efficient at all
2-somewhat inefficient
3-neither inefficient or efficient
4-somewhat efficient
5-efficient
17. In your opinion, what makes your school board meetings inefficient? (this page will show
when question 16 =1 or 2)
18. In your opinion, what would make your school board meetings more efficient??
19. In your opinion, what makes your meetings efficient? (this page will show when question 16
=4 or 5)
20. In your opinion, what would make your meetings more efficient? (this page will show when
question 16 =3)
21. How often does the board conduct self-evaluation?
We do self-evaluation at every meeting
We do quarterly self-evaluations
We do annual self-evaluations
We don't do self-evaluation
I'm not sure
Other (please explain):
Part 4 | Voting and Decision Making on Your School Board
The following questions ask about your Board’s voting and decision making processes
22. When voting on financial matters, what are the 2 or 3 most important factors that influence
your decision-making?
Community preferences/demands
Student Achievement
Fiscal constraints/realities
Morals/ethics
Superintendent recommendation
Teacher and staff preferences
Other (please briefly describe):
138
23. When voting on policy matters, what are the 2 or 3 most important factors that influence
your decision-making?
Community preferences/demands
Student Achievement
Fiscal constraints/realities
Morals/ethics
Superintendent recommendation
Teacher and staff preferences
Other (please briefly describe):
24. When voting on things related to the classroom (programs, students etc), what are the 2 or
3 most important factors that influence your decision-making?
Community preferences/demands
Student Achievement
Fiscal constraints/realities
Morals/ethics
Superintendent recommendation
Teacher and staff preferences
Other (please briefly describe):
25. When voting on personnel matters, what are the 2 or 3 most important factors that influence
your decision-making?
Community preferences/demands
Student Achievement
Fiscal constraints/realities
Morals/ethics
Superintendent recommendation
Teacher and staff preferences
Other (please briefly describe):
26. When you have a question or need clarification, who do you contact? (select all that apply)
Superintendent
Executive District Staff/Leadership
Individual teachers or building staff
Board president
Other board members
Other:
27. Which of the following statements most closely applies to your Superintendent and board?
The superintendent usually makes explicit recommendations on how vote on specific
issues
The superintendent usually provides information about votes but does not make a
specific recommendation on how to vote
Other:
139
28. How often does the school board have to make substantive decisions in the following areas?
(Options include: often, sometimes, rarely, never, n/a)
Big-picture policy for the district
Day-to-day management decisions
Board policy (governing policies)
Hiring and firing of teachers and staff
School level decisions
Spending on specific programs
29. When your board has a split vote, which of the following statements best describes your
board on average:
Dissenting Board members remain highly divided and do not support/acknowledge
the Board's final position
Dissenting board members come around in support, and acknowledge the Board's
final position even if they did not individually vote the same way
It really depends on the issue
Our Board rarely has split votes
Other:
Part 5 | Student Achievement in Your District
The following questions ask about student achievement in your district
30. In your opinion, is increasing student achievement a priority in your district?
Increasing student achievement is the most important issue facing our district right
now
Increasing student achievement is important in our district
Student achievement is already high, therefore this isn't a major focus in our district
right now
We have more pressing priorities right now other than student achievement
I'm not sure
31. What indicators does the school board use to assess student achievement? (select all that
apply)
Standardized test scores (CSAP, TCAP, ACT, CELA etc)
Academic growth rates
Academic performance
Graduation rates
Drop-out rates
College remediation rates
Anecdotal evidence from teachers
Anecdotal evidence from students
Anecdotal evidence from parents
Other
32. How often does the school board discuss student achievement?
140
At every board meeting
At most board meetings (more than 80% of meetings)
At some board meetings (between 50%-80% of meetings)
At a few board meetings (less than 50% of meetings)
Only when we are voting on an issue related to student achievement
33. Are you familiar with the following data for your district? (options include: yes, no, I’m not
sure, and n/a)
District's CSAP/TCAP scores
District's graduation rate
District's rating according to CDE (distinction, accredited, improvement etc)
District’s unified improvement plan
Achievement gaps (if present)
34. In your opinion, where does the responsibility lie for each of the following? (you can select
multiple people if you believe an item is a shared responsibility) (options include:
superintendent, school board, parents/families, building administrators, building staff and
community at large)
Monitoring student achievement
Maintaining safe learning environments
Providing access to technology (computers in classroom, etc)
Hiring high quality teachers
Managing financial resources
Ensuring adequate instruction time
Fostering parent/family involvement
Creating and evaluating school district policies
Providing teacher/staff professional development
A strong superintendent
Promoting students' health
Encouraging shared leadership/decision-making
Smooth functioning School Board
Creating and evaluating school board policies
35. In your opinion, what is the board's role in increasing student achievement?
Part 6 | Board-Superintendent Relationship
The following questions ask about your board-superintendent relationship
36. Which of the following mechanisms do you use to hold the superintendent accountable?
Regular communication (print, electronic or verbal)
Reporting from the superintendent
District achievement (test scores, academic performance etc)
Formal evaluations of the superintendent
Soliciting feedback from District employees about the superintendent
Soliciting feedback from the community about the superintendent
141
Other (please briefly describe):
37. How often does the Board conduct a formal evaluation of the Superintendent?
Monthly
Quarterly
Twice a year
Annually
No formal evaluation
Other:
38. What type of guidance or direction does the Board give to the Superintendent? (select all that
apply)
Program directives
Policy directives
Personnel directives
Financial directives
Executive limitations/boundaries
I’m not sure
Other:
39. How would you describe the nature of the directives that you give to the Superintendent?
General (for example, "recruit high quality staff", or "retain a minimum 3% reserve")
Specific (for example, "hire Ms. Mary Sue" or "spend $1,500 for new computers")
Other:
40. How would you characterize the relationship between the Board and the Superintendent?
Very negative
Negative
Neither negative nor positive
Positive
Very Positive
41. In your opinion, why is the board-superintendent relationship negative? (this page will show
when question 40 =1 or 2)
42. In your opinion, what would improve the board-superintendent relationship? (this page will
show when question 40 =1 or 2)
43. In your opinion, what makes the board-superintendent relationship positive? (this page will
show when question 40 =4 or 5)
Part 7 | Community Engagement with Your School Board
The following questions ask about how your board engages with the local community
142
44. Which of the following methods does your board use to engage with the community? (select
all that apply)
Townhalls
Newsletter or other printed/electronic communication
Individual board members meet with community members informally
Teacher and staff surveys
Parent surveys
Student surveys
Listening Tours
Bringing community groups in to board meetings
Going out to other community groups
Participating in other community/local government boards, councils or task forces
Polling
Other
45. In your opinion, what is the purpose/goal of your board's community engagement efforts?
46. How often are you contacted by internal community members (including teachers, building
or administration staff etc)?
Daily
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a month
47. How often are you contacted by external community members (including parents, students,
community members etc)?
Daily
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a month
48. When you are contacted by someone, generally how do you respond?
I respond directly to the individual
I confer with the rest of the Board before responding
I confer with the Superintendent before responding
The President responds to all communication
Other
49. Does your Board communicate the following with the community as part of community
engagement? (options include yes, no, I’m not sure and n/a)
District policy
Board policy
District’s budget
District’s academic performance
Changes in state/federal laws
Part 8 | Conclusion
143
50. What do you enjoy most about serving on the school board?
51. Is there anything else you’d like to share about your board or school district?
52. I hope to contact some board members for a follow-up phone interview. Would you be
willing to participate?
Yes
No
53. Your preferred way of communication
Phone
Email
54. Email Address
55. Phone Number:
56. Best time of day to reach you:
144
APPENDIX B:
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER INTERVIEW
The interviews with school board members were a key source of data for this research. A total of
20 school board members were contacted with requests for phone interviews. These individuals
were selected from the pool of survey participants who indicated a willingness to participate in a
follow-up interview. 10 board members from Policy Governance boards and 10 members from
non-Policy Governance boards were contacted. A total of 16 interviews were completed, for an
80% participation rate. Each phone interview lasted between 30-60 minutes and included semistructured questions as well as open discussion as the interviewee was willing to offer additional
information or provide follow-up. During the phone interviews, board members were asked a
series of questions following the same categories as in the surveys.
145
Interview Text
I am currently a school board member on the Aurora Public Schools Board of Education. I am
also in graduate school, studying school boards in Colorado. I am interested in learning more
about the 178 school boards in Colorado and the men and women, such as yourself, who
volunteer their time and talents to serve our students.
As part of my research, I am conducting interviews and would like to invite you to take part in an
individual interview. During the interview, I will ask questions about your school board and your
experiences serving on the board. Specifically, through this research, I am hoping to better
understand how school boards support student achievement and engage their local communities.
Although there are no direct benefits or compensation for participating, your responses will help
inform research about how we govern K-12 schools in Colorado and how to best support
students. I hope to be able to share some best practices and findings from my research with
school board members and superintendents across the state.
This will be a phone interview and will take 45-60 minutes to complete. Some questions will be
basic information questions about your school board. Some questions will ask you to share about
the process and flow of your meetings. Additionally, I will ask about your board-superintendent
relationship. If there are any questions you are uncomfortable answering or unable to answer,
you may skip them.
I will make every effort to keep your identifying information confidential. The analysis and
presentation of the data will not include anything that can identify you personally unless you
give me permission (for example to use a direct quote).
Your participation in this research is voluntary. Furthermore, I will not be sharing with anyone in
your district or community about your participation or lack thereof if you elect not to participate.
If you decide to participate in the study and then change your mind, you may stop anytime. If
you have any questions about the interview at any time, before, during or after completing it,
please contact me at [email protected] or at 720.207.7556.
Finally, a few more things I need to tell you: There are no costs to participating in an interview
nor is there any compensation. The only known risks associated with participating in an
interview are possible embarrassment or discomfort if confidentiality were breached, something I
will make every effort to prevent. It is not possible to identify all potential risks in research
procedures, but I have taken reasonable safeguards to minimize any known and potentially
unknown, risks. If you have further questions about risks, please contact me.
1. Name:
2. District:
3. When were you elected:
146
4. Please define/explain the type of governance structure/model your board uses and the unique
features of this structure or model:
5. Can you explain the process or conditions leading up to the adoption of this governance
model?
6. Does this type of model make it easier or harder to make decisions are there some things that
make it easier or able to act more effectively?
7. Where does the board focus its efforts: ends or means?
8. In the survey you previously completed, I asked what you thought was the primary function
and purpose of the school board. You responded that it was [insert their survey response
here]. Would you say this purpose is defined by the community who elected you or by the
board?
9. Are there things that limit or constrain your ability to be an effective board member?
10. Who is accountable to the Board? Who are you accountable to?
11. How does the Board monitor and provide oversight?
12. What are the two or three most important ways the school district support student
achievement?
13. What are the two or three most important ways the school board support student
achievement?
14. Is your board representative of your greater community?
15. Who do you represent?
a. If you represent multiple interests/constituencies, how do you balance these interests?
16. How do you let the community know what you’ve done for them?
17. Do you regularly communicate a platform or where you stand on issues with your
community?
18. Is communication out to the community usually from the board as a whole, or from
individual board members?
19. How in touch are you with your community’s needs/preferences about education?
On a scale of 1 to 5:
1 –not at all in touch
2
3
4
5—Very in touch
20. How do you learn about your community’s needs/preferences?
147
21. What is the role of:
a. The superintendent:
b. Board of Education:
.
22. How would you characterize the level of trust between the BOE and the superintendent?
23. In the last two years, what has been the greatest source of tension between the board and the
superintendent?
24. Other comments to share about your board or district?
148