The Problem: Low-Achieving Districts and Low-Performing Boards

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