16 Jan 2008, Peter Cistone
Presented at 2007 ISBF symposium School Board Research: Main Lines of Inquiry
Presenter: Peter Cistone
Topic: School Board Research, A Retrospective
I. Key points/highlights/overview of the research presented
The presentation was not intended as a historical review of the research literature on school boards, but rather as a reflection on the main themes from the 1975 symposium on school board research in order to further discussion on the impact of that research, and suggest themes for future research.
Historically, research had centered on the internal functions of the school system, rather than on the impact of school boards. Since 1975 research on the school board has increased. Rather than being preoccupied with internal procedures of the board, researchers have begun to explore the dynamic relationship between governance and the external and internal environments of the school system.
One difficulty in research on educational governance is the lack of a theoretical framework concerning school boards to be a foundation for research. (An exception to this would be the work of Iannaccone and Lutz which had the foundation of their “dissatisfaction theory.”) Historically, studies of school boards have tended to examine individual member behavior or characteristics rather than the work of the board as a whole.
II. Key findings/conclusions
The following themes emerge from review of the 1975 Symposium:
The school board as a whole, and not individual board members, should be the target of research.
Both qualitative and quantitative studies of boards are essential, neither one alone is sufficient.
The socioeconomic and demographic profile of school board members has remained fairly stable while the communities they serve have been changing.
Political culture accounts for variations in governance policies and practices.
The board/superintendent relationship is the critical nexus for local educational policy making. This involves clear sharing of responsibility. Boards have “rank authority.” Superintendents have “technical authority.”
The responsiveness of the school board to the community is an area that requires further, specific, exploration.
III. New ideas that surfaced as a result of the research
The following questions emerged from Iannaccone’s response to the papers:
1. Given cultural pluralism and political diversity, can demands be clearly articulated to local school governance?
2. How can we effectively distinguish between (and serve) the needs of society and the needs of pupils and parents?
3. How can representation effectively balance professional and lay interests as well as the individual and societal interests mentioned in #2?
4. How does the system learn about the role of political concepts, ideology and culture in order to resolve conflicts in educational governance?
5. What do we need to learn (and do) about the links (or lack thereof) between the demographic culture of a school district and the school board’s policy making process?
IV. The potential impact of this research on the practice of governing schools
N/A
V. Future implications for research or practice as a result of this research
See new ideas above.
VI. Questions/discussion areas that surfaced from participants
Participants in the breakout session focused on the difficulties encountered by teachers in urban schools. It was agreed by the very experienced participants that the problems of poverty were not new, and had existed from the beginnings of American education. What was seen as different, more problematic, in current times was the lack of “neighborhood” schools. In the past the “ghetto-ization” of any group allowed like-minded parents (perhaps sharing a similar language, certainly sharing similar values) to band together and feel and find access to the school system. This was viewed as a positive. Mingling of various groups into larger structures of congealing/confining poverty without common beliefs or values to hold them together was seen as making it more difficult for parental involvement or belief in the public school system. Thus teachers feel isolated and unsupported by the communities in which they teach. When asked what the role of boards could be in this situation opinions expressed were varied, and included:
Boards need to be more political, figure out ways to reach out to the people they represent.
Boards need to be less political, see themselves more as communicators with the public.
Urban boards need to be appointed to assure representation of varied constituencies, and to include more constituencies.
Urban boards, all boards, must get clearer about what their purpose is and figure out the central problems they need to confront and then learn together with superintendents about how to confront them.