1. A Policy-oriented Board of Trustees
A Review of Selected Research

2. A selective sample of the empirical evidence
Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to student achievement (Land, 2002)
The role of school board social capital in district governance: effects on financial and academic outcomes (Saatcioglu et al, 2011)
Characteristics of High Performing School Systems In Ontario (Leithwood, 2011)
Effective board leadership: Factors associated with student achievement (Johnson, 2013)

3. A review of both “expert” and “empirical sources
From Land (2002)
“although increasing attention is being given to the school board’s influence on student achievement, limited research exists to substantiate the importance of this role and provide guidance to school boards regarding how to perform this role effectively (p. 249)
A review of both “expert” and “empirical sources

4. Broad guidelines (Land, 2002)
Establishing a vision for educational excellence
Advocating for this vision inside and outside the system
Providing the resources and structures necessary to achieve the vision
Holding programs and people accountable for success.

5. Key challenges for boards
Policy not administration
Effective and efficient policy procedures
Relationships with senior staff, especially director
Honoring the community’s voice
Aligning budgets with visions/strategic plans

6. As well as acquiring “social capital”………..
Establishing cooperative internal relationships
“Bonding”
Interacting with diverse outside groups
“Bridging”
(Saatcioglu et al, 2011)

7. Using role for career advancement
Bonding
Tight-knit connections which foster trust, cooperation, and mutuality among members, enables agility and harmonious functioning for all members.
Hindered by
Competing interests
Using role for career advancement

8. (“we have nothing to learn from others”)
Bridging
Weak external connections providing access to feedback, innovation, resources and support
hindered by
Isolation
The big board problem
(“we have nothing to learn from others”)

9. The study: Effects on both achievement and finances.
175 districts in Pennsylvania (35%)
Surveys of board chairs (re: bonding & bridging)
State achievement data over two years
Current expenditures per average daily membership
(also suitable control variables measured)

10. Bonding results (shared vision, information exchange, trust)
Bonding appears to have larger effects on both
achievement and finances than bridging but cannot neglect external ties.
Lack of opportunism and a common sense of purpose are linked to improved expenditures for students.
Largest effect on achievement are from trust.
(control variables did not matter)

11. Bridging results (formal and informal ties)
Informal bridging has larger effects (about 22% larger) on finances and on reading achievement (about 40%) than formal bridging.
Effects of information exchange barely significant

12. In sum, important factors for improving achievement…
Informal ties to external groups
Lack of opportunism (due to higher trust)
High levels of information exchange
Common sense of district goals

13. A reminder about the study: 49 districts
Characteristics of High Performing School Systems In Ontario (Leithwood, 2011)
A reminder about the study:
49 districts
surveys from senior leaders and principals
changes in EQAO achievement over five years in math, reading and writing
three in-depth case studies

14. Identified 12 Practices of an Effective Elected Board
Steps involved in zeroing in on these 12…
Began with Land (2002)
Deepened and refined with evidence from the three in-depth cases
Empirical test using the surveys and student achievement data
See Appendix A for the 12 practices
See Appendix A

15. Results of the empirical test: Elected Leadership Effects (ES) On Characteristics of Strong Districts
Mission, Vision and Goals = .63 Coherent Instructional Program = .23 Uses of evidence = .09 Learning- oriented Improvement Processes = .54

16. Elected Leadership Effects (con’t.)
Job embedded professional development = .25
Alignment = .36
Relationships = .39
-Central office/schools = .33
-Parents = .11
-Other stakeholders = .10
-Ministry = .28

17. Effective Board Practices
use the district’s beliefs and vision for student learning and well-being as the foundation for strategic planning and ongoing system evaluation;
focus most policy making on the improvement of student learning and well-being consistent with the system’s mission and vision;
develop policies and support staff decisions aimed at providing rich curricula and engaging forms of instruction for all students and eliminating those that do not.

18. Effective Board Practices (con’t.)
contribute to the development of productive relationships with and among senior staff, school staffs, community stakeholders and provincial education officials  ;
provide systematic orientation opportunities for new members and ongoing training for existing members;
develop and sustain productive working relationships among members of the elected board (bonding vs. bridging);

19. Effective Board Practices (con’t.)
respect the role of director and senior staff in their responsibilities for school system administration;
hold the director accountable for improving teaching and learning in the school system;
hold its individual members accountable for supporting decisions of the board, as a whole, once those decisions have been made.

20. Johnson, P. (2013), Effective Board Leadership Practices, Journal of School Leadership, 23, 456-489
Latest of the very few studies linking elected board practices with student achievement
34 boards in Ohio
Trustee ratings of district practices associated with district performance on state achievement tests.
12 specific practices identified from review reduced to 6 underlying practices

21. 6 “Underlying” Board Leadership Practices
1. Creating and supporting a vision
2. Focusing on improvement
3. Valuing learning and instruction
Johnson (2013)

22. 6 “Underlying” Board Leadership Practices (con’t.)
4. Practicing shared governance/leadership
5. Using data and policy to support learning
6. Provision of professional development to improve instruction

23. Carver’s Policy Governance Model
See cases