Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
School Board Accountability, Evaluation, and Eectiveness
Report
© 2023 National School Boards Association, All Rights Reserved
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Part I — Ten Thousand Democracies: Statistics and Facts about School Districts and School Boards ............. 6
School Board Size ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
Elected vs. Appointed School Board Members ........................................................................................................... 8
Turnover and Retention of School Board Members ................................................................................................... 9
Time Spent on School Board Services ....................................................................................................................... 10
Compensation for School Board Members ................................................................................................................ 11
Professional Development of School Board Members .............................................................................................. 12
Part II — One Common Goal: Every Student’s Success .......................................................................................... 17
NAEP Basic vs. Procient .............................................................................................................................................. 17
Reaching the Basic Achievement Level: Why It Matters ................................................................................................. 18
Helping All Students to Reach Prociency in Reading and Math .......................................................................... 20
Increasing Graduation Rate and Raising the Graduation Bar ............................................................................... 23
Policy/Practice Discussion Box 1: Pathways to Postsecondary Success .............................................................. 27
Part III — School Board Accountability, Eectiveness, and Evaluation ................................................................ 28
School Board Accountability and Democracy ............................................................................................................... 28
What Research Says About School Board Accountability and Student Achievement ................................................. 29
© 2023 National School Boards Association, All Rights Reserved
Table of Contents
States’ Requirements for School Accountability .......................................................................................................... 29
How Districts Describe School Board Accountability ....................................................................................................... 30
Policy/Practice Discussion Box 2: Has School Board Governance Been “Hijacked?” ........................................... 32
School Board Eective Governance: A Key to High Achievement for All Students ................................................. 34
Empirical Research on Characteristics of Eective School Boards and Student Achievement ........................... 34
What Parents Want Regarding Student Achievement ............................................................................................ 35
How School Boards Address Eective Governance and Student Achievement ................................................. 38
Policy/Practice Discussion Box 3: Examples of School Districts Practicing Eective Governance ........................ 39
School Board Evaluation: Measuring Eectiveness to Improve Governance .......................................................... 41
Why School Boards Need Self-Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 41
What Evaluation Tools School Districts Are Using ........................................................................................................ 42
A Lack of Recent Research on School Board Evaluation and Eectiveness ............................................................... 43
Policy/Practice Discussion Box 4: Post-Evaluation Actions of School Boards ...................................................... 45
Conclusions — Governance Matters ....................................................................................................................... 47
Technical Notes ......................................................................................................................................................... 48
References ................................................................................................................................................................. 49
4
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Introduction
In the United States, most students attend a public school in a district overseen by a democratically elected
school board. In political science, school boards are oen portrayed as ten thousand democracies (Berkman and
Plutzer, 2005). School board members are oen described as “citizens-policymakers” because they “constitute a
middle ground between normal citizens and professionalized policymakers ― with large variations based on the
size of the districts and the model of selection” (Asen, 2015; Delevoye, 2020).
School board members have been regarded as one of the largest groups of policymakers in the U.S. (Delevoye,
2020). Fostering an educational environment in which every student reaches a high achievement level and
successful postsecondary life is a common goal of all local school boards. In education research, school board
accountability, eective governance, and board evaluation are all relevant to this common goal. An important
characteristic of eective school boards is “accountability driven, spending less time on operational issues and
more time focused on policies to improve student achievement” (Dervarics and O’Brien, 2011).
Media reports on American public schools have been dismal for decades. e COVID-19 pandemic increased
the perception that many American schools are failing to prepare students for the future (Jimenez, 2022;
Tripses et al., 2015). e 2022 results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show dramatic
and sobering declines in math and reading scores for the nation’s fourth- and eighth-graders. Some researchers
report that, historically, school boards have not focused to any great extent on student achievement (Tripses et
al., 2015). For example,
• Dating back to the early 1700s, the main role and function of school boards was to hire the head schoolmaster and oversee the maintenance
of the school building (Tripses et al., 2015).
• A study conducted in West Virginia (McCall, 1997) found that school boards spent 3% of their time on policy development and as much as
54% on administrative matters.
• Researchers conducted a study of 55 randomly selected school boards and found that “nancial and personnel issues were among the
most frequent areas of decision-making, displacing deliberations on educational policy by a signicant margin” (Beckham and Wills, n.d.).
The authors observed that school boards often play a quasi-judicial role instead of placing policymaking as the board’s priority, and “many
local boards act as hearing agencies for employee and student grievances.” It has been recommended that school districts delegate the
responsibility to hear complaints and appeals from individual students or employees to administrative law judges or other qualied third
parties.
e context of highlighting student achievement as a key accountability of school boards can probably be traced
back to the 1983 publication of “A Nation at Risk.” e report by the National Commission on Excellence in
Education caused a dramatic escalation of national concern about public education. Since then, state and federal
policymakers have been intensively requiring rigorous testing, higher graduation rates/requirements, and higher
academic standards (Tripses et al., 2015). In 2002, Congress passed the law No Child Le Behind (NCLB, 2002),
which increased pressure on school boards and superintendents to be more accountable for student achievement
(Dervarics and O’Brien, 2011; Sell, 2006).
5
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Introduction
“Public displays of test scores, mandated by the law, have engaged communities to some extent in the process
of evaluating performance of both school boards and superintendents” (Tripses et al., 2015). At the same time,
the student achievement gap has become an increasing concern for educational equity. More studies suggest
that school boards can and do inuence academic outcomes, and improving school board governance is viewed
as a legitimate approach to improving academic achievement (Eadens et al., 2020; Ford, 2013; Land, 2002;
Shober and Hartney, 2014).
To inform school leaders of some of the current challenges and potential solutions to improve education
leadership, the Center for Public Education (CPE) of the National School Boards Association (NSBA) compiled
this research report. ere are three parts to this report. In Part I, we present readers with statistics about school
districts and school boards that show the diverse nature of the education system across the country. In Part II, we
share the recent NAEP data to help readers understand the urgent call for education leaders to improve student
achievement. Part III will focus on what research says about the following three discussion issues:
1. The connection between student achievement and school board accountability.
2. The association between eective governance and student achievement.
3. The relationship between board eectiveness and evaluation.
6
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Part I
Ten Thousand Democracies: Statistics and Facts about School
Districts and School Boards
In the 2020-21 school year (SY), 19,254 operating public school districts served 49,356,945 students, according
to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Operating schools/districts include all those providing
services for prekindergarten through grade 13 as of the start of the reported school year. Figure 1 and Table 1
show that there are signicant dierences between states in the total number of school districts operating and the
total number of students served in public schools. For example,
• California has more than 2,000 school districts. Texas, Illinois, Ohio, and New York have more than 1,000 school districts, respectively.
• States with more school districts often have larger student populations. More than 6 million students attend public schools in California.
More than 5 million students go to public schools in Texas. More than 2.6 million students are served in public schools in New York.
• However, states with fewer school districts do not necessarily serve a small student population. For instance, in Maryland, 25 school districts
serve nearly 900,000 students. In Florida, 77 school districts serve nearly 2.8 million students.
• By the same token, states with smaller student populations may have relatively more school districts. For instance, in Vermont, about
83,000 students are distributed among 184 school districts; in North Dakota, there are about 115,000 students and 221 school districts; in
Montana, about 146,000 students attend 483 school districts.
Figure 1. Number of School Districts by State
Source: Table 2. Number of operating public schools and districts, student membership, teachers, and pupil/teacher ratio, by
state or jurisdiction:<br /> School year 2020–21 (ed.gov)
7
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
School Board Size
Dierences in school districts in the U.S. oen lead to diverse structures and styles of governance of the school
boards. Ballotpedia, a non-prot organization that collects information on elections, politics, and policy, reports
that at the start of the 2022-23 school year, there were 82,423 school board members in 13,194 school districts.
According to Ballotpedia, those school districts feature school board member information on the district’s
website or other online platforms.
Figure 2 shows that among the 13,194 school districts in the country, 85% have ve to eight school board
members. In fact, most district boards are composed of either ve or seven members.
• Only 495 boards have six members, and only 86 have eight members.
• About 2% or 243 districts across 18 states are governed by school boards with more than 10 members.
• The number of elected school board members per state ranges from nine in Hawaii (which has one statewide school district) to 6,994 in
Texas (representing more than 1,000 school districts).
• The average number of school board members per district ranges from 3.45 in West Virginia to 9.97 in Connecticut.
Table 1. Number of School Districts and Number of Students, by State: SY 2020-21
Source: Table 2. Number of operating public schools and districts, student membership, teachers, and pupil/teacher ratio, by
state or jurisdiction:<br /> School year 2020–21 (ed.gov)
8
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Elected vs. Appointed School Board Members
Approximately 90% of school board members are elected. According to a 2002 report on American school
board compositions, about 93% of school boards are elected rather than appointed (Hess, 2014). In 2018, NSBA
surveyed school board members and found that among the 2018 respondents, the majority (88%) were locally
elected.
e NSBA report also indicated that the number of appointed board members among the 2018 respondents
more than doubled from 2010 (12% versus 5.5%). Some researchers suggest that usually, the catalyst for moving
to an appointed school board system is “the elected board’s mismanagement causing poor student performance,
nancial crises, teacher shortages or inghting with the superintendent” (Llamas , 2020; Milliard, 2015). It
should be noted that each school district has unique challenges, and changes about how to form the board are
oen based on decisions from state or local-level governing bodies.
• In 2021, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed House Bill 2908, which expands the Chicago Public Schools Board of Education to 21 members
beginning in 2025. Voters will elect 10 members, and the mayor will appoint the other 11. In 2026, all members of the board will be elected
(Tabor, 2023).
• Unlike most localities in Virginia, Hanover County remains one of the few jurisdictions in which the local governing body appoints members
to the school board (German, 2023).
• In Pennsylvania, the Butler Area School Board approved appointing two candidates to ll the seats vacated by resigning board members. The
two newly appointed school board members have been in the top ve of those receiving votes in the primary election, and will “have a good
chance of being elected to continue for a full term” this fall (Friel, 2023).
Figure 2. Number and Percentage of School Districts, by Board Size: 2022
Source: Analysis of school district and board member characteristics, 2022 - Ballotpedia
9
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
“While school boards are a quintessential example of representative democracy, many districts experience low
participation by both candidates and voters” (Cai, 2020). While voter turnout for political oce elections has
increased since 2014, in local school board elections, voter turnout has been discouragingly low — oen just
5% to 10% (Cai, 2020). At the same time, according to Ballotpedia (2023), approximately 2.03 candidates are
running for each seat in the 1,428 school board races in 2023, which is 11.4% less than in 2021 (2.29 candidates
per seat).
Turnover and Retention of School Board Members
Researchers suggest that student achievement is correlated with two sources of social capital of school boards,
namely internal and external ties. Internal ties refer to the bonding of members within a school board; external
ties can be conceptualized as the bridging between board members and all other stakeholders (Saatcioglu et al.,
2011). Data from 175 Pennsylvania districts between 2004–05 and 2006–07 school years show that these two
sources of social capital are positively associated with nancial and academic outcomes at the district level.
Bonding and bridge-building within a school board oen require time. Alsbury (2008) found “student test score
decline as board turnover increased, particularly in smaller districts and when delineating politically motivated
board turnover.” Additionally, school boards have to overcome the challenge that many board members serve
terms of two to four years, and turnover is unavoidable (Korelich and Maxwell, 2015).
NSBA data show that, on average, board members who responded to the 2018 survey served 8.6 years on
their boards. In many cases, school board members end their service terms subjectively. According to a study
conducted by School Board Partners, a nonprot group that trains new school board members, in 2016, more
than 70% of school board members planned to pursue another term on the board; in 2022, only 38% of current
school board members planned to run for reelection (Merod, 2022).
Unfortunately, we did not nd data about how many school board members resign each year. Anecdotal reports
show that there seems to be an increase in the resignation of school board members, but it is unclear to what
extent the early exit of board members aects student achievement. For instance,
• In Oregon, Zaitz (4/25/2023) reported that a school board was out of business after ve of its seven members quit amid growing concern
about a new ethics requirement. “Until the seats are lled, those school districts don’t have governing boards to consider budgets, approve
contracts or consider hiring.”
• In Connecticut, Ryser (5/31/2023) reported that two school board members in a district have resigned amid a battle over two ‘sexually
explicit’ books that a committee has recommended keeping on the library shelves. The school board chairperson said, “Their energy,
tenaciousness, team spirit, and constructive contributions to our discussions will be sorely missed.”
• In Colorado, Grimes (3/13/2023) reported that three board members in a school district resigned, and only two members remained on the
board. The superintendent stated, “It is always disappointing when adult issues impact a school district and keep it from focusing on the
most important work — ensuring our students receive the best education possible.”
10
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Another way to cut short a board member’s term is through school board recalls. School board recalls are the
process of removing a member or members of a school board from oce through a petitioned election instead
of during a regularly scheduled election. “Bad behavior, mismanagement of funds, conicts with district
administrators or teachers, refusing to listen to their constituents, and violating open meetings laws are some
of the reasons listed on petitions seeking to recall school board members” (Ballotpedia, 2023). According to
Ballotpedia (2023), on average, there were 34 recall eorts involving about 80 school board members each year
between 2009 and 2022.
Time Spent on School Board Services
More than half of school board members (52%) reported that their entire school board meets twice per month,
while 43% said the entire board meets only once a month, according to the 2018 NSBA study. It should be noted
that board members oen engage in other activities that add hours to their board service. “It’s not atypical that
a large-district school board member would work about 40 hours a month on board-related duties” (Great
Schools, 2022).
• “Serving on a local school board requires lots of it. No longer is it reasonable to expect board service to take one night per month. Public
education has become far too complex and community expectations far too great, for the leisurely pace of yesteryear to be the rule today.
Today’s board members say they can easily spend 30 or more hours per month on school issues: negotiating contracts, planning, work
sessions, community meetings ― not to mention personal phone calls and other contacts made.” (The Association of Alaska School Boards,
n.d.)
• “Years ago, when the role of the board member was perceived more as a ‘trustee’ the current legal requirement of holding at least one
regular board meeting per calendar month may have been realistic. Today, however, most boards hold more than one meeting per month
with some holding weekly meetings. These may include Regular Board Meetings; Special or Emergency Board Meetings; Work Study
Sessions - open meetings with sta (issues, reports, etc.); Public Input Meetings - no decisions, only public comment; Judicial Hearings
- grievance/discipline matters; Planning Retreats, and so on. Individual board members will also be involved with Board Committees and
certain advisory committees, spending hours on the phone with constituents, some of which will undoubtedly be employees and reading all
the materials in preparation of meetings. Board members can easily spend 15 hours per week on Board-related business.” (The New Mexico
School Board Candidate Manual, 2021)
• “Today’s board members say they spend an average of 45 hours each month on board work. This estimate may increase each year because
of the changing nature of our society and its schools.” At the same time, a discouraging phenomenon has often been that “being a school
board member may seem like a thankless job – struggling with complex problems for long hours and taking criticism when things don’t go
right.” (The Colorado Association of School Boards, 2022)
11
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Compensation for School Board Members
According to the NSBA report, most board members (61%) in 2018 were volunteers who received no annual
salary for their board service. is remained comparable to the 2010 survey data when 62.3% indicated
no annual compensation. In addition, 73% of the 2018 respondents indicated they received no stipend for
individual meetings, just slightly less than the 76.5% who responded to that same question in 2010.
In January 2021, we examined state policies regarding how the services of school board members are
compensated. We found that among 50 states, approximately:
• Seventeen states (34%) do not pay school board members, although some of the states may pay travel expenses or training fees for board
members.
• Thirteen states (26%) compensate school board members with limited amounts based on their participation in board activities, such as
board meetings or traveling for training or conferences.
• Eleven states (22%) do not have any specic legislation for compensating school board members. In some of the states, school board
members are not paid at all, while in other states, board members may be paid by certain decisions made by municipal or county
governments.
• Only six states (12%) have state statutes that dene annual salary or compensation for board members.
• Nevada and California compensate school board members based on their county or school district population.
12
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Professional Development of School Board Members
As we mentioned above, most board members serve limited terms, which is the nature of a democratic system.
Since turnover is unavoidable, training for newly elected board members becomes a necessity (Korelich and
Maxwell, 2015; Zion, 2008). Data from NSBA show that most school board members receive training aer being
elected. In 2018, 81% of the surveyed school board members reported that they had received training from their
state school boards association, followed by 57% who had received training from their board or district and
47% from NSBA. Compared with 2010, more board members reported receiving training or participating in
professional development. It is unclear whether such training is required or optional for school board members.
With respect to training content, most school board members (78%) reported that they had training about board
roles, responsibilities, and operations; more than half (56%) said that they had training in funding and budget
issues. In the same survey, school board members were asked what new or additional training they would like to
receive. More than half (51%) said that they wanted more training on student achievement issues.
We examined the states that have laws in place to require school board members to participate in professional
development aer being elected (Table 2). In 22 states, there is clear statutory language addressing training
requirements (e.g., the amount of training time and the topics of training content) for school board members. In
several states, board members are required to attend training focusing on student achievement. For example,
• New Jersey ― In 2007, the state’s School District Accountability Act was signed into law. “This multi-faceted legislation impacts school
boards/charter school trustees in a variety of ways and one key area is board member/trustee training,” according to the New Jersey School
Boards Association (NJSBA). One of the mandated training programs provided by NJSBA is focused on student achievement.
• Texas ― School board members are required to participate in training on “Evaluating and Improving Student Outcomes” for three hours
within the rst 120 days in oce and three hours every two years.
• Louisiana ― If a school district is deemed “academically unacceptable or in need of academic assistance” by the state board, school board
members must participate in training on student achievement and school improvement at least two hours annually (Erwin, 2022).
13
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Figure 2. Number and Percentage of School Districts, by Board Size: 2022
State Training Requirement Source
Alabama
The Governance Act outlines specic training requirements for all city and county school
board members in Alabama. Local school board members must take a school board member
orientation that covers certain topics, and must earn 6 hours of training every year.
AASB
Arkansas
The state requires a local school district board member to obtain no less than 6 hours of
training and instruction each calendar year. Members elected for an initial or non-continuous
term are required to meet additional training opportunities during their tenure.
ECS
Florida
The state-required training for school board members is 4 hours of training on ethics that ad-
dresses Article II, Section 8 of the Florida Constitution, the Code of Ethics for Public Ocers
and Employees, and the Government-in-the-Sunshine provisions in Chapters 119 and 286
relating to public records laws and public meeting laws.
FSBA
Georgia
The state requires the state board of education in the department of education to craft and
oversee local school board member training. In 2009, the state board of education convened
a task force to, among other things, develop and recommend standards for local school
boards and guidelines for member training. The task force established a new lexicon around
central themes to reect local education priorities and maintain student achievement. The
themes identied in the state standards for local education boards include governance struc-
ture, strategic planning, board and community relations, policy development, board meetings,
personnel, nancial governance, and ethics. The state standards may include an expectation
on knowledge, skill, or performance. If the state designates a high-risk school within the local
board of education’s purview, the members must complete additional training.
ECS
Illinois
The state requires that each voting member of a school board must complete 4 hours of pro-
fessional development training within the rst year of their rst term. Topics of the training
must include nancial oversight and accountability, labor law, and duciary responsibilities of
a school board member.
ECS
IASB
Kentucky
The annual in-service training requirements for all school board members in oce as of
December 31, 2014, shall be (a) 12 hours for school board members with zero to 3 years of
experience; (b) 8 hours for school board members with 4 to 7 years of experience; and (c) 4
hours for school board members with 8 or more years of experience. The Kentucky Board of
Education shall identify the criteria for fullling this requirement. For all board members who
begin their initial service on or after January 1, 2015, the annual in-service training require-
ments shall be 12 hours for school board members with zero to 8 years of experience, and 8
hours for school board members with more than 8 years of experience.
KY
Louisiana
The state requires each local public school board member to receive a minimum of 16 hours
of training and instruction during the rst year of service on the board to receive the “Dis-
tinguished School Board Member” designation. Each member must receive a minimum of 6
hours of training and instruction annually beyond the rst-year requirements. The training
topics currently include state school laws, governing the powers, duties, and responsibilities
and educational trends, research, and policy. The Louisiana School Board Association pro-
vides the training programs.
ECS
LA
14
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
State Training Requirement Source
Minnesota
A member shall receive training in school nance and management developed in consulta-
tion with the Minnesota School Boards Association and consistent with section 127A.19. The
School Boards Association must make available to each newly elected school board member
training in school nance and management consistent with section 127A.19 within 180 days
of that member taking oce. The program shall be developed in consultation with the depart-
ment and appropriate representatives of higher education.
MN
Mississippi
The state law says that “Each school board member shall be required to le annually in the
oce of the school board a certicate of completion of a course of continuing education
conducted by the Mississippi School Boards Association.”
ECS
MSBA
Missouri
The state law, The Outstanding Schools Act of 1993, requires that all new school board
members have at least 16 hours of orientation and training within one year of their election or
appointment.
MARE
Nevada
The state implemented training requirements in 2016. In the rst and third year of a mem-
ber’s term, they must complete a minimum of 6 hours of instruction in public records laws,
open meeting laws, local government relations, the K-12 education system, ethics, violence
and sexual violence prevention, nancial management, duciary duties, and employment and
contract laws.
ECS
NASB
New Jersey
The state requires rst-year school board members to complete a training program that
includes instructional programs, personnel, scal management, operations, and governance.
In subsequent years, board members must complete a school district governance training
on school law and other information to enable the board member to serve more eectively.
The New Jersey School Board Association is charged with providing school board member
training, and outlines the training schedules based on 4 topic areas. One of the areas focuses
on student achievement.
ECS
NJSBA
New Mexico
According to state statute 22-5-12, school board members are required to attend 5 hours of
training a year.
NMSBA
New York
Section 2102-a of the Education Law requires certain board members to obtain a minimum
of 6 hours of training on the nancial oversight, accountability, and duciary responsibilities
of school district and BOCES (i.e., Board of Cooperative Education Services) board members.
School district and BOCES board members who were appointed, elected, or re-elected for
a term that begins on or after July 1, 2005, must obtain the training. School board training
courses are required to address nancial oversight, accountability, and duciary responsibili-
ties of school board members.
NYSED
North Carolina
The state requires all local boards of education members to receive a minimum of 12 hours
of training every 2 years. The training must include public school nance in addition to public
school law and the duties and responsibilities of local boards of education.
ECS
NCSBA
15
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
State Training Requirement Source
Oklahoma
The state requires all elected school board members to undergo training. The law indicates
that training hours depend on the length of term served by the board member. Training
requirements include one hour each of nance training, open records/meetings training,
and ethics training. New members must complete 9 hours of continuing education (three for
incumbent members). Instruction is provided by the Oklahoma School Boards Association or
the Oklahoma Department of State.
ECS
OSSBA
Pennsylvania
The state enacted an omnibus education bill in 2017 requiring the department of education to
provide a training program for new school directors (board members). The training must con-
sist of a minimum of 4 hours of training that addresses instruction and academic programs,
personnel, scal management, operations, governance, ethics, and open meetings. Additional
training requirements for reelected or reappointed school directors, as well as charter school
trustees, are also included.
ECS
PADOE
South Carolina
The state requires all elected or appointed members of a school district board of trustees
to complete an orientation program covering the powers and duties of a board member
within one year of taking oce. The orientation, which must be approved by the state board
of education, must include training on “policy development, personnel, superintendent and
board relations, instructional programs, district nance, school law, ethics and community
relations.”
ECS
Tennessee
The state law outlines the specic training course requirements for new and experienced
board members and the timeline for approving new training courses annually. State Board
policy 2.100 includes the list of approved training courses for local school board members to
complete their annual training requirement.
TNBOE
Texa s
Continuing education requirements for independent school board trustees are established
in Texas Education Code, §11.159, Texas Administrative Code §61.1, and Texas Government
Code, §§ 551.005, 552.012, and 2054.5191. There is a table that provides a summary of these
requirements. For example, school board members are required to participate in training on
“Evaluating and Improving Student Outcomes” for 3 hours within the rst 120 days in their
oce and 3 hours every two years.
TEA
TASB
Virginia
The state requires its state board of education and local boards of education to participate in
professional development. The state board must participate in professional development on
“personnel, curriculum and current issues in education.” For local boards of education, mem-
bers must participate annually in professional development at the state, local, or national
levels of governance, including “personnel policies and practices; the evaluation of personnel,
curriculum, and instruction; use of data in planning and decision making; and current issues
in education as part of their service on the local board.”
ECS
16
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
State Training Requirement Source
Washington
There are three types of training required by the Washington Legislature for school directors,
but the Oce of Native Education training is required for only 39 school boards. In July 2021,
Senate Bill 5044 became law, requiring cultural competency, diversity, equity, and inclusion
training for Washington state’s K-12 public school educators, district leaders, and school
directors. Every school director must complete training on the Open Public Meetings Act
(OPMA), Public Records Act (PRA), and records retention within 90 days of taking the oath of
oce following appointment or election.
WSSDA
Simply put, data about school districts and school boards corroborate the description “ten thousand
democracies” about the diversity of the U.S. school governing system. In general, school board members are
elected ocials who make decisions and policies based on their district’s unique conditions and the expectations
of their communities.
Source: State-Information-Request_School-Board-Training-Requirements.pdf (ecs.org); Mandatory Board Member Training
| IASB; School Board Trustee Training | Texas Education Agency; A How-To Guide to Required Training by Tier for Texas
School Board Members (tasb.org); Board Member Training :Educational Management:NYSED; Required Training - WSSDA;
Governance (pa.gov); Oklahoma State School Boards Association (ossba.org); Accountability Act - New Jersey School Boards
Association (njsba.org); statute.aspx (ky.gov); New School Board Members – Florida School Boards Association (fsba.org);
Board Training – New Mexico School Boards Association (nmsba.org); OpenExhibitDocument (state.nv.us); Get on Board:
Training (alabamaschoolboards.org); Sec. 123B.09 MN Statutes; School Board Training Advisory Committee (tn.gov); Missouri
Association of Rural Education - Board Training Information (moare.com); Louisiana Laws - Louisiana State Legislature; MSBA
- Mississippi School Boards Association > Board Members > Board Service (msbaonline.org); Board Member Training - North
Carolina School Boards Association (ncsba.org)
17
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Part I I
One Common Goal: Every Student’s Success
“Improving student achievement became the mission for public education more than a decade ago, putting
educators, including school boards, on notice” (Lorentzen and McCaw, 2019). e COVID-19 pandemic added
more pressure to accomplishing this mission. Now, school leaders must tackle the weightiest policy question
― “how to make up learning lost during the most prolonged and widespread instance of school closures in
American history” (Kogan, 2022).
e Nation’s Report Card, aka NAEP, provides a common measure of student achievement across the country.
NAEP is, and for decades has been, “America’s premier gauge of whether its children — all our children — are
learning anything in school, whether they’re learning any more today than years ago, and whether the learning
gaps among groups of children are narrowing or widening” (Finn, 2022). A brief review of NAEP data should
be a good start to initiate a conversation with all stakeholders about improving academic achievement for all
students.
NAEP Basic vs. Procient
NAEP achievement levels are performance standards that describe what students should know and be able to
do. NAEP reports percentages of U.S. students performing at or above three achievement levels (NAEP Basic,
NAEP Procient, and NAEP Advanced). While the NAEP Procient level is not intended to reect grade-level
performance expectations, the information helps parents, school leaders, and educators to better understand
what fourth- and eighth-graders should know and be able to do in math, reading, and other subjects (e.g.,
history, civics, science).
To close the student achievement gap, school leaders should understand the NAEP Basic and Procient Levels as
achievement benchmarks. In general, students performing at the NAEP basic level have fundamental knowledge
and skills about the subject (Table 3). By contrast, students performing at the NAEP procient have acquired
higher-order comprehension skills and developed adequate critical thinking, analytical, and problem-solving
abilities. If educators and school leaders can strategically help most students to advance from the basic to the
procient level, the next Nation’s Report Card will show a signicant dierence.
18
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Table 3. Examples of What Students Can Do at NAEP Basic vs. Procient Levels
Source: NAEP Nations Report Card - The NAEP Reading Achievement Levels by Grade (ed.gov); NAEP - NAEP Mathematics
Achievement Levels by Grade (ed.gov)
Reaching the Basic Achievement Level: Why It Matters
Students not reaching the basic achievement level should be a source of great concern. In 2022, 39% of American
fourth-graders performed below the NAEP basic achievement level in reading. For eighth-grade math, 40% of
students performed below the basic level (Figure 3).
• More than half of Black fourth-graders (57%), more than half of Hispanic fourth-graders (51%), and more than half of American Indian/
Alaska Native (AI/AN) fourth-graders (57%) failed to reach the basic level in reading.
• Among fourth-graders who are eligible for the National School Lunch Program (NLSP), more than half (52%) could not reach the basic level
in reading.
• Nearly 3 in 4 students with disabilities (71%) and about 2 in 3 English language learners (67%) performed below the basic level in fourth-
grade reading.
• Compared with suburban students (34%), more rural students performed below the basic level in fourth-grade reading (36%). For eighth-
grade reading, more rural students (31%) performed below the basic level than their peers in suburban schools (28%).
20
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Reaching the basic achievement level is the rst step for students to become procient in reading, math, and
other subjects. Helping students reach the basic level should be an urgent goal for educators and school leaders
to solve the national education crisis. e fact that most disadvantaged students cannot reach the basic level in
reading and math is a serious equity issue. In Kansas, the district leaders of Dodge City Public Schools (DCPS)
have made a clear case for promoting districtwide literacy programs. On the district website, they educate their
constituents by listing the following facts:
Why is literacy important?
• Illiterate workers earn 30-42% less than those who are literate.
• 43% of adults living in poverty can barely read or can’t read at all.
• A Harvard University study found that people with at least 12 years of education live a year-and-a-half longer than those with less education.
• Data from the U.S. Department of Justice show that 75% of state prison inmates have low literacy skills or did not graduate from high
school.
Helping All Students to Reach Prociency in Reading and Math
“e Pandemic Erased Two Decades of Progress in Math and Reading,” e New York Times reported
(Mervosh, 2022). “e pandemic has smacked American students back to the last century in math and reading
achievement,” according to Education Week, which describes itself as America’s most trusted resource for K-12
education news and information (Sparks, 2022). It is true that student learning has been seriously disrupted by
the pandemic, but student achievement data show another concerning trend over the past 20 years.
Nationwide, only around 30% of public school students have performed at or above the NAEP procient level in
reading and math for decades (Figure 4). Even in the “best” years (i.e., students performing the best, compared
with other years), only 37% of fourth-graders and 35% of eighth-graders reached the procient level in reading.
As for math achievement, in the “best” years, only 41% of fourth-graders and 34% of eighth-graders performed
at or above the procient level.
21
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Figure 4. Public School Students Who Performed at or Above NAEP Procient Levels in Reading and Math
Source: NDE Core Web (nationsreportcard.gov)
If we use 2017 as the year when students performed the best in reading and compare student performance
between 2017 and 2022, we can see the discouraging situation that has lasted for half a decade (Table 4).
Nationwide, 65% of fourth-graders could not reach the procient level in reading in 2017, and in 2022,
the percentage was 68%. If we look at disaggregated data, most students from low-income families and
disadvantaged backgrounds could not reach the procient level in fourth-grade reading. For example,
• Nine in 10 fourth-graders who were identied as English language learners performed below the procient level in reading (91% in 2017;
90% in 2022).
• Nearly 9 in 10 fourth-graders who were identied as students with disabilities performed below the procient level in reading (88% in 2017;
89% in 2022).
• More than 8 in 10 Black students in fourth grade could not reach the procient level in reading.
• Approximately 8 in 10 Hispanic students in fourth grade performed below the procient level in reading.
• About 8 in 10 fourth-graders from low-income families (i.e., students eligible for the National School Lunch Program) performed below the
procient level in reading.
22
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Research suggests that being unable to read prociently as early as fourth grade has serious consequences.
Without foundational reading skills, students oen lose interest and motivation in middle school, struggle to
keep up academically, fail to master the knowledge and content needed to progress on time, and in the end, drop
out of school (e Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010). Many studies have examined and explored philosophical
and pedagogical ways to help students become procient readers. For example,
• Parental Involvement — Evidence shows that time engaged in reading is associated with reading achievement, and one way to increase the
sheer amount of reading done by students is to encourage reading at home (Crosby et al., 2015; Morgan et al., 2009). Researchers nd that
home involvement is a key ingredient in student reading success (Fawcett, Padak, and Rasinski, 2013).
• Educator Professional Training — A rich body of literature suggests that graphemes representing phonemes in alphabetic writing systems
do not typically come naturally to children, and most children must be taught explicitly about phonetics to make further progress in reading.
Researchers suggest that teachers should receive more professional training to teach students how to read. In an empirical study, Correnti
(2007) found that teachers who received professional development in how to teach reading oered 10% more comprehension instruction
than teachers without this training. In recent years, some states passed laws requiring “evidence-based and scientically-based” reading
instruction. In Colorado, for example, teachers are required to go through 45 hours of training to learn the science of how to teach literacy
(Eden, 2022).
• District Leadership — “Student outcomes are strongly linked to adult mindsets, and teachers and leaders at high-performing schools
tend to share a common set of high expectations for success” (CAO Central, 2021; de Boer et al., 2018). Delagardelle (2008) conducted a
two-year in-depth interview with school leaders and educators and found that “There was a signicant dierence in beliefs between school
board members in high- and low-achieving districts: those in high-achieving districts often expressed a positive belief in students’ potential
and in the district stas’ ability to improve achievement, while those in low-achieving districts did not express this belief and more often
blamed outside factors and the students themselves for low achievement” (CSBA, 2017).
Figure 4. Public School Students Who Performed at or Above NAEP Procient Levels in Reading and Math
Source: NDE Core Web (nationsreportcard.gov)
23
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
In summary, without solid foundational reading and math skills, it is hard for students to go into any pathways
to postsecondary success. Fostering an education environment in which all students can be procient in reading
and math during their K-12 education should be a mission for school leaders.
Increasing Graduation Rate and Raising the Graduation Bar
At the core of school board accountability is to see every student successfully graduate from high school
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2016; ED, 2009). For decades, school leaders and educators have made great eorts
to help students to complete K-12 education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES,
2023), the overall dropout rate for 16- to 24-year-olds decreased from 8.3% in 2010 to 5.2% in 2021. During this
time, the dropout rate declined substantially among Hispanic (from 16.7% to 7.8%), American Indian/Alaska
Native (from 15.4% to 10.2%), and Black students (from 10.3% to 5.9%).
Despite the progress, increasing graduation rates, particularly of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, is
still a priority for all school leaders. According to NCES (2023), in the 2019–2020 school year, the graduation
rates for students with disabilities (71%), English learner students (71%), and economically disadvantaged
students (81%) were below the U.S. average graduation rate (87%)
.
• As shown in Figure 5 and based on the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR), in 2019–20, the U.S. average graduation rate for Black
public high school students (81%) was 9 percentage points lower than that of White students (90%) and 11 percentage points lower than
that of Asian/Pacic Islander students (93%).
• Black students had lower graduation rates than White and Asian/Pacic Islander students in every state and the District of Columbia.
Wisconsin reported the largest gap between the graduation rates for Black and White students (23 percentage points).
• Figure 6 shows that in 2019–20, the U.S. graduation rate (based on the ACGR) for Hispanic public high school students (83%) was about
8 percentage points lower than that of White students (90%) and 10 percentage points lower than that of Asian/Pacic Islander students
(93%).
24
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Figure 4. Public School Students Who Performed at or Above NAEP Procient Levels in Reading and Math
Note: The Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) refers to the percentage of U.S. public high school students who graduate
on time. To calculate the ACGR, state education agencies rst identify the “cohort” of rst-time 9th-graders in a particular
school year. The cohort is then adjusted by adding any students who immigrate from another country or transfer into the
cohort after 9th grade and subtracting any students who subsequently transfer out, emigrate to another country, or die. The
ACGR is the percentage of students in this adjusted cohort who graduate within 4 years of starting 9th grade with a regular high
school diploma or, for students with the most signicant cognitive disabilities, a state-dened alternate high school diploma.
Source: COE - Public High School Graduation Rates (ed.gov)
26
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Beyond increasing graduation rates, raising the graduation bar has also become an urgent call. For instance,
while rural students, on average, have higher graduation rates compared with their peers in urban schools, rural
student college enrollment has been low (NCES, 2022). In rural areas, more adults (age 25 and above) only had a
high school degree as their highest level of educational attainment (34%) in 2019, compared with their city (23%)
and suburban peers (25%). At the same time, compared with adults in cities (37%) and suburban areas (37%),
only 25% of rural adults had a college degree (i.e., a bachelor’s or higher degree).
Evidence shows that parents, particularly low-income parents, have concerns about the future of their children
aer high school. In a statewide poll of Texas parents (EdTrust, 2023), 65% worry about whether their child
is prepared for life aer high school; this is especially true for the parents of Spanish-speaking students (86%)
and students from low-income backgrounds (70%). In brief, raising the graduation bar means ensuring that all
students graduate with the knowledge and skills necessary to thrive in college and the workforce (ED, 2012).
27
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Policy/Practice Discussion Box 1: Pathways to Postsecondary Success
Career, College, and Service: Three Pathways to
Postsecondary Success
Being procient in literacy and numeracy is a critical part of all pathways to postsecondary success
(Fazekas and Warren, n.d.). Many school board members believe that the objective of K-12 education
is to prepare students for college, career, and citizenship. From the perspective of school district
leadership, pathways to success often mean:
• Preparing students for college both academically and psychologically.
• Providing career-geared programs for students who may want to start a job immediately after high school.
• Taking advantage of scholarships and other opportunities provided by the military or other civil service
sectors, and then going into public service after graduation.
With the above-mentioned pathways in mind, school boards may ask questions about how their
district policies can help every student in a focused way. Schools should support all students in
setting their own achievement goals. One vision of a district may be for all students to know what they
need to learn; for educators to teach students the steps to get there and motivate every student to do
the work; and for all students to accomplish what they need to have a chance to succeed. In practice,
school leaders may start by thinking about what a student prole looks like and what a graduate
would say in terms of “When I graduate, this is what I can do for my life.”
There are many education, training, and work-based pathways to decent jobs. Researchers have
dierent ways of categorizing pathways to postsecondary success. For instance, in May 2023, the
Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) released a new report titled
“What Works: Ten Education, Training, and Work-Based Pathway Changes That Lead to Good Jobs.” In
the report, CEW researchers identied three dierent combinations of pathway changes:
• Expanding access to bachelor’s degree programs and increasing bachelor’s degree completion.
• Expanding access to middle-skills programs and also increasing completion of either an associate’s or a
bachelor’s degree.
• Moving young adults on the high school pathway from a low-paying occupation to a STEM or other high-
paying profession while ensuring continuous employment from ages 20 to 22.
Simply put, every student should have a strategic learning plan; all students should feel capable and
prepared when they graduate.
28
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Part III
School Board Accountability, Eectiveness, and Evaluation
Accountability means “the fact of being responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them
when you are asked” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionary) or “the fact of being responsible for what you do and able to
give a satisfactory reason for it, or the degree to which this happens” (Cambridge Dictionary). Accountability,
especially, refers to “an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions”
(Merriam-Webster Dictionary). In brief, accountability means responsibility, frequently used in the context that
elected ocials are entrusted with public duties.
School Board Accountability and Democracy
Governing schools has become far more dicult and complicated since the pandemic, and many school boards
have become “mired in partisan political controversies that have little to do with their core function: educating
students” (Harvard Kennedy School of Government, 2023). Because of many challenging situations that school
boards are facing today, society at large, including scholars and researchers, has raised the question — “Should
school boards run schools?”
In a democratic system, perhaps it is more meaningful to ask how responsive U.S. school boards are to the
preferences of voters than to ask whether school boards should govern. eoretically, the accountability of school
boards is intricately intertwined with the fact that boards are primarily elected ocials, and voters are supposed
to know what they are looking for and what they expect regarding the eectiveness of boards. However, research
in this eld is limited, and no conclusive answer has been provided.
• Earlier studies found that the 2000 elections revealed considerable evidence that voters evaluate school board members on the basis of
student learning trends, but during the 2002 and 2004 school board elections, “when media (and by extension public) attention to testing
and accountability systems drifted, measures of achievement did not inuence incumbents’ electoral fortunes” (Berry and Howell, 2007).
• Ren (2022) examined how responsive school boards were to the preferences of their voters in Virginia. One hypothesis the researcher tested
in the study is that “If a school district has at least one incumbent board member up for reelection in 2020, it will be less likely to adopt a
remote learning policy during the Fall 2020 school semester.” While the ndings are complicated and narrowed to certain specic issues, the
study provides preliminary evidence that “the increased attention American voters are investing in local school boards is not in vain.”
Another issue surrounding board accountability and democracy is representation. A few recent, empirical
studies provide dierent perspectives on whether elected ocials of school boards represent their district’s
parents and community and how representation may inuence student learning and achievement. Some studies
focus on interest groups, while others emphasize the connection between racial/ethnic minority representation
and student achievement. e following are some examples:
29
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
• Hartney (2022) found that union-endorsed school board candidates have done exceptionally well — won roughly 70% of all competitive
races — in elections held across all three states (i.e., California, Florida, and New York). The criticism is that school board elections
nowadays have become increasingly political, more focused on interest groups than on students, and such elections can lead to ineective
governance of school boards and hence aect student learning. An example the researcher provided is that during the pandemic, “students
who attended school in districts where their teachers’ unions are very active in electioneering were the least likely to receive signicant in-
person instruction during the 2020-21 school year.”
• Shi and Singleton (2021) analyzed data of California school board elections between 1996-2015 and found that there is no statistically
signicant relationship between an educator being elected to serve on the school board and student achievement. While the study has
limitations, the researchers suggest that electing an educator to the school board has an insignicant eect on increasing student scores in
reading and math or increasing high school graduation rates.
• Research in political science suggests that school districts with large Hispanic, Black, or other racial/ethnic minority student populations
benet school board elections, as more minority board members can be elected to represent the community, empower and engage the
parents they represent, and increase the performance of disadvantaged students (Morel, 2021; Morel and Nuamah, 2019; Morel et al.,
2016). Kogan et al. (2020) found that greater representation of racial and ethnic minorities on school boards has a positive eect on the
achievement of non-White students; specically, “increases in minority representation could lead to cumulative achievement gains of
approximately 0.1 standard deviations among minority students by the sixth post-election year.”
What Research Says About School Board Accountability and Student Achievement
Research suggests that with more federal and state laws being passed to regulate K-12 education, school board
members seem to have less authority to make decisions, yet are increasingly held accountable for student
performance (Alsbury, 2008). eoretically, with a clear division of roles and responsibilities, school boards
can provide accountability and monitor performance, thus creating the conditions for improving student
achievement (Hess, 2008). While there is a shortage of empirical studies on school board accountability and
student achievement, evidence shows that district leaderships do have an impact on student achievement
(Leithwood et al., 2019; Plough, 2014).
• Researchers (Waters and Marzano, 2006) conducted a meta-analysis of 27 studies and found a positive relationship between district-
level leadership and student achievement. In districts with higher levels of student achievement, local school boards always ensure that
student achievement goals are the primary focus of the district’s eorts and that no other initiatives detract attention or resources from
accomplishing these goals.
• In 2022, Sutherland published a research study titled “Tell them local control is important”: A case study of democratic, community-
centered school boards. The researcher focused on small rural school districts in Vermont and conducted a qualitative multiple case study
of local school boards. The ndings of this study explained how small, locally controlled school boards can employ elements of democratic
governance and how community-based school board governance can inuence students’ schooling and enhance student learning.
• In a dissertation study (Holmen, 2016), the researcher investigated 23 school districts and interviewed and surveyed school board members
in Washington State. “The ndings of this research study conrm and extend the empirical evidence that has been presented over the last
20 years linking school board characteristics and improved student achievement results” (Holmen, 2016).
States’ Requirements for School Accountability
State governments use accountability systems to “measure student and school performance, identify schools in
need of support, and prompt action to raise student achievement” (e Education Trust, 2023). Dierent states
may focus on dierent measures or standards in their accountability systems. In general, school accountability
systems attempt to help parents, communities, and policymakers measure school quality to make decisions and
target resources to support student achievement.
30
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
For example:
• Colorado’s education accountability system “is based on the belief that every student should receive an excellent education and graduate
ready to succeed.”
• Maryland’s accountability system measures school and school district performance and provides the information to educators, parents, and
the public for improving student achievement.
• In Massachusetts, the state’s accountability system aims to provide clear, actionable information to families, community members, and the
public about district and school performance.
• Michigan’s school accountability systems use statewide student assessment scores and other quality metrics to provide transparency on
school performance for all Michigan public schools.
• In New Mexico, the state government denes accountability in education as “the responsibility of students learning to teachers, school
administrators, and students and incorporates a number of factors such as test results and graduation rates, as measurements.”
• Virginia’s accountability system supports teaching and learning by setting rigorous academic standards and thorough annual statewide
assessments of student achievement.
• Texas emphasizes its annual academic accountability ratings to its public school districts, which examine student achievement, school
progress, and whether districts and campuses are closing achievement gaps among various student groups. The ratings are based on
performance on state standardized tests; graduation rates; and college, career, and military readiness outcomes.
How Districts Describe School Board Accountability
“Student achievement is the primary agenda for school boards” (WSSDA, n.d.). e Washington State School
Directors’ Association (WSSDA) has issued guiding principles about the role of school boards in improving
student achievement. As policymakers, school boards play a signicant part in “ensuring that students learn what
they need to know to be prepared as productive citizens and that they are able to demonstrate that knowledge on
state and local measures of achievement” (WSSDA, n.d.).
e Ohio School Boards Association (OSBA), as another example, believes that it is the work of school boards
to ensure a systemwide culture in which excellent teaching and successful learning can take place. According
to OSBA, school boards should commit to a continuous improvement plan regarding student achievement
throughout the district. “Accountability is based on the expectation that all students can and will excel, meaning
we expect minority students, students who live in poverty, students with disabilities and other student groups to
learn and perform the same as their peers” (OSBA, 2023).
31
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Most school districts incorporate their accountability in their vision and/or mission statements. Many
school districts explicitly state that the most important responsibility of school boards is improving student
achievement. e following are some examples:
• Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland, implements an Equity Accountability Model. The model “moves beyond the typical state
and federal aggregate reporting to performance reporting for specic focus groups of students who have not experienced the same level of
access, opportunity or success as other students.”
• Claremore Public Schools, Oklahoma — The district’s mission is “to increase student learning and achievement.” The district’s vision is that
“ALL students will have the options to provide evidence of their learning in numerous ways while gaining necessary knowledge, skills, and
attitudes to achieve their dreams and become successful members of the community in which they live.”
• Hamilton Unied School District, California ― One of the ways in which school boards serve the community is by prioritizing student
achievement and ensuring accountability for student and district performance.
• According to the Darlington Community School District, Wisconsin, “Accountability means measuring and judging how well the district is
putting the vision into practice and making progress on key goals; Accountability starts with (1) the adoption of goals and academic and
other standards, and (2) the assignment of responsibility and authority.”
In summary, as NSBA (2018) points out in “e Key Work of School Boards Guidebook,” accountability is one
of the ve action areas (i.e., vision, accountability, policy, community leadership, and relationships) in the key
work framework of school boards, and “High academic standards, transparency, and accountability undergird a
world‐class education.”
32
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Policy/Practice Discussion Box 2: Has School Board Governance Been “Hijacked?”
Is There a Push for a “Uniform” Accountability System?
Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), each state educational agency (SEA) and local
educational agency (LEA) that receives Title I Part A funds must prepare and disseminate an annual
report card that includes a variety of data about public schools. The data cover a wide range of
measures on student and school performance, accountability, per-pupil expenditures, and educator
qualications, as well as any other information that the SEA or LEA deems relevant (Cai, 2019). In a
sense, federal and state-mandated or promoted measures on student report cards look like a push
for a “uniform” accountability system.
To what extent do federal and state accountability systems impact school boards?
An earlier study reported that more than three-fourths (78%) of school boards agree — with 34%
agreeing strongly — that federal and state accountability systems have created much pressure
to the eect that boards need to “celebrate hard work and initiative” on the part of teachers
and administrators (Hess, 2010). Some researchers suggested that performance information
disseminated via school “report cards” directly shapes voter perceptions about the quality of local
schools (e.g., Chingos et al., 2012, Jacobsen et al., 2013).
It should be noted that research results regarding the inuence of federal and state accountability
systems on school board election and operation are inconclusive. For example,
• According to an early study (Jacobsen et al., 2013), under the law No Child Left Behind (NCLB), federal and state
governments attempted to implement two accountability strategies simultaneously — raising standards and public
pressure through publicizing performance data. Using data from New York City, the researchers found that parent
satisfaction declined when school performance grades dropped after the implementation of higher standards. The
authors were concerned that the public or voters might misunderstand the drop in achievement that occurs when the bar
is raised and become dissatised with school performance. They pointed out that “Because public support for sustained
and successful reforms is key, understanding how accountability policies may erode support is critical.”
• According to researchers from Ohio State University (Kogan et al., 2015), school districts in Ohio often need to put
school tax referenda on the ballot more frequently than in other states. The researchers estimated the impact of federal
performance measures on local school tax referenda in Ohio from 2003 to 2012 and found that a signal of poor district
performance increases the probability of failure of school tax levies. They concluded that a widely publicized federal
indicator of local school district performance may not necessarily lead voters to draw valid inferences about the quality
of local educational institutions. The end result may be that school districts may lose voter support for school tax levies,
which are often substantial nancial sources for schools of impoverished communities. They “call this burgeoning
phenomenon ‘performance federalism’ and argue that it can distort democratic accountability in lower-level elections.”
• In another Ohio study, researchers (Kogan et al., 2015) focused on local school board elections held from 2003 to 2012
across a sample of 611 Ohio school districts. They examined whether the federal and state accountability systems might
inuence local school board elections and lead to improvements in educational quality. Their data analysis revealed little
evidence that publicized measures of school and district performance had an impact on the likelihood of turnover on
school boards, the electoral success of sitting school board members, or turnover among district administrators.
33
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Who Approves K-12 Curricula in Public Schools?
The State Department of Education of Rhode Island denes curriculum as “a standards-based
sequence of planned experiences where students practice and achieve prociency in content and
applied learning skills.” Curriculum is the central guide for all educators as to what is essential for
teaching and learning, so that every student has access to rigorous academic experiences. According
to the Ballotpedia research (2022):
• In 34 states, state laws task local districts with approving K-12 curricula.
• In 12 states, school boards, sometimes in conjunction with state entities, approve K-12 curricula.
• In Rhode Island, Texas, North Carolina, and Alaska, state entities, like the state board of education or the commissioner of
education, approve K-12 curricula.
School boards govern by the adoption of policies that have the force of law; the adoption of
some specic policies by boards is often required by legislative mandates and state or federal
administrative rules and regulations (California School Boards Association, Illinois Association of
School Boards, Maine School Boards Association, Pennsylvania School Boards Association, and
Washington State School Directors’ Association, 1998). In recent years, the expansion of federal
intrusion on public education has impacted local policymaking in many ways (NSBA, n.d.). However,
establishing a curriculum is primarily a state and local responsibility.
34
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
School Board Eective Governance: A Key to High Achievement for All Students
“e lack of a unied consensus on what school boards actually do presents both a practical and theoretical
problem when attempting to research the institution” (Ford, 2013). School boards may be judged eective by
measures other than student achievement, such as their ability to balance budgets, comply with legislation, and
respond to local concerns. However, research suggests that student achievement should be the predominant
measure of interest (Land, 2002).
Empirical Research on Characteristics of Eective School Boards and Student Achievement
Eective means “successful or achieving the results that you want” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2023). High
achievement for all students is one of the most important successful results that school boards want through
their eective governance. According to Lorentzen (2013), “Whatever their decisions, boards must be able to
justify their actions to the community as eectual in promoting the smooth functioning of the district in all ways
conducive to optimal student achievement.”
e following empirical studies reported data on the relationship between some characteristics of eective school
boards and student achievement:
• Lorentzen (2013) conducted a non-experimental quantitative study that examined the relationship between school board governance
behavior (i.e., boardsmanship) and student achievement scores. The researcher found that student achievement signicantly correlated
with school boards that could (a) provide responsible school district governance, (b) set and communicate high expectations for student
learning with clear goals and plans for meeting those expectations, (c) create the conditions districtwide for student and sta success,
(d) hold the school district accountable for meeting student learning expectations, and (e) engage the community.
• Ford (2013) surveyed school board members from six states, where school board members often make signicant time and eort
commitments to serve in a position that does not provide them with economic support. The researcher found that (a) school boards
collaborating with superintendents and holding them accountable has a positive relationship with student graduation rates, (b) board
planning and vision are linked to enhanced student learning outcomes, and (c) statistically, the absence of board development or the lack
of board members’ professional training can predict low reading scores of students in the district. In brief, while the education environment
faced by school boards in Utah, Florida, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are vastly dierent, the common characteristics of
eective school boards include minimizing conict, focusing on vision and continuous improvement through policy-setting and strategic
planning, and good superintendent-board relations.
• Holemen (2016) conducted an observational study of 23 school districts in Washington State and collected data on the 10 individual
board characteristics® identied in the Balanced Governance® approach (Alsbury and Gore, 2015). The researcher analyzed the data
using statistical modeling, found that school boards’ decision-making style and exercise of inuence had the largest impact on student
achievement, and recommended that school boards focus on their decision-making processes and advocacy strategies. It should be noted
that as many variables aect student achievement levels (e.g., poverty, language abilities, mobility), this study does not establish a causal
link between school boards and student achievement. As empirical research, the study supports conclusions from previous research that
school districts with eective school boards are likely to increase student achievement.
• Samuel Osahene Osei Yaw Bonsu, Jr. (2020) conducted a quantitative study with a sample size of 65 school districts and 520 school board
trustees in Texas. The researcher ran a multiple regression analysis on school board trustees measuring board governance through the
WSSDA ve standards: (a) responsible school district governance, (b) communication of and commitment to high expectations for student
learning, (c) creating conditions districtwide for student and sta success, (d) holding the district accountable for student learning, and
(e) engagement of the community in education. The dependent variable in the study was the districts’ A-F Accountability Rating scores in
the Texas accountability system. The results of the study suggested that the higher the scores a school board receives when evaluated for
its governance, as measured by the WSSDA ve standards, the higher the district performs in terms of student academic achievement.
35
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
What Parents Want Regarding Student Achievement
e Pew Research Center reported that “One-in-ve parents of K-12 students say their children’s school doesn’t
spend enough time on core academic subjects like reading, math, science and social studies” (Horowitz, 2022).
At the same time, according to a recent survey by the National Parent Teacher Association (National PTA®)
and other research organizations (2023), nearly half of parents (43%) worry about their children being behind
academically for their grade level. Among Hispanic parents, about 3 in 5 (59%) are concerned that their children
academically cannot reach their grade level.
Prior to the pandemic, 41% of parents whose children attended public schools were not “very satised” with the
academic standards of their children’s schools (NCES, 2020). Data show that most parents see school safety and
student well-being as paramount factors when selecting schools for their children. Nonetheless, many parents
consider the quality of educators, curriculum, and student performance as “very important” factors when
selecting their children’s schools (Table 5). Among K-12 students whose parents considered other schools for
their children:
• Nearly 4 in 5 (79%) intended to change their children’s schools because of the quality of teachers, principals, and other school sta.
• Nearly 3 in 5 (59%) reported that they wanted their children to attend another school because of curriculum focus or unique academic
programs (e.g., language immersion, STEM focus).
• More than half (53%) said that they wanted their children to attend another school because of the academic performance of students (such
as test scores, dropout rates, and so on).
Table 5 shows some interesting trends regarding what important factors parents from dierent backgrounds use
to select schools for their children. Further research is needed to explore why parents use these factors to make
the decision. For example,
• Parents of private school students (86%) are more likely to rate the quality of educators as a “very important” factor when selecting
schools for their children compared with parents of public school students (78%). According to one study on private schools, the top
reasons for parents to decide to switch schools for their children are (1) the child’s happiness and well-being and (2) insucient attention
to individual student needs (Henebery, 2022).
• Nearly 40 million public school students attend district-assigned schools; only 6 million public school students go to a school that they can
choose. Compared with parents of students who attend district-assigned schools, parents of students who attend public schools of their
choice are more likely to rate the quality of educators (82% vs. 77%), quality curriculum (65% vs. 58%), and student academic achievement
(55% vs. 53%) as “very important” factors when selecting schools for their children.
• Parents of students in small schools — under 300 students (79%) and 300 to 599 students (81%) — are more likely to rate the quality of
educators as a “very important” factor when selecting schools for their children, compared with parents of students in large schools. By
contrast, parents of students in large schools — 600 to 999 students (55%) and 1,000 or more students (54%) — are more likely to rate
student academic performance as a “very important” factor when selecting schools for their children, compared with parents of students in
small schools.
36
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
• Compared with rural parents, urban parents — city (60%), suburban (67%), and town (61%) — are more likely to switch their children’s
schools because of advanced programs (e.g., language immerse programs, programs focused on science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics or STEM). Additionally, urban parents are more likely than rural parents to rate student academic performance as a “very
important” factor when selecting schools for their children. Overall, suburban parents seem more “demanding” of their children’s schools in
terms of the quality of educators, advanced curriculum, and student academic performance.
• Compared with parents of other racial/ethnical groups, parents of Black students are more likely to rate the quality of educators (84%),
student academic achievement (70%), and quality curriculum (69%) as “very important” factors when selecting schools for their children.
Researchers nd that Black parents tend to have high expectations of their children in public schools (Howard, 2015; Rall and Holman,
2021). According to Watkins (2019), “Parents’ promotion of children’s academic resilience is especially crucial for Black children, who are
three times more likely than White children to live in poverty.”
In brief, regardless of where students go to school and what family backgrounds students come from, all parents want their children to attend
schools that have high-quality educators, advanced curriculum, and good student academic performance.
37
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Table 5. Among K-12 Students Whose Parents Considered Other Schools for Their Children, Percentage of Students
Whose Parents Rated as “Very Important” Factors Used to Select Child’s School, by Selected School, Student, and Family
Characteristics: 2018–19
Note: *Non-Hispanic. Source: Parent and Family Involvement in Education: 2019
38
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
How School Boards Address Eective Governance and Student Achievement
In 2019, the Canadian School Boards Association published a study titled “Elected School Boards and High-
Quality Public Education” (Overgaard, 2019). As in the U.S., school boards in Canada are among the institutions
that have been an important part of the democratic system. Yet, school boards in Canada have come under
criticism and even are experiencing moves to be eliminated or replaced with alternative structures. Eliminating
or changing the structure of the democratically elected school boards will not address the concerns, according to
the study author.
In fact, the concerns that should be addressed are eective governance and student achievement. School boards
oer their communities the opportunity to engage directly with their representatives and to participate in setting
a vision for education; communities can advocate for their educational values, promote equity, and hold their
representatives directly accountable for student achievement (Overgaard, 2019). Philosophically and practically,
eective governance is a mechanism for creating a safe and healthy learning environment in which every student
can succeed.
In the U.S., many state school boards associations emphasize the relationship between eective governance and
student achievement. ey believe that through eective local governance, every student can receive quality
education and achieve high academic goals. Many state associations embed this belief in their board member
training programs. States oen address eective governance and student achievement in diverse ways. For
example,
• Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB) — Every three years, the AASB Board of Directors lays out a path for the fulllment of its
mission and vision. The Board named its plan “Pathways.” According to Pathways — The Long-Range Plan 2022-2025, the mission of AASB
is “To advocate for children and youth by assisting school boards in providing quality public education, focused on student achievement,
through eective local governance.”
• Colorado Association of School Boards (CASB) — CASB cites the Iowa Lighthouse research for the highly eective standards of its school
boards. School boards should provide eective leadership for quality instruction and high, equitable student learning. To reach this goal,
school boards should have Clear Expectations (i.e., Set and communicate high expectations for student learning with clear goals and a
focus on strengthening instruction), Conditions for Success (i.e., Support conditions for success through board actions and decisions),
Accountability (i.e., Hold the system accountable to reach student learning goals), Collective Commitment (i.e., Build the collective
commitment of community and sta to achieve the student learning goals), and Team Learning (i.e., Learn together as a whole team to
inform decision-making around the student learning goals).
• Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE) — The mission statement of MABE is to “Provide members with a strong collective
voice and support local school board governance through professional development, advocacy and member services.” The goal of MABE’s
professional development is “to promote student achievement and eective local governance of schools by ensuring that all school board
members understand the NSBA Key Work Model for eective school board leadership.”
• Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB) — MASB emphasizes that “Ethics are essential to the successful operation of the
educational system,” and believes that “high ethical standards translate into a focus on student achievement, culture and conduct at board
meetings and consistent accountability.”
• Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA) — In 2019, WSSDA published a research-based leadership guidebook titled
“Serving on Your Local School Board: A foundation for success.” The guidebook provides a roadmap for each school board to govern
eectively and for every board member to become an eective school leader. WSSDA also published Data Dashboards for School Directors,
which shows school boards how they can distill and interpret essential information about student academic performance and use data to
target policies and resources that improve student learning eectively.
39
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Policy/Practice Discussion Box 3: Examples of School Districts Practicing
Eective Governance
Shared Governance in the Salt Lake City School
District, Utah
In Utah, school boards can have the exclusive right to determine the goals and direction of the
district, but this is not the case for the Salt Lake City School District (SLCSD). The SLCSD Board of
Education recognizes that a school district is a complex organization and believes that everyone’s
ideas are important. In 1974, the board agreed to delegate the right to local sites to make some
decisions using the Shared Governance process.
Shared Governance is based on the philosophy that education is a responsibility of all employees and
the community, and that when people work together to make decisions, many advantages accrue.
Under Shared Governance, district personnel and, at the school level, members of the community
join to make decisions that aect the welfare of students and education. While Shared Governance
allows for a broad range of decisions, all decisions must t within the law, Board of Education policies,
budgets, and professional ethics requirements.
In the model of shared governance, school boards adopt basic principles such as decision-making
through delegation, dialogue, and communication with a mind of openness, trust, and equity.
Accountability means that after a decision is made, all stakeholders are expected to support that
decision and to help make its implementation successful. It should be noted that the practice of
Shared Governance should allow certain degrees of exibility, depending on what decisions and
policies will be made.
SLCSD Mission Statement: “Salt Lake City School District cultivates a love of learning in a diverse and
inclusive school community, committed to educational excellence and integrity. In collaboration with
families and community, we hold high expectations for all students, respond eectively to individual
needs, and provide a safe, healthy environment in which every student can learn the academic,
problem-solving, and social skills required for success in college, career, and life.”
Policy Governance in School Districts in Colorado and Vermont
Policy Governance is a model of governance designed to empower school boards to fulll their
obligation of accountability and duciary responsibility for the district they govern. Policy Governance
allows the board to focus on larger issues, clearly delegate authority, and direct the superintendent
without interfering, while continuously evaluating what is being accomplished. A key principle of
Policy Governance is governing the school district by focusing on results or clearly dened “ends” —
what graduates should know, understand, and be able to do. To achieve the “ends” goals, the board
40
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
communicates to the superintendent what the board expects to be accomplished and leaves the
methods for accomplishing those goals up to the superintendent and all sta.
In Colorado, the Adams County School District 14 (Adams 14) has adopted the Policy Governance
model. The school district describes itself as “Located just 15 minutes from the heart of downtown
Denver, Adams 14 has all the conveniences of a metropolitan school district with a small-town feel.”
Adams 14 has 13 schools and serves 6,000 students. Most students of Adams 14 are Hispanic (87%).
More than three-quarters (77%) participate in the free or reduced lunch program. Nearly half the
students (45%) are English language learners, with 15 languages spoken at home. After adopting
the Policy Governance model, district leaders accomplished two objectives, namely, strengthening
connections with the community and focusing on policies that result in increased student
achievement.
In Vermont, the Burlington School District (BSD) serves 3,263 students, including 20% with
Independent Education Plans (IEPs), 14% English language learners (Els), 53% who are eligible
for free or reduced lunch programs, and 39% non-White. The Board of School Commissioners
adopted the Policy Governance model in 2017 to focus the district on signicantly improving student
achievement outcomes and closing achievement gaps, while creating strong connections between
the Board and the Burlington community.
With the transition to Policy Governance, the Board established several kinds of policies that have
been amended over time, including substantial changes in 2018 and 2019. According to the BSD
Board, the shift to Policy Governance has four noticeable immediate impacts:
• “The number of Board committees is sharply reduced, because the whole Board takes responsibility for monitoring the
district’s work towards the specied ends.
• The number of community forums will increase, as the Board seeks to engage the community in topics that are pertinent
to strategic planning and development. The community plays an important role in advising the board about its values and
expectations.
• Board meetings will shift to focus on reviewing more detailed monitoring reports, revealing how the district is working
toward ends. In addition, some of the monitoring reports will address how the Board itself evaluates its own work.
• Monitoring reports provide the board with data; the board then decides whether the district’s actions are in compliance
with a reasonable interpretation of the policy. Evaluating monitoring reports keeps the Board’s focus on whether
the district is achieving the specied ends. If a monitoring report does not convince the Board that the district is in
compliance with a given policy, then the board will direct the superintendent to revise and resubmit the report. Regular
monitoring allows the Board to decide whether policies need revision and whether the general trends in the district are
moving towards the ends.”
In summary, an increasing number of school boards have adopted the Policy Governance model
across the country. Regardless of which governance model a school board adopts, an essential piece
of a school board’s work is continuously evaluating the work of the superintendent in relation to the
broad outcomes it has specied and continuously engaging the community.
41
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
School Board Evaluation: Measuring Eectiveness to Improve
Governance
e evaluation of school board performance is essential to demonstrating accountability and generating
public trust. However, school board eectiveness is a complex concept and a complicated practice. Researchers
suggest that “Isolating what makes an eective board—that is, one that impacts student achievement—involves
evaluating virtually all functions of a board, from internal governance and policy formulation to communication
with teachers, building administrators, and the public” (Dervarics and O’Brien, 2011; NSBA, 2019).
Why School Boards Need Self-Evaluation
“Evaluation is rst of all a control mechanism that allows the school board to make judgments about
performance based on a set of predetermined and well understood objectives” (Mike, 1991). Another function
of school board self-evaluation is to improve the performance of others within the school district by improving
the performance of the board itself. Research suggests that good self-evaluation is part of a cycle that begins with
goals setting, and then proceeds to implementing the goals, to judging the results of that implementation, and
concludes with a new set of board goals (Figure 7).
•
Figure 7. The Ongoing Board Self-Assessment Cycle (New York State Education Department, 2015)
Source: Microsoft Word - School Board Evaluation_FINAL.docx (nyssba.org)
42
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Many state school boards associations post articles/reports on their websites to answer the question why school
boards need self-assessment or self-evaluation. eir descriptions oen highlight and emphasize the connection
between self-evaluation and the improvement of board eectiveness and student achievement. e following are
some examples:
• Alaska Association of School Boards (AASB, n.d.) — “The School Board Self-Assessment … should be viewed as an opportunity to improve
how the board works — not just a critique of its operations. The purpose is to identify expectations and strategies that will help the board
and superintendent enhance the performance of the district and improve student outcomes.”
• Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA, 2020) — “Student achievement, however that is dened by your district, is at the heart of why
school boards exist. In Arizona, local communities get to decide what the path to success will look like via their locally elected school
boards. While there is no one-size-ts-all strategy to ensure student achievement, the research is clear: school boards in high-achieving
districts exhibit habits and characteristics that are markedly dierent from boards in low-achieving districts. Annual self-evaluation allows
you as a board to assess how well you are exhibiting the characteristics of an eective board and where there may be opportunities for
improvement.”
• Florida School Boards Association (FSBA, 2016) — “While not universally applied, board self-assessment is both a best practice and rst
step. A recent study showed boards that conducted a self-assessment within the past three years reported higher performing boards, better
board orientation, and greater board cooperation, all of which impact student achievement in a positive way. Structured self-reection
provides a unique and essential opportunity for board members to ‘judge’ their collective performance, understand the extent of their
individual responsibilities and take action to improve performance.”
• Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB, 2023) — “Without a clear vision and district goals, policies can and will dramatically change
based on the shifting beliefs and values of individual board members that come and go. Remember, the policies are the school district’s
laws, so continuity is essential, so students, sta, parents, and patrons know the expectations. Consistently reviewing the district vision and
goals to ensure alignment to the current realities within the district will lead to policy adjustments. School boards going through annual
board self-assessment, goals and progress updates, and school board work sessions focused on improvement and barriers to success, are
systematic ways to ensure alignment.”
• New York State School Boards Association (NYSSBA, 2015) — “Eective boards engage in a continuing process of self-assessment and use
the results to identify opportunities for improvement. More importantly, the NYSSBA believes it is the responsibility of the board to help
drive school improvement and student achievement. The board’s willingness to engage in self-assessment acts as a model for the rest of the
district. It indicates that board members take their responsibilities seriously. Their interest in self-improvement sets the tone for others in
the district to engage in an ongoing review of their own performance.”
What Evaluation Tools School Districts Are Using
Currently, school districts oen use a wide variety of evaluation tools developed or delivered by state school
boards associations. Some are frameworks or recommended structured-questionnaires; others are some online
ready-to-go self-assessment tools. e following are some examples:
• In New York, the state’s evaluation model oers a three-part guide for evaluating the school board: Part I is based on standards and
professional practices derived from school board best practices and a review of sample board evaluations. Part II is based on the specic
board development priorities of the board itself. Collectively, the board should dene three to ve objectives that focus on the board’s
own development for the year. In Part II, an assessment will be made regarding the successful completion of these annual objectives. Part
III is the nal performance summary sheet. It provides a nal rating of the board’s performance standards, annual objectives, cumulative
comments, and recommendations for improvement in the following year.
• In North Dakota, the state school board association (NDSBA, n.d.) recommends a free online school board self-evaluation instrument. The
evaluation tool is based on board competency in six dimensions — contextual, educational, interpersonal, analytical, political, and strategic.
Under each dimension, there are specic descriptions of successful board practices. For instance, under the contextual dimension, the
board should keep informed about what students are learning through reports on scholastic achievement, vocational programs, and the
impact of extracurricular activities.
43
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
• The Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA, 2023) oers an online self-assessment survey. The survey consists of 12 standards
for eective boardsmanship based on the ongoing research of Tom Alsbury on Balanced Governance. The 12 standards include Vision
Directed Planning, Community Engagement, Eective Leadership, Accountability, Cultural Responsiveness, Culture and Climate, Learning
Organization, Systems Thinking, Innovation and Creativity, Budgeting and Financial Accountability, Using Data for Continuous Improvement
and Accountability, Board Member Conduct, Ethics, and Relationships with the Superintendent.
• In Washington, the state school boards association oers an easy-to-use free online Board Self-Assessment survey tool (WSSDA, 2023). The
research-based and scientically validated survey is based on the Washington School Board Standards and helps school boards assess and
strengthen their performance in governing for improved student learning.
• In Wisconsin, the state school boards association oers two board assessment tools (WASB, 2023). The Annual Board Development Tool, an
online survey created by School Perceptions and the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB), aims to help each local school board
to become a more eective governing board. The other assessment tool ― the School Board Meeting Self-Evaluation Tool ― also online, is
designed to ensure that school board meetings are running as eectively as possible
A Lack of Recent Research on School Board Evaluation and Eectiveness
ere is a severe shortage of literature on school board evaluation as a tool used to improve school board
governance and ultimately enhance student achievement. Empirically, the establishment of causal links between
eective boards and strong organizational performance “is fraught with diculties, not the least of which is the
valid measurement of eective board and organizational performance” (Gill et al., 2005). Researchers oen use
proxy, rather than direct, measures to evaluate the eective governance of school boards or other non-prot
organizations.
Earlier research on school board evaluation focused on the need for school boards to identify the strength and
weakness of their governance on a regular basis and the standards or criteria that should be created to develop
board self-assessment. While those studies seem out of date, many scholarly views are still valid today. For
example,
• Sutton (1985) conducted a eld study in Champaign and Ford Counties, Illinois, and found that many local boards did not dene or
implement a formal self-evaluation process. The author believes that a successful self-assessment program can help school boards identify
their strengths and weaknesses, and then facilitate the board to develop and implement some eective action plans, particularly to improve
the weaknesses identied by the evaluation tool. “It is through a commitment to eectiveness generated by strong leadership, rather than
external pressure, that should establish a high standard of eectiveness for the local board of education” (Sutton, 1985).
• Martin (1996) surveyed school districts in Virginia, and found that most school boards in the state, more than 2 out of 3, did not practice
school board evaluation. At the same time, school boards that reportedly assessed their own performance did not use many of the
components of self-evaluation recommended as “best practices.” The author recommended that school boards design or select evaluation
instruments that should be based on research-identied best practices, reect local performance criteria, have a process focused on
the board as a body instead of individual board members, provide a section allowing open discussion, and be able to conduct a regularly
scheduled annual meeting with a predetermined facilitator and site for the event.
In recent years, a small number of studies attempted to examine to what extent school board self-evaluation
improve board eectiveness. In one study, researchers (French et al., 2008) surveyed 815 school board members
in Tennessee and found that most school board members perceive themselves as an eective governing body.
Since the data only represent the surveyed local school districts in Tennessee, the authors remind readers to
exercise caution when interpreting the result. ey also recommend that future studies incorporate all school
districts in the south to see whether other states are witnessing the same levels of eectiveness as Tennessee.
44
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Additionally, we found little research to tell us clearly how the results of school board self-evaluation can be
transferred to practice. In one study, researchers broadly examined the Governance Self-Assessment Checklist
(GSAC), an instrument designed to assist boards in assessing their own performance (Gill et al., 2005). Based on
data from 281 board members and 31 executive directors from 32 nonprot organizations and 27 independent
observers, the authors found and suggested that:
• The size of the organization’s board, budget, or sta was not correlated signicantly with the eectiveness of the board or that of the
organization.
• Board members rated board development practices (recruitment and orientation of board members, team building, and board self-
assessment) most consistently as requiring substantial improvement.
• The GSAC’s Quick Check instrument may provide a feasible way of taking the board’s governance pulse quickly. This may be especially
useful for small-budget voluntary organizations that feel that they do not have the resources for an in-depth examination of their
governance practices.
45
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Policy/Practice Discussion Box 4: Post-Evaluation Actions of School Boards
Missing Accountability Benchmarks:
What Can School Boards Do?
School board evaluation is like our regular checkups or doctors’ diagnosis tests. The main purpose of
board governance evaluation is to detect issues and improve. The results of a board evaluation should
be actionable data, namely, information that provides enough insight for future decision-making and
gives school boards clear directions to take actions to govern better.
OSBA Self-Evaluation: An Example from Well-Designed Evaluation Tools to Actionable Data
High-quality self-evaluation questionnaires should be developed under research-based domains
or constructs. The self-evaluation tool from the Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA, 2017)
is designed to provide both a clear objective system for board evaluation and exibility. The tool
includes two main parts, each of which provides adequate feedback on what needs to be done in the
future.
• Part 1 of the evaluation follows a set of performance standards focused on the roles, responsibilities, and work of the
board.
• Part 2 focuses on the board’s performance in supporting the achievement of district goals.
• For boards that would like to survey the community regarding their performance, the questions in Part 1 and Part 2 of the
board self-evaluation tool can be put to administrators, sta, and community members.
In Part 1, there are 12 board performance standards (e.g., policy and governance; community
relations; accountability and student performance monitoring). Each standard has a series of
indicators (e.g., The board’s priority and focus are on curriculum, student achievement and student
success; The board uses data to identify discrepancies between current and desired outcomes; The
board has a process to review policies for cultural, racial and ethnic bias.). There are ve levels of
performance that board members can use to grade each standard:
0 UNACCEPTABLE — No indicators for this standard have been attempted and/or completed. The board needs intense focus on
this standard.
1 NEEDS IMPROVEMENT — Few indicators for this standard have been attempted, but none/very few have been completed. The
board needs heavy focus on this standard.
2 GOOD — At least half of the indicators for this standard have been attempted, and several have been completed. The board
needs moderate focus on this standard.
3 EXCELLENT — Most of the indicators for this standard have been completed. The board needs to maintain performance on
this standard.
4 OUTSTANDING — All of the indicators for this standard have been completed. This is an area of model performance for the
board.
46
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
With actionable data generated from the OSBA evaluation tool, school boards can take steps to
improve. For example,
1. Contemplation. Allow for reection by board members on their individual and collective behavior and performance. Study
the evaluation results to better understand how and why decisions are reached. Identify strengths and weaknesses of
individual board members’ performance and the board as a whole.
2. Communication. Foster open communication within the board and with all stakeholders. Resolve dierences of opinion
and challenge assumptions. Create opportunities for new board members to understand board processes. Enhance a
common understanding of the philosophies and goals of the district.
3. Action. Use the evaluation data as a starting point for eective goal-setting and long-range planning.
AASB’s Evaluation: Strengthening the Board and Superintendent Relationship
The annual board self-evaluation and the superintendent performance evaluation are two crucial
evaluation tools. Both should be used to improve school district governance. A good relationship
between boards and superintendents is crucial for student achievement, as “they must work together
to maintain open and constructive communication about their roles and responsibilities create a
leadership team that has a much greater opportunity of positively aecting student and school
outcomes” (Garrison, n.d.).
The Alaska Association of School Boards (AASB) emphasizes the annual board self-evaluation as
equally important as the superintendent performance evaluation. To have a constructive, meaningful
experience, the following tips are recommended by Lon Garrison, AASB School Improvement
Coordinator, when implementing a school board self-evaluation:
• It should be a facilitated process through an independent facilitator that allows every member equal participation.
• The Superintendent must be included.
• Student members should be included in this process as they have a unique and essential voice.
• The evaluation tool should be oriented around standards, such as the Alaska Association of School Boards, Board
Standards, or the NSBA Key Work of School Boards.
• The prompts within each standard should push members to look for evidence supporting their ranking of board
performance. Rankings must be supported with comments in order to have productive conversations.
• The evaluation tool should require an assessment of the board’s work on the strategic plan and annual board priorities.
• The board should link its ability to work eectively as a governance unit to student achievement and student success
within the district.
• The board should assess whether it has made progress in its own self-improvement goals during the past year.
• The board and superintendent use this as an opportunity to hold themselves publicly accountable for the work they have
to do.
As Garrison says, “Eectual governance and school system management is a team eort and requires
constant and regular assessment of both the board and its chief executive.” To have an eective
governance system and improve student achievement, the board and superintendent must develop a
culture that prioritizes their team eorts and emphasizes using data from their regular evaluations to
align their vision, mission, and strategic goals.
47
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Conclusions — Governance Matters
Nationwide, 2 in 3 fourth-graders cannot reach the procient level in reading. If we look at disaggregated data,
approximately 80% of students from low-income families and disadvantaged backgrounds cannot reach the
procient level in fourth-grade reading. Sadly, about half of disadvantaged students cannot even reach the
basic level in reading and math.
As an aerthought, school boards are oen blamed for the low achievement of our students and the quality
of the education provided to our children. Can school boards play a meaningful and valuable role in the
improvement of student achievement? Evidence shows that high-performing school districts are more likely to
be governed by an eective school board.
Although researchers constantly remind readers that their studies cannot lead to any causal-eect link between
school board eectiveness and student achievement, governance matters. A key characteristic of eective
school boards is that the board is composed of members with strong beliefs in and commitment to improving
student learning (Brochu, 2016). To improve governance, school boards should consistently use evaluation
tools to assess their own performance, adjust their practices, and align their goals with their districts’ visions
and missions.
Dierent school districts may explain student achievement dierently. Ten thousand school boards may dene
accountabilities in ten thousand dierent ways. Yet, helping every student to acquire foundational literacy and
numeracy skills and become a citizen who can freely pursue the American dream should be a common goal for
all school boards in the United States.
“School districts are natural laboratories of governance, with more than 10,000 opportunities for would-be
reformers to build a better democratic system” (Berkman and Plutzer, 2005).
48
Ten Thousand Democracies, One Common Goal
Technical Notes
In this report, we used multiple data sources to conduct a comprehensive and thorough research review. Most of
the data are selected from the recently published tables prepared by the National Center for Educational Statistics
(NCES), reports published by federal agencies, as well as some academic research papers. We provide links to
data sources for readers who are interested in the methodology of our data collection and estimation.
While data used in this study are from credible sources, our research has limitations. When comparing
populations that have a large dierence in size, reporting percentages or counts only can lead to ambiguous and
even misleading interpretations. erefore, if necessary, we report both the count of students and the percentage
of students by group.
We use data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), known as the Nation’s Report Card,
to compare student performance in dierent states, regions, and geographic locations. As Finn (2022) explains,
NAEP is, and for decades has been, “America’s premier gauge of whether its children — all our children — are
learning anything in school, whether they’re learning any more today than years ago, and whether the learning
gaps among groups of children are narrowing or widening.” at said, NAEP should not be used as the basis
for measuring the performance of a student, school, or school district for the purpose of creating rewards or
imposing sanctions.
Lastly, while we use dierent algorithms when searching qualitative data and cite various examples in our study,
it does not necessarily mean that we endorse the product, researcher, or organization cited. e views of cited
research do not necessarily represent our views. Our purpose in this study is to provide a wide range of data
and information for readers to examine and consider. We encourage our readers to exercise their own sound
judgment when assessing and using the information we provide in this study.
© 2023 National School Boards Association, All Rights Reserved
References
Alsbury, T. L. (2008). The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation. Retrieved from https://eric.
ed.gov/?id=ED501897.
Berkman, M. B. & Plutzer, E. (2005). Ten thousand democracies: Politics and public opinion in America’s school districts.
Georgetown University Press: Washington, D.C.
Berry, C. R. & Howell, W. G. (2007). Accountability and local elections: Rethinking retrospective voting. Retrieved from http://
home.uchicago.edu/~whowell/papers/AccountabilityAndLocal.pdf.
Bonsu Jr., S. O. O. Y. (2020). The impact of Texas school board trustee governance on student academic achievement.
Retrieved from https://www.tasb.org/services/board-development-services/events/xg-summit/documents/samuel-bonsu-jr-
dissertation.pdf.
Brochu, G. R. (2016). The governance-achievement link: The school board plays a pivotal role in improving student
achievement. American School Boards Journal, April 2016. Retrieved from https://www.shipmangoodwin.com/a/web/
sEjk2RpcUM4ko7A6sbZ2/Xbww5/37048_The_Governance_Achievement_Link_by_Gary_Brochu.pdf.
Correnti, R. (2007). An empirical investigation of professional development eects on literacy instruction using daily logs.
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/prole/Richard-Correnti/publication/242580077_An_Empirical_Investigation_
of_Professional_Development_Eects_on_Literacy_Instruction_Using_Daily_Logs/links/5473ad2c0cf245eb436db7f1/An-
Empirical-Investigation-of-Professional-Development-Eects-on-Literacy-Instruction-Using-Daily-Logs.pdf.
Crosby, S. A., Rasinski, T., Padak, N., & Yildirim, K. (2015). A three-year study of a school-based parental involvement program
in early literacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 108:2, 165-172, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2013.867472. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/prole/Kasim-Yildirim/publication/276375886_A_3-Year_Study_of_a_School-Based_Parental_
Involvement_Program_in_Early_Literacy/links/569164a508ae0f920dcb8d35/A-3-Year-Study-of-a-School-Based-Parental-
Involvement-Program-in-Early-Literacy.pdf.
de Boer, H. & Timmermans, A. C. (2018). The eects of teacher expectation interventions on teachers’ expectations and
student achievement: Narrative review and meta-analysis. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1200493.
Dervarics, C. & O’Brien, E. (2011). Eight characteristics of eective school boards. Retrieved from https://www.nsba.org/-/
media/NSBA/File/cpe-eight-characteristics-of-eective-school-boards-report-december-2019.pdf.
Eden, M. (2022). Red states should embrace the science of reading. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/wp-content/
uploads/2011/10/20080825_0423422EduOAugust_g.pdf?x91208.
© 2023 National School Boards Association, All Rights Reserved
References
Ford, M. (2013). The impact of school board governance on academic achievement in diverse states. Retrieved from https://
dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=etd.
French, P. E., Peevely, G. L., & Stanley, R. E. (2008). Measuring perceived school board eectiveness in Tennessee: The latest
survey results. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01900690701465327.
Gill, M., Flynn, R. J., & Reissing, E. (2005). The governance self-assessment checklist: An instrument for assessing board
eectiveness. Retrieved from The_governance_selfassessment_checklist_20170628-14023-owc3zr-libre.pdf (d1wqtxts1xzle7.
cloudfront.net)
Henebery, B. (2022). Study reveals why parents switch private schools. Retrieved from https://www.theeducatoronline.com/
k12/news/study-reveals-why-parents-switch-private-schools/280876.
Hess, F. M. (2008). Assessing the case for mayoral control of urban schools. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/wp-content/
uploads/2011/10/20080825_0423422EduOAugust_g.pdf?x91208.
Holmen, J. P. (2016). School boards and student achievement: The relationship between previously identied school
board characteristics and improved student learning. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1013&context=soe_etd.
Horowitz, J. M. (2022). Parents dier sharply by party over what their k-12 children should learn in school. Retrieved from
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/10/26/parents-dier-sharply-by-party-over-what-their-k-12-children-
should-learn-in-school/.
Howard, E. D. (2015). African American parents’ perceptions of public school: African American parents’ involvement in their
children’s educations. Retrieved from https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3951&context=etd.
Jimenez, K. (2022). Reading and math test scores fell across US during the pandemic. How did your state fare?. Retrieved from
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/10/24/naep-report-card-test-scores-reading-math/10552407002/.
Kogan, V. (2022). Locally elected school boards are failing. Retrieved from https://www.educationnext.org/locally-elected-
school-boards-failing-pandemic-stress-tested-school-governance/.
Kogan, V., Lavertu, S., & Peskowitz, Z. (2020). How does minority political representation aect school district administration
and student outcomes?. Retrieved from https://edworkingpapers.org/sites/default/les/KLP_BoardDiversity_WithAppendix.
pdf.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and eectiveness in relation to students’ academic achievement.
Retrieved from https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED462512.pdf.
© 2023 National School Boards Association, All Rights Reserved
References
Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & McCullough, C. (2019) How school districts inuence student achievement. Journal of Educational
Administration. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JEA-09-2018-0175. Retrieved from http://www.conference.cassa-acgcs.ca/
downloads/2019_presentations/17-07-05am-b-Leithwood_Sun_McCullough_Sch_District_Inuence_Achievement.pdf.
Lorentzen, I. J. (2013). The relationship between school board governance behaviors and student achievement. Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2406&context=etd.
Lorentzen, I. J. & McCaw, W. P. (2019). The science of student achievement adhering to board standards impacts districtwide
student success. Retrieved from https://www.isba-ind.org/uploads/1/1/9/2/119210664/guest_feature_2_lorentzen_mccaw_
su19.pdf.
Martin, J. A. (1996). The school board and self-evaluation: Do school boards in the Commonwealth of Virginia evaluate their
own performance? Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/39163/LD5655.V856_1996.M378.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Mike, B. (1991). School board self-evaluation: Charting a path to the future. Retrieved from https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED337873.pdf.
Morel, D. (2021). How community engagement helped transform the Union City Public Schools. Retrieved from https://www.
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161956X.2021.1943238.
Morel, D. et al. (2016). The eects of centralized government authority on Black and Latino political empowerment. Retrieved
from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912916639136.
Morel, D. & Nuamah, S. A., (2019). Who governs? How shifts in political power shape perceptions of local government services.
Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087419855675.
National School Boards Association. (2018). The key work of school boards guidebook. Retrieved from https://tsba.net/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/Key-Work-Cover-and-Text-20Jan15.pdf.
Overgaard, V. (2019). Elected school boards and high-quality public education: A literature review examining the relationship
between high-quality public education systems and governing school boards. Retrieved from http://www.cdnsba.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/Elected-School-Boards-Literature-Review-FINAL.pdf.
Plough, B. (2014). School board governance and student achievement: School board members’ perceptions of their behaviors
and beliefs. Retrieved from https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1028871.pdf.
Rall, R. M. & Holman, A. R. (2021). The power of the collective: How a Black parent group’s initiative shaped children’s
educational experiences and excellence. Retrieved from https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1323081.pdf.
© 2023 National School Boards Association, All Rights Reserved
References
Ren, C. (2022). Parents, politics, and the pandemic: How voters preferences inuence school board policies. Retrieved from
https://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/les/assets/documents/Ren%2C%20Christopher%20Honors%20Thesis.pdf.
Shober, A. F. & Hartney, M. T. (2014). Does school board leadership matter?. Retrieved from https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED560010.pdf.
Sparks, S. D. (2022). Two decades of progress, nearly gone: National math, reading scores hit historic lows. Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/two-decades-of-progress-nearly-gone-national-math-reading-scores-hit-historic-
lows/2022/10#:~:text=Student%20Achievement-,Two%20Decades%20of%20Progress%2C%20Nearly%20Gone%3A%20
National%20Math%2C,Reading%20Scores%20Hit%20Historic%20Lows&text=The%20pandemic%20has%20smacked%20
American,as%20the%20Nation%27s%20Report%20Card.
Sutherland, D. H. (2022). “Tell them local control is important”: A case study of democratic, community-centered school
boards. Retrieved from https://epaa.asu.edu/index.php/epaa/article/view/7439.
Sutton, C. N. (1985). Self assessment model for local boards of education to evaluate eectiveness. Retrieved from https://
thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3764&context=theses.
Tripses, J., Hunt, J., Kim, J., & Watkins, S. (2015). Leading into the future: Perceptions of school board presidents on the
essential knowledge and skills for superintendent preparation programs. Retrieved from https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ1105469.pdf.
Washington State School Directors Association. (2023). Online board self-assessment. Retrieved from https://wssda.org/
leadership-development/online-board-self-assessment/.
Waters, J. T. & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The eect of superintendent leadership on student
achievement. Retrieved from https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494270.pdf.
Wisconsin Association of School Boards. (2023). Board assessment tools. Retrieved from https://wasb.org/customized-
leadership-services/board-assessment-tools/.
© 2023 National School Boards Association, All Rights Reserved
About CPE
e National School Boards Association (NSBA) believes that accurate, objective information is essential to
building support for public schools and creating eective programs to prepare all students for success. As NSBA’s
research branch, the Center for Public Education (CPE) provides objective and timely information about public
education and its importance to the well-being of our nation. Launched in 2006, CPE emerged from discussions
between NSBA and its member state school boards associations about how to inform the public about the
successes and challenges of public education. To serve a wide range of audiences, including parents, teachers, and
school leaders, CPE oers research, data, and analysis on current education issues and explores ways to improve
student achievement and engage support for public schools.
About NSBA
Founded in 1940, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) is a non-prot organization representing
state associations of school boards and the Board of Education of the U.S. Virgin Islands. rough its member
state associations that represent locally elected school board ocials serving millions of public school students,
NSBA advocates for equity and excellence in public education through school board leadership. We believe that
public education is a civil right necessary to the dignity and freedom of the American people and that each child,
regardless of their disability, ethnicity, socio-economic status, or citizenship, deserves equitable access to an
education that maximizes their individual potential.
For more information, visit nsba.org.
