INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photo­
graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm
master. UMI film s the text directly from the original or
copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies
are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type
of computer printer.
The quality of th is reproduction is dependent upon the
quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print,
colored or poor quality illu strations and photographs,
print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a
complete manuscript and there are m issing pages, these
w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright m aterial
had to be removed, a note w ill indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­
produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the
upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in
equal sections with sm all overlaps. Each original is also
photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book. These are also available as
one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23"
black and w h ite photographic print for an additional
charge.
Photographs included in the original m anuscript have
been reproduced xerographically in th is copy. H igher
quality 6" x 9" black and w h ite photographic prints are
available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

University M icrofilms International
A Bell & Howell Information C om pany
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Order N um ber 9018681

P erceived interm ediate school district board developm ent needs
and approaches used for interm ediate school district board
developm ent in M ichigan
Dubow, Karen Sue, Ph.D .
Michigan State University, 1989

UMI

300 N. ZeebRd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PERCEIVED INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND APPROACHES
U S E D FO R I N T E R M E D I A T E S C H O O L D I S T R I C T
B O A R D D E V E L O P M E N T IN M I C H I G A N
By
Karen S . Dubow

A DISSERTATION

S u b m i t t e d to
Michigan State University
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s
for the d e g r e e of

D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y

D e p a r t m e n t of T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n

August

1989

ABSTRACT
PERCEIVED INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
B O A R D D E V E L O P M E N T NEEDS A N D A P P R O A C H E S
U S E D FOR I N T E R M E D I A T E S C H O O L D I S T R I C T
B O A R D D E V E L O P M E N T IN M I C H I G A N
ByKaren S . Dubow

The

purposes

of

this

study

wer e

(1)

to

determine

the

b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s of i n t e r m e d i a t e school b o a r d m e m b e r s
for

future

board

development

programs,

currently

serving

intermediate

presently

employed

intermediate

to

determine

school

the

bo a r d s

for

different
board

school

development;

perceived

board

school

approaches

as

by

members

and

superintendents;

(2)

used
(3)

by
to

intermediate
determine

the

r e l a t i o n s h i p s of p e r c e i v e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n eeds to c e r t a i n
demographic
service,

characteristics

and

geographic

such

as gender,

location;

and

(4)

te n u r e
to

of

board

develop

a

c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r o f i l e of i n t e r m e d i a t e sc h o o l b o a r d m e m b e r s in
the S ta te of Michigan.
The

population

selected

for

the

s t u d y was

or a p p o i n t e d b o a r d m e m b e r s c u r r e n t l y s e r v i n g on

318

elected

intermediate

b o a r d s and f i f t y - s e v e n p r e s e n t l y e m p l o y e d i n t e r m e d i a t e school
district

superintendents

in the State of Michigan.

T he q u e s t i o n n a i r e u s e d in this s t u d y c o n s i s t e d of forty
items

relating

approaches
and

to

used

for

participation

activities;

board

development

inservice

policy.

personal

development

needs;

such

in M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n

required

development
gather

board

The

different

as

of

orientation

School

education;

and

questionnaire included

information used

to d e v e l o p

Boards’
board

items

to

a comprehensive

p r o f i l e of i n t e r m e d i a t e school b o a r d members.
D a t a a n a l y s i s i n c l u d e d the use of a b s o l u t e frequencies,
percentages, m e d i a n , Chi-square
Study

results

test an d K e n d a l l

indicated

that

ISD b o a r d

tau b .
members

and

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s p e r c e i v e d e ight of the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t needs
as

extremely

education

important

p r o g r a m s .The

permanent

base

of

for
top

future

two

community

ISD

items

board

were

support"

"Bu i l d i n g
an d

c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h c o n s t i t u e n t school b o a r d s ."
in

activities

sponsored

board memb e r s .

locally

wa s

the

i n s ervice
a

"Imp r o v i n g

Participating

preference

of

ISD

B o t h b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s agree

that i n service e d u c a t i o n for b o a r d m e m b e r s s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d .
C e r t a i n d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t end to h a v e no r e l a t i o n ­
ship

to

Michigan
old,

perceived
ISD

board

retired,

educational
service,

has

board

development

member
above

attain m e n t ,

is

an d has no c h i l d r e n

The

m a l e , w h i t e , over

average
is

needs.

income,

elected,

has

in school.

sixty

has a hig h
0-5

"typical"

years

years

level
of

of

board

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The

completion

persistence,

of

and most

any

of

express a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s
would

be

given

to

I would

impossible.
me

by

like

so

to

major

all,

the

requires

help

of

many

hard

work,

people.

To

for all who a s s i s t e d in the p r o j e c t

However,

many

task

the

support

individuals

acknowledge

my

is

deb t

and

greatly

to

assistance

a p p r e ciated.

a number

of

spec i a l

people.
My sinc e r e thanks to Dr. C h a r l e s A. Blackman, m y a d v i s o r
an d d i s s e r t a t i o n
encouragement

committee

and

patience

chairman,
with

me

wh o

throughout

A d d i t i o n a l th a n k s to Dr. H o w a r d Hickey,
Dr.

Ben

Bohnhorst

for

their

provided

guidance,

this

program.

Dr. D o n a l d Burke,

willingness

to

serve

on

an d
my

co m m i t t e e an d for b e c o m i n g m y friends.
Spec i a l

thanks

to

Mary

Kino

and

Marcia

ex p e r t a s s i s t a n c e of M a r y was m o s t valuable.

Waara.

The

He r p a t i e n c e and

ex t r a effo r t s in s u p p o r t of m y r e s e a r c h a n d of me, p ersonally,
w er e

very much

a p p r e ciated.

Marcia

extended many hours

and

m u c h effort in ty p i n g a n d p r o o f r e a d i n g the m a n y d r a f t s of this
work.

Her s p i r i t of c o n f i d e n c e in the c o m p l e t i o n of this w o r k

was t r u l y a p p r e ciated.
Additionally,

I

would

like

m e m b e r s a n d ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s

iv

to

t hank

all

ISD

board

in the S t a t e of M i c h i g a n who

took

the

tim e

Executive

to

Director

participate
of

the

in

this

Michigan

study;

Justin

Association

of

Boards, wh o has b e e n a g r e a t s o u r c e of e n c o u r a g e m e n t ;
Myefski,

Superintendent

of

the

Marquette-Alger

King,
Sc h o o l

a n d Lou

Intermediate

School D i strict, w h o p r o v i d e d information, n e c e s s a r y r e s o u r c e s
a n d gav e his time to a n s w e r m y m a n y questions.
Finally,
felt

in

my

w o r d s ar e

heart

for

inadequate

my

family.

to e x p r e s s
Special

the g r a t i t u d e

appreciation

is

e x p r e s s e d to m y h u s b a n d Tom, d a u g h t e r Molly, an d s o n Joey,

for

the

the

love,

encouragement

and

support

t hey

provided;

for

m a n y s a c r i f i c e s t h e y e n d u r e d a n d e s p e c i a l l y for t h e i r e n o r m o u s
patience

and understanding

while

fa m i l y m e m b e r d u r i n g this study.

I was

not

this d i s s e r t a t i o n .

v

as a

I g i v e spec i a l th a n k s to T o m

for his f aith a n d g e n t l e b u t fir m nudging.
that I d e d i c a t e

functioning

It is to m y f a m i l y

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Lis t

of T a b l e s ............................................... ix

Lis t

of F i g u r e s ............................................... xi

L ist of A p p e n d i c e s
Chapter
I .I N T R O D U C T I O N

........................

. xii

..........................................

P u r p o s e of the S t u d y

.

1
7

S i g n i f i c a n c e of the S t u d y ......................... 10
D e f i n i t i o n of T e r m s ................................ 10
Research Questions

.............................

Delimitations

11
.

15

L i m i t a t i o n s ....................................... 15
O u t l i n e of S t u d y ............
II.R E V I E W O F R E L A T E D L I T E R A T U R E

16

......................

H i s t o r i c a l D e v e l o p m e n t of the
Intermediate School District Boards

..........

17

17

The R o l e an d R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of
School B o a r d s ....................................

30

Sch o o l B o a r d M e m b e r s h i p

36

Board Development

........................

......................... 46

The N e e d for I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g
of Sch o o l B o a r d M e m b e r s ...................

46

D e l i v e r y of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t
A c t i v i t i e s ..................................... 54
O r i e n t a t i o n ..................................... 57

vi

Man d a t o r y Inaervice Training
of S c h o o l B o a r d M e m b e r s ...................

60

S u m m a r y .......................................... 66
III.

M E T H O D S A N D P R O C E D U R E S ......................... 69
Research Questions

.............................

69

Research Population

.............................

73

D e v e l o p m e n t of the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . . . . . .

73

C o n t e n t ........................................73
Construction
Validity

IV.

.....................

74

..............................75

Procedures

for D a t a C o l l e c t i o n ............. 76

Procedures

for D a t a A n a l y s i s

P R E S E N T A T I O N OF D A T A

. . . . . . . .

77

..............................84

Specific Purpose #1— Board Development
N e e d s as P e r c e i v e d b y B o a r d M e m b e r s . . . . .

85

Specific Purpose #2--Board Development
N e e d s as P e r c e i v e d b y S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s . . . .

91

Specific Purpose #3--Approaches
Board Development Needs .

to
100

Specific Purpose #4— Demographic
Characteristics and Board Development
............
Needs

110

S p e c i f i c P u r p o s e # 5 - - P r o f i l e of ISD
B o a r d M e m b e r s ...................................118
C o m m e n t s R e l a t e d to the S t u d y ............... 124
S u m m a r y ..............
V.

128

S U M M A R Y , F I N D I N G S , C O N C L U S I O N S AND
D I S C U S S I O N , S U G G E S T I O N S FOR F U R T H E R
R E S E A R C H , AND REFLECTIONS UPON THESTUDY

.

. . 129

S u m m a r y .......................................... 129
F i n d i n g s ........................................133
Conclusions and Discussion
vii

...................

142

Suggestions

for F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h

...............

R e f l e c t i o n s U p o n the S t u d y ....................

146
148

A P P E N D I C E S .................................................. 151
BIBLIOGRAPHY

..............................................

GENERAL REFERENCES

.......................................

viii

170
175

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
Board Members/Superintendents’ Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s — C o m m u n i c a t i o n
R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ......... ...........................
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

86

Board Members/Superintendents* Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s - - I n s t r u c t i o n a l /
C u r r i c u l a r R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ......................

87

Board Members/Superintendents’ Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s - - F i n a n c i a l
Responsibilities. . . . . . . . .
...............

88

Board Members/Superintendents * Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s - - L e g a l
R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .................................

92

Board Members/Superintendents * Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s - - A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
..................................
Responsibilities

93

Board Members / S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s - - B o a r d s m a n s h i p
Responsibilities
..................................

94

Board Members/Supe r i n t e n d e n t s ’ Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s - - O t h e r Issues

. . .

95

A R a n k C o m p a r i s o n of P e r c e i v e d B o a r d
D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s as R e p o r t e d b y ISD
B o a r d M e m b e r s a n d S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ..............

98

Boards With Board Development Policy
as R e p o r t e d b y S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s
.................
Board Development Policy with Budget
R e s o u r c e s as R e p o r t e d by S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s

100

. . . 101

F o r m a l O r i e n t a t i o n for N e w M e m b e r s
as R e p o r t e d b y S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s
.................

101

Board Members Who Received a
F o r m a l O r i e n t a t i o n ..............

102

ix

13.

P r o v i d e r s of F o r m a l O r i e n t a t i o n
for B o a r d M e m b e r s ....................................102

14.

B o a r d M e m b e r A t t e n d a n c e - - 1988 M A S B
A c a d e m y of B o a r d s m a n s h i p

. 103

15.

B o a r d M e m b e r A t t e n d a n c e - - 1988 M A S B
A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e ..........» ....................... 104

16.

B o a r d M e m b e r A t t e n d a n c e - - 1989 M A S B
...................
Mid-Winter Conference . . . .

105

Board Member Attendance--Local County
Sch o o l B o a r d A s s o c i a t i o n P r o g r a m s ...............

106

Board M e m b e r s ’ and Superintendents’
R e s p o n s e s to R e q u i r e d In s e r v i c e
E d u c a t i o n for B o a r d M e m b e r s . . . . . . . . . .

107

A C o m p a r i s o n of B o a r d M e m b e r s ’ an d
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s * P e r c e p t i o n s of R e q u i r e d
I n s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n for B o a r d M e m b e r s ..........

110

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

The Statistical and Practical
Significance Between Certain Board
Development Needs and Board Member Gender

. . . Ill

A t t e n d a n c e of B o a r d M e m b e r b y
Gender--MASB Annual Conference

. . . 112

. . . . .

22.

The S t a t i s t i c a l a n d P r a c t i c a l
Significance Between Certain Board
D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s a n d T e n u r e of
B o a r d S e r v i c e .........................................113

23.

A t t e n d a n c e of B o a r d M e m b e r b y Te n u r e
of B o a r d S e r v i c e - - M A S B A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e

. . . 115

The S t a t i s t i c a l a n d P r a c t i c a l
Significance Between Certain Board
D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s an d G e o g r a p h i c L o c a t i o n

. . . 116

24.

25.

26.

A t t e n d a n c e of B o a r d M e m b e r b y G e o g r a p h i c
Location--MASB Annual Conference
..............
P r o f i l e s of B o a r d M e m b e r s

x

118

........................ 122

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig u r e
1. ISD G e o g r a p h i c L o c a t i o n s
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

.............

157

Board Members/Superintendents’ Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s - - C o m m u n i c a t i o n
Responsibilities
..................................

162

Board Members/Superintendents* Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s - - I n s t r u e t i o n a l C u r r i c u l a r R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . . .................

162

Board Members/Superintendents * Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s - - F i n a n c i a l
Responsibilities
..................................

163

Board Members/Superintendents’ Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s - - L e g a l
Responsibilities
..................................

163

Board Members/Superintendents * Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s - - A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Responsibilities
..................................

164

Board Members/Superintendents’ Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s — B o a r d s m a n s h i p
R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ................

164

. . . . .

Board Members/Superintendents’ Rating
of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d s - - O t h e r Is s u e s

xi

. . . 165

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A

B

C

D

L i s t i n g of the M i c h i g a n I n t e r m e d i a t e
School Districts
. . . . .
...............

151

Board Member and Superintendent
Questionnaires
.................

152

. . . . .

ISD D i s t r i c t s b y R e g i o n s a n d ISD
......................
Geographic Locations

156

Initial L e t t e r to B o a r d M e m b e r s
and Superintendents . . . . .
............

158

E

L e t t e r of E n d o r s e m e n t ..............

F

Request

G

S e c o n d L e t t e r to B o a r d M e m b e r s
a n d S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s .......................... 161

H

C o m p a r i s o n of B o a r d M e m b e r s ’ a n d
S uperint e n d e n t s ’ Ratings of Board
D e v e l o p m e n t N eeds ...........................

162

A S u m m a r y of the R e l a t i o n s h i p s of
D e m o g r a p h i c C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d All
B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t N eeds ...................

166

I

for S t u d y R e s u l t s

. . . 159

.................

160

J

P e r s o n a l D a t a of the M i c h i g a n ISD
B o a r d M e m b e r s ................................. 168

K

UCRIHS Approval

..............................

xii

169

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Viewed
education

by

are

many

among

our n a t i o n today.

persons,

the

most

the

local

important

lay

boards

governing

of

bodies

in

T h e s e local lay b o a r d s of e d u c a t i o n p r o v i d e

the g r a s s r o o t s l e a d e r s h i p for p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n a n d are k e e p i n g
the

art

of

local

principle

that

decisions

closest

decisions.

control

the

best

to

firmly

based

government

those

who

will

on

the

fundamental

is

that

which

be

affected

makes

by

such

L ocal l a y b o a r d s of e d u c a t i o n r e p r e s e n t d e m o c r a c y

at w o r k a n d this b e l i e f is r o o t e d s o l i d l y in A m e r i c a n h i s t o r y
a n d is a c h e r i s h e d A m e r i c a n t r a d i t i o n .*

L ocal

education,

committees,

boards,

variously

bo a r d s

titled,

of

(sc h o o l

sc h o o l

directors,

c o m m i s s i o n e r s ) are u n i q u e l y A m e r i c a n .

lay b o a r d s

of

school

trustees,

or

No o ther n a t i o n has so

universally instituted public schools directed and controlled
by

elected

unknown

or

most

appointed
places

b o a r d s are unknown.

and

local

citizens.

especi a l l y ,

School

policy

boards

function

are

school

0

*The I n s t i t u t e for E d u c a t i o n a l L eadership, Sc h o o l Boards
S t r e n g t h e n i n g Grass R o o t s L e a d e r s h i p (W a s h i n g t o n D.C.: IEL
P ub l i c a t i o n , 1986), p. 14.
K e i t h G o l d h ammer, The S c h o o l B o a r d (New York: The Center
for A p p l i e d R e s e a r c h in Educa t i o n , Inc., 1964), p. v.
1

School

bo a r d s

had

a

simple

beginning

established

in

c o l o n i a l time.

H i s t orically, b o a r d s of e d u c a t i o n e v o l v e d out

of

school

the

special

town meeting.

As

committees

the p o p u l a t i o n

set

up

by

the

of the U n i t e d

New

England

States moved

westward, the s e t t l e r s f o u n d the N e w E n g l a n d s y s t e m of cont r o l
a d v a n t a g e o u s an d the p r i n c i p l e of c i t i z e n c o n t r o l was intact.
The
education

United
and

States

left

the

Constitution
responsibility

makes
for

states t h r o u g h the r e s e r v e d pow e r s c l a u s e .
tutions set the f o u n d a t i o n s

no

mention

education

to

of
the

The s tate c o n s t i ­

for t heir own p u b l i c

s c h o o l s and

mos t s t a t e s ’ l e g i s l a t u r e s c r e a t e d school d i s t r i c t s an d school
boa r d s

to g o v e r n

c o n t e x t , school

them.
board

T h e r e f o r e , p e r c e i v e d w i t h i n a legal
members

are

agents

of

the

s tate

and

school b o a r d s , as a w h o l e , are e x t e n s i o n s of s tate g o v e r n m e n t
to m eet local needs.
School

boa r d s

enjoy

onl y

those

expressed

and

limited

p o w e r s of eit h e r m a n d a t o r y or d i s c r e t i o n a r y n a t u r e g r a n t e d to
them b y the s tate

in w h i c h the y are located.

0

The a m o u n t of

a u t h o r i t y an d the f r e e d o m of a c t i o n e x e r c i s e d b y school bo a r d s
varies.

Generally,

act

state

from

school

boards

derive

c onstitutions, legislative

their

authority

to

e n a c t m e n t s , rules

an d r e g u l a t i o n s of the state b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n , d e c i s i o n s of
the c o u r t , an d s o c i e t a l d e m a n d s .
Fr o m their b e g i n n i n g to the present,

school b o a r d s have

0
J oh n D. Measick, The D i s c r e t i o n a r y P o w e r s of
Bo a r d s (Durham, N o r t h Carolina: Duk e U n i v e r s i t y Press,

p. 21.

School
1949),

d e v e l o p e d a c o m p l e x p a t t e r n of functions.

T h e y hav e e v o l v e d

from

sc h o o l

the

functioning

policy-making
schools

and

of

bodies.

supervising

The

the g r o w i n g

the

elimination

complexity

of

of

master

si n g l e

education

to

one-room

resulted

in

the n e e d of c o m p e t e n t p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e - - t h e s u p e r i n t e n ­
dent.
has

The e v o l u t i o n of the b o a r d / s u p e r i n t e n d e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p

mad e

a

executive

distinction

functions

between

in p u b l i c

policy-making

such

is s u e s

as

an d

school o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

Diversity and complexity confront
1 9 8 0 ’s w i t h

functions

competing

school b o a r d s

in the

p h i l o s o p h i e s , resource

p r o b l e m s , t u r n o v e r s in b o a r d m e m b e r s h i p a n d / o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,
s tate m a n d a t e s , s p e c i a l
expectations,
problems,

i n t erests, litigiousness, escalating

enrollment

demographic

changes,

c o m p e t i t i o n fro m p r i v a t e
by

hig h

technology.

d u t i e s , responding
diversity,
time

being

responding

to

and

lack

decline,

of

public

personnel
conf i d e n c e ,

education and uncertainty generated

Dealing

with

federal

and

viewed
to

growth

critically

local

a

wide

state
by

s cope

of

legal

m a n d a t e s , managing

the

p u b l i c , spending

c r i s i s , and getting

along

with

the

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t are a fe w of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w h i c h r e q u i r e
d e c i s i o n s of w o r k i n g b o a r d s .
overwhelming,

beyond

the

T h e s e p r o b l e m s a n d issues

capacities

of

board

members

were

seated

seem
to

m a n a g e , eve n to c o m p r e h e n d .^
Traditionally,
expected

^IEL,

to

listen

new
and

board

learn

members

before

venturing

opinions

S t r e n g t h e n i n g G r a s s R o o t s L e a d e r s h i p , p.

18.

and
or

i n t r o d u c i n g n e w ideas.
It

is

possible

service,

for

Today,

t here is little time to learn.

a ne w b o a r d

to e x e r c i s e

member,

authority over

topics as a b u d g e t a llocation,

on

the

first

such a d i v e r s e

day

of

range

of

a h e a r i n g w i t h legal r a m i f i c a ­

tions, tax levies, n e g o t i a t i o n s , goal setting, t e x t b o o k s e l e c ­
tions,

a n d at the same time u n d e r s t a n d h o w to m a k e d e c i s i o n s

wisely

in a g r o u p s i t u a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y in p u b l i c .
According

(I E L )

study,

preparation
leadership

a

the

board
for

Institute

members

board

r o l e .®

orientation, a
into

to

service

elected

decision-making

role

Educational

generally

" L e arning

newly

for

and
on

or

agreed

in

the

they

lacked

understanding
run"

appointed

where

Leadership

the

or

with

person

member

is

t heir
little
thrust

probably

has

l ittle k n o w l e d g e or d i r e c t e x p e r i e n c e .
A conviction
p art

of

Several
sc h o o l
As

of

a

is

continuous

state
board

growing

that b o a r d m e m b e r s

program

of

legislatures
members

January

1,

back

1985,

h ave
to

education
new

school

Kentucky

and

laws

that

to

l earn

became

the

need

to be

development.
are

mandating

boardmanship.

first

s tate

to
n

l e g i s l a t e y e a r l y i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g for school b o a r d m e m b e r s .
It is i n d i c a t e d in the l i t e r a t u r e that d i s t r i c t s do not
s e e m to be d e s i g n i n g e n o u g h school b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m s
that ar e bot h e f f e c t i v e a n d a p p e a l i n g to b o a r d members.

® I b i d ., p.

12.

^ I b i d . , p.

45.

^Ellen Ficklen, "B o a r d M e m b e r s Go B a c k to S c h o o l , "
A m e r i c a n Sc h o o l B o a r d Jou r n a l (June 1985): p. 35.

One

The

of

the

major

recognize

findings

the

need

of
for

the

IEL

t heir

study

own

was

"school

development,

but

r e s o u r c e s a n d s y s t e m s to p r o v i d e this are i n a d e q u a t e . "
a

fe w

s tate

board

associations

b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t .®

are

The N a t i o n a l

assuming

boards
the

0

Only

leadership

for

Sch o o l B o a r d s A s s o c i a t i o n

(NSBA) P r e s i d e n t L e o n a r d R o v i n s s a i d that "NSBA, w o r k i n g with
our

s tate

school

board

associations,

recognizes

that

school

b o a r d m e m b e r t r a i n i n g is a f u n d a m e n t a l r e a s o n w h y the n a t i o n a l
and state associations

exist.

The s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s , wh o w e r e a par t of the m o s t recent
National
have

Governors’ Association

called

m e m b e r s .^
training

for

more

educational

inservice

education

reform
of

project,

school

The e d u c a t i o n r e f o r m m o v e m e n t has g i v e n a n e e d for
at

the

l ocal

school

board

level

as

indicated

T h o m a s A . S h a n n o n , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r of the N a t i o n a l
Boards

Association

1?
(NSBA).

The

training

b o a r d m e m b e r s was d i s c u s s e d at the
and

strategic

Center

is

0
IEL,

board

planning

to be

retreat.

established.

issue

it w ill

work

is

S t r e n g t h e n i n g G r a s s R o o t s L e a d e r s h i p . p.

^ I b i d . , p.

School
school

1988 fall N S B A l o n g - r a n g e

A NSBA Leadership

How

of

by

Training
still

in

vii.

47.

^ Sc h o o l B o a r d N e w s , (W a s h i n g t o n D.C.: N a t i o n a l School
B o a r d s A s s o c i a t i o n P u b l i c a t i o n ) , A u g u s t 31, 1988, p. 8.
^ U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , E x p e r i e n c e s in School
I m p r o v e m e n t . The S t o r y of 16 A m e r i c a n D i s t r i c t s . (W a s h i n g t o n
D.C.: U.S. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1988), p. 76.
1?
Sc h o o l B o a r d N e w s , (W a s h i n g t o n D.C.: N a t i o n a l School
B o a r d s A s s o c i a t i o n P u b l i c a t i o n ) , O c t o b e r 26, 1988, p. 3.

6
the

makings,

but

its

purpose

is:

"To

work

with

state

a s s o c i a t i o n s to eff e c t the n e e d e d ne w a p p r o a c h to the t r a i n i n g
iq

of school b o a r d s
According
h as

become

formerly,

and
making

. . .
to the IEL study,

governing public education

w ill

be

the

continue

to

need

effective

for

far

more

complex

than

boardsmanship

even

m o r e c r u c i a l .^

T h e r e are c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n s from this s t u d y

that

boardsmanship

effective

an d

requires

conducting

on-going
board

training,

therefore

developing

development

activities

s h o u l d be m o r e t h a n a o n e - s h o t , single e v e n t .

P r o v i d i n g b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s is a f u n c t i o n
of s tate school b o a r d a s s o c i a t i o n s .^

T h e s e o p p o r t u n i t i e s are

d e s i g n e d to e n h a n c e the u n d e r s t a n d i n g an d p e r f o r m a n c e of b o a r d
m e m b e r s ’ roles a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .
Association

of

Sch o o l

Bo a r d s

Since 1970, the M i c h i g a n

(M A S B ) has

mad e

p r o v i d e i n s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s for b o a r d m e m b e r s .

an

effort

to

A discussion

w i t h M A S B o f f i c i a l s reve a l s some d e f i c i e n c i e s in the p l a n n i n g
and

actual

conduct

of

board

development

p r e s e n t a t i o n s : no

s y s t e m a t i c a p p r o a c h has b e e n ma d e to a s s e s s b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
n e e d s of b o a r d m e m b e r s an d no r e c o r d s h a v e b e e n k ept r e g a r d i n g
the

different

approaches

used

by

boards

to

meet

their

development n e e d s .
T h e r e f o r e , to

plan

fu t u r e

board

development

programs,

^ I b i d . , p . 3.
^IEL,

S t r e n g t h e n i n g G r a s s R o o t s L e a d e r s h i p , p.

15Ibid.,

p.

47.

51.

mor e

information

is

effo r t s a d d r e s s i n g
board members
is n e e d e d

and

needed

to

be

known

about

the

curr e n t

the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t needs of i n dividual
the b o a r d as

to be k n o w n a b o u t

a whole

and mor e

the a p p r o a c h e s

information

that are u s e d

to

meet the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s .

P u r p o s e of the S t u d y
According
legislature
pu b l i c

to

the

"shall

elementary

maintain
and

E v e r y school d i s t r i c t
pupils
color

without
or

and

secondary

orig i n "

tea m

district,

and

as

sibility

for

at

level.

to

system

of

free

defined

by

law.

religion, creed, race,
8,

Sect i o n

l a w , are
the

the

These
to

an

intermediate

primary

respon­

educational

o p p o r t u n i t i e s is d e l e g a t e d to g o v e r n i n g b o a r d s .

T h e s e bo a r d s

are mos t c o m m o n l y

or as boards

education

citizens,

as

and

referred
are

provisions

2).

delegated

state,

However,

the

as

State

of

of

assuring

a

the

for the e d u c a t i o n of its

(Article

operating

local

support
scho o l s

responsibilities, by

educational

C o n s titution,

shall p r o v i d e

discrimination

national

educational

Michigan

to as

comprised

school bo a r d s

of a

specific

number

of

lay

is s t a t u t o r i l y defined.

To a c h i e v e the S tate of M i c h i g a n ’s e d u c a t i o n g o a l s , the
legislature
system

of

has

s een

fit

e d u c a t i o n : the

intermediate

sc h o o l

to

organize

S tate

districts,

a

three-echelon

Department
and

the

state

of E d u c a t i o n , the
indiv i d u a l

school

districts.
Although

the

intermediate

school

districts

(ISDs)

in

Michigan
concept

are
an d

a

re c e n t

structure

1 8 0 0 ’s a n d e a r l y
of

development

education

for

1 9 0 0 ’s.

occurred

(1962),

regional

t here

s e r vices

The m a j o r c h a n g e

in

the

1 9 4 0 ’s.

has

since

been

the

a

late

in the g o v e r n a n c e

The

major

change

in

st r u c t u r e d i d not o c c u r until the e a r l y 1 9 6 0 ’s , w h e n ISDs wer e
created

by

direction
bilities

statute.
to

examination

the d e v e l o p m e n t

and

fu nctio ns

The

functions.

an d

of

The

of

the

statutes

ISD b o a r d s , t h e i r

responsi­

statutes, describing

responsibilities, represent

gives

a mixture

the
of

ISD
laws

d e a l i n g w i t h r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s an d p r o g r a m r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .
At times

there

is a lack of u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the r ole of the
1 f?

ISDs an d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of ISD b o a r d s .
Since

1978,

The

s u r v e y e d , annually,
who serve on U.S.

American

School

Board

Journal

has

a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample of m e n a n d w o m e n

school boa r d s

at who b o a r d m e m b e r s a r e .
g e n d e r , r a c e , marital

to take a c o m p r e h e n s i v e

look

The p r o f i l e i n f o r m a t i o n c o v e r s a g e ,

s t a t u s , c h i l d r e n in s c h o o l , e d u c a t i o n ,

o c c u p a t i o n , f a m i l y i n c o m e , hom e o w n e r s h i p , type of c o m m u n i t y ,
school

system

e n r o l l m e n t , years

on

school

board,

length

of

term, n u m b e r of b o a r d m e m b e r s , m e t h o d of s e l e c t i o n , a n d r e a s o n
for s e r v i n g .

O v e r the last ten y e a r s , c o m p a r i s o n s h a v e b e e n

made a m o n g b o a r d m e m b e r s from d i f f e r e n t regi o n s in the U n i t e d
States

1K

and

between

the

U.S.

school

board

members

and

the

A l e x a n d e r J. Kloster, A S t u d y of I n t e r m e d i a t e School
D i s t r i c t F u n c t i o n s a n d O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e (Marquette,
Michigan, 1978), p. 15.

g e n e r a l public.
profile

of

17

the

At

the p r e s e n t

"typical"

ISD

time,

board

however,

member

in

there
the

is no

State

of

Michigan.
T h erefore,

the s p e c i f i c p u r p o s e s of this s t u d y wer e the

following:
1.

To d e t e r m i n e the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
sc h o o l

board

m e m b e r s for

n e e d s of i n t e r m e d i a t e

future

board

development

programs, as p e r c e i v e d b y c u r r e n t l y s e r v i n g i n t e r m e d i a t e
(ISD)
2.

sch o o l b o a r d members.

To d e t e r m i n e the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
school

board

p rograms,

as

intermediate
3.

To

m e m b e r s for
perceived

(ISD)

determine

intermediate

needs of i n t e r m e d i a t e

future
by

board

presently

development
employed

school s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s .

the

different

sc h o o l

boards

approaches
in

their

used
own

by

board

development.
4.

To

determine

the

relationships

of

perceived

board

d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s to c e r t a i n d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
such as gender,

te n u r e of b o a r d service,

and geographic

location.
5.

To d e v e l o p a c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r o f i l e of i n t e r m e d i a t e (ISD)
school b o a r d members.

17

E d g a r B. Hat r i c k III, K e n n e t h E. U nderwood, Ji m C.
F o r t u n e a n d K a t h e r i n e E. Klough, "The ' T y p i c a l ’ School B o a r d
Member:
S till White,
Male,
Fortyish,
and Well-Off,"
The
A m e r i c a n S c h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l (January 1989), p. 21.

10
S i g n i f i c a n c e of the S t u d y
Currently,
mediate

school

Perh a p s

mor e

little
board

members

crucially,

d e v e l o p m e n t n eeds
Current

demographic
ar e

data

available

information

is n o t a v a i l a b l e

information

for

regarding
in

inter­

Michigan.

regarding

ISD

board

in Michigan.

those

who

are

involved

p l a n n i n g an d / o r d e l i v e r i n g b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m s

in

to ISD

b o a r d m e m b e r s wil l be p r o v i d e d b y this study.
The
ISD

board

better

identification
members

and

specific

topics

superintendents

dissemination

Further,

of

of

additional

should

information

information

as

to

p e r c e i v e d by
contribute

board

should

to

members.

contribute

to

i m p r o v e m e n t of b o a r d d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .
H o p e f u l l y , i n c r e a s e d i n t e r e s t in b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t will
be a s i g n i f i c a n t o u t c o m e of this study.

D e f i n i t i o n of T e r m s
F or the p u r p o s e s of this study, the f o l l o w i n g t erms were
defined:
1.

Intermediate
e l e c t e d or

(ISD)

S c h o o l B o a r d M e m b e r : A citizen,

appointed

to m e m b e r s h i p

on an

duly

intermediate

s chool d i s t r i c t b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n , w h o s e t e r m of ac t i v e
service

is

included

during

s t u d y will be c o n d u c t e d .
board

member"

member"
2.

is

in this

Intermediate

used

the

period

The t e r m

in

"member"

synonymously

with

which
or

this

"school

"ISD

board

study.

(ISD)

S u p e r i n t e n d e n t : The

person

who

is

e m p l o y e d b y the ISD b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n to p e r f o r m as the
c h i e f e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r of the ISD school d i s t r i c t .
3.

Intermediate

School

Board:

The

legal

body

that

is

c h a r g e d w i t h p r o v i d i n g e d u c a t i o n w h i c h m e e t s the needs
of its own c o m m u n i t y a n d the s t a t e .
4.

Intermediate
systems

District

(s t a t e ,

responsible
used

for

( I S D ) : One

intermediate,
education

synonymously with

by

of

an d

law.

three

levels

of

local)

which

is

The

"i n t e r m e d i a t e

term

sc h o o l

"ISD"

is

district"

in this s t u d y .
5.

Board

D e v e l o p m e n t : All

of t hose

activities

and

events

c o n d u c t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y for b o a r d m e m b e r s , s e p a r a t e and
apart

from

their

regular

i n t e n d e d to c o n t r i b u t e
competence
increase

in

the

t heir

responsibilities, which

to their c o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n a l
role

as

board

school board member p o s i t i o n s .
and

synonymously with
6.

Michigan

term

"i n s e r v i c e

of

"MASB"

of

school
is

board

used

to

The terms

School

to
in

"i n s e r v i c e ,"
are

u sed

in this study.

Boards:

members

and

function

education"

"board d e v e l o p m e n t "

Association

association

members

c a p a c i t y of b o a r d m e m b e r s

" training"

are

A

in M i c h i g a n .

synonymously

with

state
The

" M i chigan

A s s o c i a t i o n of S c h o o l B o a r d s . "

Research Questions
To

determine

board

development

n eeds

m e m b e r s as p e r c e i v e d b y ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s

of

ISD

board

t h e m s e l v e s a n d ISD

12
superintendents;
for

board

might

determine

development;

exist

certain

to

among

different

determine

perceived

demographic

comprehensive

to

the

an y

board

of

ISD

board

used

relationship

that

development

characteristics

profile

approaches

an d

members,

needs

to

and

develop

the

a

following

r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s w e r e addressed:
To a d d r e s s
1.

the s p e c i f i c purpose:

To d e t e r m i n e the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n eeds of i n t e r mediate
school

board

members

for

future

board

development

p r o g r a m s , as p e r c e i v e d b y c u r r e n t l y serving ISD school
board memb e r s .
The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n was generated:
1.1

W h a t s p e c i f i c b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s do c u r r e n t l y
serv i n g

ISD

board

members

perceive

to

be

most

important?
To a d d r e s s
2.

the s p e c i f i c purpose:

To d e t e r m i n e the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n eeds of i n t e r mediate
school

board

members

for

future

board

development

programs, as p e r c e i v e d b y p r e s e n t l y e m p l o y e d ISD school
superintendents.
The
2.1

f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s wer e generated:
Wha t s p e c i f i c b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n eeds do p r e s e n t l y
e m p l o y e d ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s p e r c e i v e to be most
impor t a n t ?

2.2

Is

there

a

difference

between

currently

serving

ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s ’ a n d p r e s e n t l y e m p l o y e d ISD

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s of b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
n eeds?
To addr e s s
To

the s p e c i f i c purpose:

d e t e r m i n e the

intermediate

different

sc h o o l bo a r d s

to

approaches
mee t

t heir

used
own

by

board

d e v e l o p m e n t needs.
The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s wer e generated:
3.1

How

m a n y ISD bo a r d s

h ave an

established

board

development policy with budget resources?
3.2

Ho w m a n y ISD bo a r d s hav e a formal o r i e n t a t i o n for
a n e w b o a r d memb e r ?

3.3

How

m a n y ISD b o a r d

members

received

a

formal

o r i e n t a t i o n w h e n i n i t i a l l y b e c o m i n g an ISD b o a r d
member?
3.4

How

many

ISD

board

members

participated

in

the

participated

in

the

participated

in

the

1988 M A S B A c a d e m y of B o a r d s m a n s h i p ?
3.5

How

many

ISD

board

members

1988 M A S B A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e ?
3.6

How

many

ISD

board

members

1989 M A S B M i d w i n t e r C o n f e r e n c e ?
3.7

Ho w m a n y ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s p a r t i c i p a t e d in their
local c o u n t y school b o a r d a s s o c i a t i o n ?

3.8

How

many

education
3.9

ISD

board

members

for b o a r d m e m b e r s

think

inservice

s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d ?

H o w m a n y s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s t hink ins e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n
for b o a r d m e m b e r s s h o u l d be r e quired?

14
3.10

Is there a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the b o a r d m e m b e r s ’
and

superintendents’ perceptions

in s e r v i c e

education

for

board

as

to

members

whether

s h o u l d be

r e quired?
To a d d r e s s the s p e c i f i c purpose:
To

determine

the

relationships

of

perceived

board

d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s to c e r t a i n d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
s uch as g e n d e r s t e n u r e of b o a r d service,

and geographic

location.
The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s wer e generated:
4.1

Is

t here a

relationship

between perceived

board

development needs and gender?
4.2

Is there
the

4.3

Is

1988

a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
M A S B A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e a n d gend e r ?

there a

relationship

between

perceived

board

d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s an d t e n u r e of b o a r d service?
4.4

Is there
the

a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n in

1988 M A S B

An n u a l

Conference

and

tenure

of

board service?
4.5

Is

there a

relationship

between perceived

board

d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s a n d g e o g r a p h i c l o cation?
4.6

Is
the

there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
MASB

Annual

Conference

and

geographic

location?
To a d d r e s s

the s p e c i f i c purpose:

To d e v e l o p a c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r o f i l e
members.

of ISD school b o a r d

The fo ll ow in g q u e s t i o n s w e r e gener at ed :
5.1

Is

there

a

similarity

between

the

comprehensive

pr o f i l e of ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d the c o m p r e h e n s i v e
p r o fi le of the "typical" U.S. sch oo l b o a r d me m b e r ?
5.2

Is

there

a

similarity

between

the

comprehensive

p r o f i l e of ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d the c o m p r e h e n s i v e
p r o fi le of the "typical" scho ol b o a r d m e m b e r s from
the

Central

Kentucky,

Region

(Illinois,

Indiana,

Iowa,

M i c h i g a n , M i n n e s o t a , O h i o , W i s c o n s i n )?

Delimitations
The d e l i m i t a t i o n s of the s t u d y were:
This s tu dy was r e s t r i c t e d to ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d ISD
superintendents.
This st u dy was c o n d u c t e d in M i c h i g a n a n d the i n f o r m a t i o n
reported

may

not

be

generalized

outside

the

S ta te

of

Michigan.

Limitations
The l i m i t a t i o n s
Data

for

of the s t u d y were:

this

q u es tio nn air e;

study

were

therefore,

collected

by

mailed

o n l y r e p o r t e d i n f o r m a t i o n is

included.
The

da ta

th er ef or e

were

collected

the

researcher

v ia

mailed

had

to

que sti on na ir e;

assume

that

the

q u e s t i o n n a i r e was re a d a n d a n s w e r e d ho nestly.
The

s tu dy de al t

superintendents

wi t h
in

perceptions

off ic e

at

the

of b o a r d m e m b e r s
time

of

the

a nd

study.

Thus,

b o a r d m e m b e r s ’ a n d s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ vi ew s m a y be

affected

by

"issues"

a nd

other

happenings

co nc u r r e n t

wi th the study.
4.

The s t u d y was d e s c r i p t i v e

in n a t u r e a n d su b j e ct to the

w e a k n e s s i n h e r e n t in d e s c r i p t i v e research.
the

questionnaire

measure

self

school

board

was

designed

perceived board
members

which

and

implemented

development
ex is t

For example,

ne eds

without

of

to
ISD

q u es t i o n i n g

why.

Ou tl i n e of St ud y
The

introduction

p u r p o s e s of this

of

study,

the

study,

an

Chapter

II,

the

following

su bh ead ing s:

role

responsibilities

a nd

of

the

a nd the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s g e n e r a t e d

for this s tu dy a re p r e s e n t e d in C h a p t e r
In

explanation

literature

I.

is

reviewed

u n de r

the

h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t of ISD boards;
of

school

boards;

school

board

m e m b e r s h i p a nd b o a r d dev e lo pm en t.
In C h a p t e r
c o n n e c t i o n wi t h

III,

the m e t h o d o l o g y a n d p r o c e d u r e s u s e d in

the s t u d y are explained.

In C h a p t e r IV, the c o l l e c t e d da t a g e n e r a t e d b y the s tu dy
are presented.
In

Chapter

implications
discussed.

and

V,

the

summary,

recommendations

findings,

drawn

from

conclusions,

this

st udy

are

CHAPTER II
R E V I E W OF R E L A T E D LI TE R A T U R E

The lit er a tu re r e l a t e d to this st ud y is r e p o r t e d in the
fo l lo wi ng areas: h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t of i n t e rm ed ia te school
boards;

roles

and

b o a r d mem bership;

responsibilities

of

school

boards;

school

a nd b o a r d de ve lop men t.

H i s t o r i c a l D e v e l o p m e n t of the I n te rm ed ia te
Sc ho ol D i s t r i c t Boar ds
There is ve r y lit tl e n a t i o n a l l i te r a t u r e on i n te rm ed ia te
units.

One

of

the

ea r l i e s t

s t at e m e n t s

concerning

the

i n t e r me di at e m o v e m e n t is R h o d e s ’ short m o n o g r a p h p u b l i s h e d by
the N a ti on al E d u c a t i o n As so cia tio n.
Rh od e s de fi ne s an i n t e r m e d i a t e unit as an a g e n c y
that
ope ra te s
at
a
re gi o n al
level,
givi ng
c o o r d i n a t i o n a n d s u p p l e m e n t a r y se rv ice s to local
school d i s t r i c t s a n d s e r v i n g as a link b e t w e e n
these
b a s ic
administrative
units
a nd
state
e d u c a t i o n authority.
He

i n d i c at ed

articulative

th ree

functions

f u n c t i o n s ; (2)

supplementary

se r v i c e

of

the

intermediate

coordinative

functions.

unit

(1)

f u n c t i o n s ; and

(3)

R h od e s

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a "good" i n t e r m e d i a t e unit.
(1)

an

body;

adequate
(3)

responsible

a

service

qualified
to

the

area;
chief

board;

(2)

a

ci te s

T he se include:

responsible

executive

and

and

adequate

17

(4)

several

s ta ff

governing
directly
financial

18
1ft
support.
Stephen
educational

Associates

s er vi ce

directed

agencies

a

which

has

p u b l i c a t i o n of four m a j o r documents.
the a n a l y si s

of

types

of e d u c a t i o n

res ea rc h

effort

culminated

Their studies
servi ce

in

on
the

in cl ud ed

age nc ie s

and

the

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of m a j o r p o l i c y issues sur r o u n d i n g the m o ve me nt
toward

educational

service

agencies.

They

concluded

that

litt le is k n o w n a bo ut the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of ed u c a t i o na l service
a g e n c i e s .19
Th e y
s e rv ic e

also

agencies

characteristics
agencies.

studied
in
of

the

1977-78.

the

status
This

governing

and

trends

study

board

of

education

in cl u d e d

selected

of e d u c a t i o n

servi ce

The m a j o r fi nd i n g s w e r e :

1.

A s u b s t a n t i a l m a j o r i t y (26 of 31) of the
e d u c a t i o n s e rv ic e ag en c i e s h a d a g o v e r n i n g
board.

2.

T h e r e are d i f f e r e n c e s among the ed u c a t i o n
s e r v i c e a g e n c i e s as to h o w they select b o a r d
members.

3.

The g o v e r n i n g b o a r d s va r y g r e a t l y in s i z e ,
r an g i n g from 6 to 26 members.

4.

The mo s t f r e q ue nt length
m e m b e r s was 4 y e a r s .

of

term

of b o a r d

A l v i n E. Rhodes, "Better E d u c a t i o n Th ro u g h
I nt e r m e d i a t e Units ,"
( Wa sh ing to n D.C.: N at io na l
Associ at ion , 1963), pp. 3-8.

Ef f e c t i v e
Education

^Stephens
As so cia tes ,
R eg io na l
Ed uc a t i o n a l
Ser vi ce s
A g e n c i e s . (Arlington, Virginia: Ed uc a t i o n a l Re s e a r c h Services,
I n c ., 1975).

19
5.

E i g h t y - t h r e e (83) p e rce nt of the g o v e r ni ng
b o a r d m e m b e r s w e r e ma l e a n d 95 p e rc en t were
Ca ucasian.

The

N a t i on a l

Di r e c t o r

of

Sch oo l

Education

(phone conver sat io n,
not

p r ov id e

an y

an d

Boa rd s

A s s o c i a t i o n ’s

Management

October

1988),

ins er vi ce

Services,

(NSBA)

Dale

Gaddy

i n d i c a t e d that N S B A does

p ro gr am s

for

a

sp ec i a l i z e d

p o p u l a t i o n of school b o a r d me m b e rs such as reg io na l gover nin g
b od i e s

or

in te rm ed ia t e

distinguish

between

school

local

bo ar ds w h e n it p r o v i d e s

boards.

and

Al s o

intermediate

NSBA
unit

does

not

go v e r ni ng

s e r v i c e s , s t u d i e s , or p u b l i c a t i o n s .

The M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of Scho ol B o a r d s ’ (M A S B ) staff
comments

were

i n t e r me di at e
1988) .

In

si m i la r
school

the

NSBA

b oa r d s

for

ISD

scheduled

breakfast

has

boards,
and

c om me nt s

(ph on e

p a s t , MASB

se rv ic es

f i r s t , at the

to

not

however,

program

for

in

re ga r d

conversation,
provided
MASB
ISD

a ny

did
board

to

O c to be r
spe cific

provide

a

members,

a

1988 M A S B An nu a l C o n f e r e n c e .

The e m e r g e n c e of r e g i o n al e d u c a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s , also
k n o w n as e d u c a t i o n al s er vi ce units or c o o p e r a t i v e u n i t s , such
as

the

Michigan

represents

a

new

intermediate
development

in

school
the

districts

st ru ct ur e

of

(I S D s ),
Am e r i c a n

e d u c a t i o n over the last two d e c a d e s .
Concerted
of

a t t e n t i o n has

intermediate

school

been

given

di stricts,

to
the

the d e v e l o p m e n t
func ti on s

of

?0
St ep h e n s A s s o c i a t e s , E d u c a t i o n Se rv ic e Agencies: Status
and
Trends.
(Y o r k t o w n
H e i g h t s , New
Jersey:
Center
for
Educational
Se rv ic es
a n d Research,
Board
of Co o p e r a t iv e
Ed u c a t i o n a l Services, 1980).

20
intermediates,

ser vi ce s

provided

by

inte rm edi at es,

the

s t r uc tu r e or r e s t r u c t u r i n g of i n t e r m e d i a t e s , a n d o t h e r issues
s u r ro un di ng

the

futur e

of

the

intermediates.

Lit tl e

a t t e n t i o n appear s to ha v e b e e n g i ve n to the g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s
(ISD

school

b o a r d s ) of

the

in te r m e d i a t e

scho ol

districts

in

the St ate of M i c h i g a n .
Historically,
State

of

i nt er me di at e

M i c h i g a n wer e

government.

The

scho ol

developed

in te r m e d i a t e

districts

as

scho ol

an

in

a r m of

districts

state

serve

m i d d l e - e c h e l o n a g e n c y , c o n s i d e r e d as par t of the total
edu ca ti on al
state for

system.

variou s

local

school

f inancial

suppor t

funds.

These

c on du ct

pro gra ms

a nd

be

yet

s t at ed

that

ma st er s

a

ISDs

re aso ns

m i ss io ns but there
to

The

are

and

ag e n c i e s

perform

created

so m e w h a t

fr om

the

ISDs have
a nd

state
the

pr ov id e

regulatory

of

and

unique

of

the

of M i c h i g a n

the

these
many

local

to

state

by

the

ser vic es
re cei ve

re ce iv e

federal

to

local

pl a n

a nd

di s t r i c t s

state.

It

I S D ’s is

se rv in g

education

a

ISDs

ability

leadership

agency

the g o v e r n a n c e

si mul tan eou sly :

Mos t

as

different

is one com mo n o b j e c t i v e - - p r o v i d e
districts.

the

has

agency

a nd

be e n
two
the

01
state ed u c a t i o n a g e n c y .
Traditionally,
in te rm ed ia te

unit

i n t e r me di at e

school

the

wer e

county
virtually

district

superintendent
synonymous

in M i c h i g a n

is

a nd

terms.

still

the
The

regulated

01
“ W e s t e r n M i c h i g a n U n i v e r s i t y RE D E C e n t e r , "I nt er m e d i a t e
School Dis tr ic t O r g a n i z a t i o n of M i c h i g a n : A n E x a m i n a t i o n of
F u n c ti on s
and
Str uc tu re ,"
(Report
for
Marquette-Alger
I nt er me di at e School District, Marquet te, Mich iga n, 1981).

21
by

sta tu te s

which

assigned

author it y,

duties

and

responsi­

b i l i t i e s to b o t h the c o u n t y b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n a nd the co un t y
superintendent.
In
boards,

tracing

the

development

it is n e c e s s a r y

to go b a c k

of

intermediate

to the

first

school

t e rr it or ia l

laws de a l i n g wi t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n of c o m m o n schools.
for

the

establishment

T e rr it or ia l
for

the

establishment

contained

fa m i l i e s
the

of

schools,

sc ho ol s

in

or h o u s e h o l d e r s .

provisions

i n s p e c t o r s - - o f f icia ls
over local

common

G o v e r n m e n t of M i c h i g a n , Ap ril

fifty or mor e
Ac t

of

having

for
a

the

12,

An Act

adopted
1827,

to w n s h i p s

by

the

provided

containing

S e c t i o n four of the
selection

supervisory

of

school

responsibility

scho ol d i s t r i c t s .

S e c . 4.
Tha t the i n h a b i t a n t s of said tow ns hi ps
r e s p e c t i v e l y shall c h o o s e a s u it ab le n u m b e r of
p er so ns w i t h i n th eir r e s p e c t i v e t o w n s h i p s , not
e x c e e d i n g f i v e , w h o shall be i n s p e c t o r s of school s
in s a i d t o w n s h i p s r e s p e ct iv el y; w h ic h in sp ec to rs
shall
examine
the
t e a c h e r s , and
approve
or
d i s a p p r o v e of the s a m e , a n d also shall v i s i t the
severa l sc ho o l s w i t h i n th ei r r e s p e c t i v e to w n s hi ps
q u a r t e r l y , or o f t e n e r if th ey d e e m it n e c e s s a r y ;>
three
or
more
of
sai d
in sp ec to rs
shall
be
c o m p e t e n t , b o t h to ex a m i n e the t e a c h e rs a nd the
respective
s c h o o l s , a n d no
person
shall
be
e m p l o y e d as a t e a c h e r in an y
one of the school s
in an y of
the t o w n s h i p s or
d i s t r i c t s in this
T e r r i t o r y who sha ll
not have b e e n p r e v i o u s l y
e x a m i n e d b y the i n s p e c t o r s a f o r e s a i d , a n d have
r e c e i v e d a c e r t i f i c a te , s i g n e d b y at least two of
said
i n s p e c t o r s , i m p or ti ng
that
he
is
duly
q u a l i f i e d to t e a c h the scho ol for w h i c h he m a y be
an a p p l i c a n t , a n d is of good, m o r a l c h a r a c t e r ;
and it shall be the fu rt h e r d u t y of the ins pe ct or s
to e x a m i n e into the s ta te of sc h o o ls in their
r e s p e c t i v e t o w n s h i p s , b o t h as it res pe ct s the
p r o f i c i e n c y of the sc h o l a r s a n d the g o o d or der and
r e g u l a r i t y of the s c h o o l s ; and fr o m time to time
give t he ir a d v i c e ; a n d if a n y p e r s o n shall pr es um e
to k e e p such sch oo l w i t h o u t a c e r t i f i c a t e as
aforesaid, he or she shall forfei t a nd p a y a sum

22
not e x c ee din g two h u n d r e d dollars, to be r e c o v er ed
in any court h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n thereof, one
m o i e t y th ere of to the i n f o r m e r , a n d the other
m o i e t y to the use of the po o r of the to wn s h i p
wh er e such scho ol m a y be kept.
In 1829 the t e r r i t o r i a l
ne w

one,

wh ic h

provided

school

for

the

law was

election

replaced with a
in

each

of

the

o r g a n i z e d towns hi ps of five "C o m m is si on er s of C o mm on Schools"
who

were

to see to the

division

of the

township

into school

d i s tr ic ts and to in st it ut e the e l e c t i o n of d i s t r i c t o f f i c e r s ,
and

for

the

e l ec ti on

in each

to w n s h i p

of five p e rs on s

to be

in spe cto rs of s c h o o l s , wit h du ti e s si m i l ar to those gi ve n the
i nsp ect ors

in the Act

of 1827.

In the rev is io n of the law in 1833, the n u mb er of school
c om m i s s i o n e r s e l e c t e d in ea c h t o w n s h i p was r e d u c e d to t h r e e .
To

their

responsibilities

was

added

the

custody

of

the

sect ion s si xte en of the t o w n s h i p s , w h i c h w e r e re s e r v e d for the
support

of

p ro vi si on s

the

schools.

for school

No

c h ang es

we r e

made

in

the

inspectors.

In the first ge ne r a l r ev is io n of the laws a ft er M i c h i g a n
achieved

statehood,

inspe ct or s
inspectors.

were

the

dut ie s

combined

In the

thirty

and

of

the

vested

years

commissioners

into

which

three

and

to w n s h i p

f o l l o w e d , on l y m i n o r

00
ch an ge s were made in the l a w .
As
w ea kn es s

the nu mb e r
of

the

of

to w ns hi ps

cumbersome

in M i c h i g a n

system

of

dealing

increased,
wi th

the

to w n s h i p

school inspe cto rs b e g a n to appear, t h e r ef or e the offi ce of the

^Michigan Territorial

Laws,

II,

pp.

472-477.

23
county

superintendency

wa s

fo r m e d

in

1867.

The

ma n y

cr i t i c i s m s of the c o u n t y off ice cau s e d the l e g i s la tu re in 1875
to repeal

the

schools.

law

The

establishing

old

system

of

the co un t y
township

s u p e ri nt en de nt

s u p e ri nt en de nt s

of
and

t o w n s h i p bo a r d s of sch ool inspe ct ors was r e c r e a t e d until 1881.
In that y e a r , the l e g i s l a t u r e c r e a t e d a c o u n t y b o a r d of school
examiners.

The c o u n t y b o a r d of e x a mi ne rs h ad three m e m b e r s ,

elected

for

sever al

boards

board

a

te r m
of

annually

of

three

township

elected

years
school

one

of

by

the

chairman

inspectors.

its

members

of

The
to

the

county

serve

as

s e c r e t a r y a n d e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r . The d u t i e s , t r a n s f e r r e d from
the t o w n s h i p i n s p e c t o r s , i n c l u d e d c e r t i f i c a t i o n of t e a c h e r s ,
r e v o k i n g of c e r t i f i c a t e s a n d i n s p e c t i o n of s c h o o l s .
the
of

legislature
the

board

provided

of

county

for

the a p p o i n t m e n t

ex a m i n e r s

and

made

of a
it

In 1887,
s e c r e ta ry

his

duty

to

inspec t the schoo ls in the c o u n t y at least once a year an d to
ap p o i n t a s s i s t a n t v i s i t o r s wh e n n e c e s s a r y .
The
created

off ice
by

provisions
with

the

the

of

the

Michigan

of P u b l i c Ac t

two

county

county

commissioner

le g i s l a t u r e

147,

in

of

schools

1891.

By

was
the

the c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r , along

ex a m i n e r s , constituted

a

county

board.

The c o m m i s s i o n e r a n d the two ex a m i n e r s were a p p o i n t e d by the
c o u n t y b o a r d of s u p e r v i s o r s .
In 1901,

the law was r e v i s e d to p r o v i d e for the po pul ar

e l e c t i o n by b a l l o t of the c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r of schools and
the n e w law d i s c o n t i n u e d the a p po i n t m e n t of school i n s p e c t o r s .
Pu b l i c

Ac t

127,

as p a s s e d by

the

le g i s l a t u r e

in

1949,

24
provided

for c o u n t y

school

offices

wi t h

a superintendent

of

schools and a b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n for each of the e i g h t y - t h r e e
counties.
m e mb er s

The

elected

county
for

board

six

of

year

education

terms.

The

was

to

terms

have

five

the

five

of

me mb er s were to o v e r l a p wi t h two m e m b e r s b e i n g c h o s e n at two
su cc e s s i v e b i e n n i a l
be

he l d

on

the

elections.

s e c o nd

Monday

The b i e n n i a l
in

June

an d

the

m e e t i n g was
newly

to

el ec te d

m e mb er s were to take off i c e on July 1, f o l l o w i n g the election.
The law also n a m e d the c o u n t y b o a r d to be the legal s u c ce ss or
to all of the du t i e s p e r t a i n i n g to s c hoo ls wh i c h h a d be e n held
by

the

township

boa rd s

an d

listed

the

fo l l o wi ng

spe cif ic

duties:
1.

To r e ce iv e from the c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r m o n t h l y
n o t i c e s of d e l i n q u e n t taxes due in each
school d i s t r i c t , and c o m m u n i c a t e s a m e , along
wi th the s t a t e m e n t of int ere st d u e , to the
severa l school d i s t r i c t s .

2.

To take over the dut ie s of the t o wn sh ip
bo ar d s with respec t to the o r g a n i z a t i o n of
school d i s t r i c t s an d the a l t e r a t i o n s of
d is t r i c t b o u n d a r i e s .

3.

To r e c o m m e n d the p u r c h a s e of l i b r a r y bo ok s
for
all
school
l i br ar ies
and
of
all
i n s t r uc ti o na l e q u i p me nt in schoo l d i s tr ic ts
not e m p l o y i n g a s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of schoo ls
and c o m i n g u nd er the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the
Act.

4.

To e m p l o y a c o u n t y s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of schools
and
such
assistants
as
it
may
de e m
necessary,
to fix his salary, exc ep t as
provided
by
s t a t u t e , to
authorize
the
pa y m e n t by the c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r of exp en se s
of off ice and i n s t r u c t i o n al m a t e r i a l s . The
c o u n t y b o a r d shall e m p l o y a q u a l i f i e d c o u n t y
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t for a te r m of of f i c e not to
e x c e e d four years.

25
5.

To make a n d ke e p r e v i s e d an a c c u r a t e m a p of
the c o u n t y showin g the c o r r e c t b o u n d a r i e s
of the se ver al school d i str ic ts,
a n d to
p ro vi d e co pi e s of said m a p to b o t h c o u n t y
and state officials.

6.

To ca use the school cen su s
each school district.

7.

To ma ke out an annual b u d g e t c o v e r i n g the
am ou nt n e c e s s a r y to c a r r y on the a c t i v i t i e s
of the c o u n t y board.

8.

To
f u r ni sh
consultative
or
supervisory
se rvi ce s to a ny school d i s t r i c t e m p l o y i n g
a s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of sc ho ol s u p o n the re qu e s t
of the b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n of that d i s t r i c t .

9.

U nd er c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , to p r o v i d e for the
ed u c a t i o n of e x c e p t i o n a l c h i l d r e n .

10 .

To d i r e c t , s u pe rv ise a n d c o n d u c t c o o p e r a t i v e
e d u c a t i o n a l pr og r a m s in b e h a l f of school
di s t r ic ts w h i c h reques t such se r v i c e s from
the c o u n t y b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n , a n d to use
c o u n t y f u n d s , or c o n t r i b u t i o n s a c c e p t e d from
other s o u r c e s , to financ e such e d u c a t i o n a l
programs.

The

county

superintendent

was

to be

to

be

ta ke n

in

selected

by

the

c o u n t y b o a r d an d to serve as its e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r , r e p l a c i n g
c o u n t y co m m i s s i o n e r s c h o s e n b y p o p u l a r v o t e .
This

cha ng e

governance

te nd e d

st ru ct ur e

st ru ct ur e of ot her
Dur in g
the

pa ssa ge

statute.

to

c r e a t e , for

substantially

first

separated

time, a

from

the

local go ve r n m e n t u n i t s .

the

1962

se s s i on

of

Act

190

Un til

the

this

of

the

Michigan

occur r e d - - I S D s

we r e

t i m e , cou nt y b o u n d a r i e s

Legislature,
created

by

determined

the

00
John Rob er t Osborn, "A Model for the D e v e l o p m e n t of
Ins tr uc ti on al I m p ro ve me nt Servic es at the I n t e r m e d i a t e School
D i s t r i c t Level in M ic hi ga n, " (Ph.D. D i ss er ta ti on , M i c h i g a n
St ate University, 1969).

26
geographic
county

area

of

responsibility

superintendent.

The

d e f i n e d in st at ut e b u t was
board

a nd

1962

that

superintendent
the

st a t u t e s

for

"district"

the

county

was

not

board

and

specifically

"created" b y the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of
res po ns ib il it y.
ma de

It was

spe ci fi c

not

reference

until

to

the

c r e a t i o n of ISDs w h i c h c o u l d en c o m p a s s areas not n e c e s s a r i l y
c o t e r m i n o u s wi t h c o u n t y bo un dar ies .
the co nc e p t of r e gi on al
Act

190

c o n t a i n e d the

became

It was at this time that

s e rv ic es b e g a n to emerge.

effective

in

the

spr in g

of

1963

following major p r o v i s i o n s :

1.

The
board
of
the
i n t e r m e di at e
school
d i s t r i c t shall s u c c e e d to the powe rs and
d u ti es of the c o u n t y b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n .

2.

The i n t e r m e d i a t e scho ol d i s t r i c t must have
at least 5,000 p u pi ls in the m e m b e r s h i p in
the local school d i s t r i c t .

3.

M e m b e r s of the b o a r d m a y c on ti nu e to be
e l e c t e d b y a p o p u l a r v o t e ; h o w e v e r , the
c o u n t y e l e c t o r a t e , b y a p e t i t i o n s i g n e d by
a m a j o r i t y of the scho ol b o a r d s r e p r e s e n t i n g
50 p e r c e n t of the c h i l d r e n , m a y vote to
a do pt the e l e c t i o n m e t h o d of se le ct in g b o a r d
members.

4.

In a r e o r g a n i z e d i n t e r m e d i a t e di s t r i c t there
shall be s ev en m e m b e r s on the b o a r d .

5.

The o f fi ce rs of the in te r m e d i a t e b o a r d are
a p r e s i d e n t , v i c e - p r e s i d e n t , secretary, and
t r e a s u r e r . The s u p e r i n t e n d e n t serves as the
executive
officer
of
the
board.
The
s e c r e t a r y and tr e a s u r e r n e e d not be me m b e r s
of the board.

6.

The b u d g e t of the i n t e r m e d i a t e school b o a r d
shall be s u b m i t t e d on or b e f o r e M a r c h 1, to
a
meeting
of
one
scho ol
board
member
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of ea ch c o n s t i t u e n t school
district.
Th ese
representatives
of
constituent
schoo l
districts
shall
det er mi ne , b y m a j o r i t y vote, the m a x i m u m
a m ou nt of budget.
The bu dg e t shall be

and

27
su b m i t t e d to the c o u n t y tax a l l o c a t i o n b o a r d
wh ic h shall a l l o c a te a tax rate for the
suppor t of the i n te rm ed ia te school d i st ri ct
by
the same
p r o c e d u r e as
is u s e d in
a l l o c a t i n g rates to the sever al local school
districts, t o w ns hi ps a n d c o u n t y units of
government.
Act

190

districts
the

to

provided
the

provision

become

a

the

intermediate

that

body

for

renaming

school

intermediate

corporate

wi t h

of

district

school

some

county
a nd set

districts

additional

school
forth
sh ou l d

responsibili­

ties .
Since
mandatory

the

and

creation

permissive

of

the

ISD

functions,

with

three

its

major

assigned

le g i s l a t i v e

stat ut e s have b e e n p a s s e d w h i c h ha v e h a d a s i g n i f i c a n t impact
on the role of the ISD.
wh ic h

gave

ISDs

the

vocational/technical
authorized

ISD

The first of these was an a m e n d m e n t

power

to

levy

taxes

and

the

pr og r a m s

boards,

under

certain

to

su ppo rt

se co n d

area

amendment

c i rc ums tan ces ,

to

pr o v i d e grants to its local d i s t r i c t s or c o m m u n i t y co l l e g e to
construct

area

Mandatory

Speci al

fun ct io ns

to the

ISD.

Presently,

the

1976,

is

the

vocational/technical
Education

Act

Michigan

reference

centers.

(PA

198)

School

which

F i n a l l y , the

added

Code,

describes

as
the

significant

re vi s e d

in

statutes,

m a n d a t o r y an d p e r mi ss ib le , w h i c h g o v e r n M i c h i g a n in te rm ed ia te

AP
school d i s t r i c t s .

^Act

190,

T he se st at ute s r e fl ec t a m i x t u r e of laws

Pu b l i c Acts

of 1962,

Sta te of Michigan.

9K
M i c h i g a n G e ne ra l School Laws an d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Rules,
p r e p a r e d b y the L e g i s l a t i v e S e r v i c e Bureau, 1977.

28
d ea l i n g
a nd

wi t h

rela te

which

regulatory

to

the

ra nge

a nd

and

program

exte nt

of

re s p o n s i b il it ie s

the

r e s p o n s i b il it ie s

ISD boa rd s have.
W hi le

attention,

the

governance

there

tions

concerning

such

topics

reforms,

have

be e n

ISDs

of

has

studies,

of

the

school

suggested

role.

and

much

recommenda­

districts,

including
functions,

cost-effectiveness,

One

a weakness

received

financing,

services,

ISD

not

reports

re org ani zat ion ,

delivery

studie s

of

i nt e r m e d i a t e

as:

clarification
many

dut ie s

recommendation

or

and

from the

issue to be d ea lt

with

is the s e l e c t i o n of i n t e r m e d i a t e school b o a r d members.
Emerson
b o a r d me mb e r s

recommended
in all

pro vi de s

for

di s t r i c t s

wh ic h

other

be

popular

a

Board

constituent

i n t e rm ed ia te

are

districts

required.

to

the

popular

the

m em b e r s

e l ec ti on

by

the

vot er s

of

board

of

in

the

me mbe rs

in

In

all

members

is

not

the bo a r d s

of

the

board

Those who

of

The law

consolida tio n.

selected by

school distri ct s.

elected

of

election
are

e l ec ti on

school districts.

pr od u c ts

popular

non-partisan

favor b o a r d membe rs

d is tr ic t

say

that

it

is

mo re in k e e p i n g with the i m po rt an ce of the office an d perha ps
ca n

even

needs.

as su r e

districts

board

Supporters

constituent
logical,

a

school

since
are

their b o a r d s .

is

board

districts

ma n y
to

of

that

say

mo r e

res po ns iv e

to

area

selected

by

the

is

more

members
that

of

the

func ti ons

serve

the

school

this
of

me an s

the

districts

in ter med iat e
which

choose

29
Em e r s o n
an

issue

in

thinks
the

q u e st io ns

selection

school districts.

of

of

representation

board

members

co n s t i t u en t

each wi t h one vote,

can

e a s i l y o u tv ot e a large dis t ri ct w h i c h also has one vote,

but

which

its

may

S ma ll e r districts,

by

can beco me

serve

a

majority

of the

children

in

in te r m e di at e district.
Even
election

though

of

board

o p p o n e n t s ’ issues
members.

E me r s o n

m e mb er s
surrounding

d i s t ri ct s

h ar mfu l

rural

to

ser vices

most.

indicates
an

po pu la r

all ISDs,

the

popular

di s t r i c t s

relatively
in te rme dia te
el ec tio ns

by u r ba n

The

dominated

by

issue

representation

of

citizens

school

for

in te res ts

issue

the

si n g l e - i s s u e

of

is

in te rm ed ia te
int erest

for

he r e p o r t e d
election

which

larg er

the

of b o a r d

c o u l d prove

n e e d int er me di at e
popular

probably

district

non-partisan

in the d o m i n a t i o n of

which may

seco nd
few

popular

in

P o p u l a r e l e c t i o n c o u l d re s u l t

int erm ed ia te

what

recommended

el e c t i o n

could

or

does

board

groups.

describe
th er efo re
might

Thirdly,

districts

can no t

be
the
be

i g n o r e d .^
There is little res ea rc h e vi de nc e that the s e l e ct io n of
int er me di at e school b o a r d me mb er s
the m e t h o d

of election,

impacts

in Michigan,

the d e l i v e r y

r eg ar dl es s of
of

edu ca ti on al

services.

o
W i l l i a m J. Emerson, M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n J o u r n a l . (East
Lansing, Michigan: M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n Publication,
May 1, 1967), p. 11.

30
The Ro le a n d R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
There
are

of Sc h o o l Bo ar d s

is an a lm o s t u n i ve rs al b e l i e f that scho ol bo a rd s

important.

Scho ol

boards,

as

local

gov ern anc e,

c i t i z e n s a uni qu e o p p o r t u n i t y for involvement.
the role of a school board,
b i l i t i e s are,

pr ov id e

To u n d e r s t a n d

what the fu n c t i o n s a n d r e s p o n s i ­

and h o w the functions and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are

to be f u l f i l l e d is n ei t h e r simple nor o n e - d i m e n s i o n a l.
The

role

c on st i t u t i o n a l
decisions,

a

and

members,

school

board

statutory

at t o r n e y

of state boar ds
board

of

g ene ra l

defined

provisions.

opinions,

of education,

is

However,

rules

and

the e x p e c t a t i o n s

re la ti o n s h i p s

wi t h

t e a c h e rs

the

dis trict,

state
court

re gu l a t i o n s

of in div idu al
a nd

other

e m p l o y e e s ’ groups,

t ra di ti on s

the sup eri ntendent,

issues eng agi ng the d i s t r i c t at an y gi ven

time,

vo ter behavior,

cit iz en s and parents,

of

by

strength

ed u ca ti on al e x p e c t a t i o n s of

of

interested

and the m ed ia in fl uen ce the role of the

school board.
The role of the school b o a r d has c h a n g e d v e r y litt le in
terms

of

years.
1.

legal

responsibilities

in

the

past

seventy-five

The legal as pe ct s of school g o v e r n a n c e are:
"The school d is t r i c t is an a r m of the state. . .
School off ice rs are state officers. . . . School
m o n e y is state m o n e y a nd not local money. . . .
School p r o p e r t y is state property. . . . T e a c h e r s
are state em pl oye es. "

o7
I E L , S t r e n g t h e n i n g Grass Root L e a d e r s h i p , p.
^Lloyd
Ashby,
(Danville, Illinois:
p . 1.

14.

The
E f f ec ti ve
Schoo l
Board
Me mb er s
I nt er st at e P r in te rs & Pu bl ish ers , 1968),

31
2.

Cou rt s

a gr ee that e d u c a t i o n is a state f u nc ti on a nd the

school b o a r d ser ve s as an ag en t of the state.
3.

Cou rt s

recognize

the

school

boards

as

a

"quasi­

c o r p o r a t i o n ."
4.

Mo st sch oo l b o a r d s are l a r g e l y i n d e p e n d e nt of the local
governing

body

of

the

city

and

o th er

governing

authorities.
5.

Sch oo l b o a r d s
of m a k i n g

are e s t a b l i s h e d for the s p e c i f ic pu r p o se

e f f e c t i v e w i t h i n r e s p e c t i n g school d i s t ri ct s

the laws of the state p e r t a i n i n g
6.

Scho ol
the

boards

law

to

d i r e c t l y or
7.

School

boards

to p u bl ic education.

are

r e s p o n s i b l e w i t h i n the p r o v i s i o n s of

the

people

of

the

i n d i r e c t l y se le c t

school

district

who

its m e m b e r s .

h a v e no o r i g i n a l p o w e r

("home r u l e " ) but

onl y those d e l e g a t e d to the m b y the s t a t e , such a s :

8.

a.

m a n d a t e d p o w e r - - " m u s t d o ;"

b.

p e r m i s s i v e p o w e r — "may d o ;"

c.

p r o h i b i t i v e p o w e r - - " m a y not d o ."

Sch oo l
be

b o a r d s h a v e d i s c r e t i o n a r y p o w e r (p o w e r w h i c h must

carried

out

by

the

authority

deleg at ed )

and

m i n i s t e r i a l p o w e r (p o w e r d e l e g a t e d to an a u t h o r i t y w h i c h
o q

may

m

One

of

tu r n be d e l e g a t e d to a s u b o r d i n a t e ) .
the

responsibilities

u n d e r s t a n d the p o w e r s

and processes

of

board

members

is

to

of the school b o a r d .

Ea c h m e m b e r s h o u l d be f a m i l i a r w i t h an d obser ve
the laws g o v e r n i n g the f u n c t i o n i n g of the b o a r d
of ed ucation.
E a c h m e m b e r s h o u l d be a c q u a i n t e d

0Q

Measick,

D i s c r e t i o n a r y P o we r s

of Sch oo l B o a r d s , p.

3.

32
wit h the g en er a l pa tt e r n of o r g a n i z a t i o n wh ich
has be e n d e v e l o p e d by Boar ds of E d u c a t i o n in
M i c h i g a n an d o t h er states."
W i t h i n the s t a t u t o r y and p r o c e d u r a l fr a m e w o r k exist the
e t hi ca l

s ta nda rd s

appropriate

to

the

role

of

board

member.

T he se ethics form the basis for a code b y w h i c h b o a r d me mb er s
conduct

themselves.

A code of et hi c s for school b o a r d me m b e r s was d e v e l o p e d
and

adopted

by

the

National

School

Boards

Association

in

196 1. 31
A s ou nd code of c o nd uc t for school b o a r d m e mb er s
be gi n s wi t h a g e n u i n e c o m m i t m e n t to s t r i v i n g for
high q u a l i t y p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n that su pp o r t s the
full d e v e l o p m e n t of all c h i l d r e n , a n d the pr e s e n t
an d future w e l f a r e of their local c o m m u n i t y an d
c o u n t r y . Y o u mu s t be c o m m i t t e d to do in g this ; and
you must be c o m m i t t e d to wo r k i n g e f f e c t i v e l y with
others to do t h i s .

'

W h i l e there are ethic al el em en ts and s i g n i f i c a n t duti es
and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

of school b o a r d s m a n d a t e d b y law,

different

expectations

of

their

elected

local

citizens

have

board

members.

G o l d h a m m e r i d e n t i f i e d six roles of scho ol b o a r d s and

d e s c r i b e d them as:

Law

1.

Promoters
of
education;

the

public

2.

D e f e n d e r s and u p h o l d e r s
of the community;

in te re st

in

of a c c e p t e d val ue s

0f]
J R o b e r t L. D r u r y & K e n n e t h C. Ray, P r i n c i p l e s of School
(N e w Y o r k , N e w Y o r k : M e r e d i t h Co., 1965) , p. 5.

01
E d w a r d M . T u t t l e , Sch oo l B o a r d L e a d e r s h i p in A m e r i c a
(Danville, I l l i n o i s : I n t e r s t a t e Pr in t e rs & P u b l i s h e r s , 1963),
pp. 292-293.
00
N a t i o n a l School Bo ar d s Assoc ia tio n, B e c o m i n g
B o a r d M e m b e r (NSBA Publ ic at io n, 1986), p. 8.

a B e tt e r

33
3.

An a p p e l l a t e
grievances;

4.

Supervisors

5.

C o n s e r v a t o r s of r e s o u r c e s ;

6.

Promoters „
I„
9 of
interests.

In
boards,

an

analysis

body

to

hear

co mp la in ts

and

of p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l ;

of

indivi du al

the

popular

rights

view

and

r e g ar di ng

local

B e n d i n e r wrote:

Of all the a g e n c i e s d e v i s e d b y A m e r ic an s for the
gu i d i n g of t h e i r pu bl i c affairs, few are as vague
in f u n c t i o n as school boards; fewer still take
off ic e in such r e s o u n d i n g a p a t h y - - a n d none other,
i r o n i c a l l y , is ca p a b l e of st ir r i n g up the pa ss ion s
of the c o m m u n i t y to so fine a froth . . . For the
school b o a r d is re a l l y n e i t h e r le g is la ti ve nor
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e in f u n c t i o n , and on l y in a most
li m i t e d w a y (is it) ju dicial
. it is local
p h i l o s o p h e r , it is w a t c h d o g , a n d it is w h i p p i n g
boy. ”34
Foster reported

five g e ne ra l areas of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

of school b o a r d s : (1) ma k i n g p o l i c y , (2) d e v e l o p i n g p r o g r a m s ,
(3)

e m p l o y i n g p e r s o n n e l , (4) p r o v i d i n g e d u c a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d

s e r v i c e s , and

(5) m a n a g i n g the a r e a of p h y s i c al facili ti es of
q r

the school d i s t r i c t s .

Similarly, G o l d h a m m e r i de nt if ie d five

areas of school b o a r d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as

(1) d e t e r m i n a t i o n of

m a j o r g o a l s , (2) g e n e r a l f o r m u l a t i o n of o p e r a t i n g p r o c e d u r e s ,
(3) s e l e c t i o n of k e y p e r s o n n e l , (4) a l l o c a t i o n a nd pr oc u r e m e n t

00
K e i t h G o l d h a m m e r , Issues a n d P r o b l e m s in C o n t e m p o r a r y
Educational
Administration,
(ERIC
Do c u m e n t
Reproduction
Service, ED 014 787, 1967) , pp. 11-14.
q i

R o b e r t B e n d i n e r , The P o l i t i c s of Schools: A Cri si s
Sel f G o v e r n m e n t (N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r & Row, 1969), p. 3.

in

qC

Budi G . F o s t e r , O r i e n t a t i o n and T r ai ni ng of School B o a r d
Members
(ERIC D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n Service,
ED 114 930,
1975), pp. 8-10.

34
of resources,
In

and

1982,

recognized

(5) evaluation.
the

the

Na ti o n al

f o l lo wi ng

Scho ol

Boa rd s

categories

of

Association
school

board

re sp on sibility: p o l i c y making; d e s i g n a t i n g a chi ef executive;
planning,
sta ff in g

goal
and

s et ti n g

appraisal;

appraisal; students;

publ ic relations;
According
study,

and

fi na nci al

instruction; facilities;

and a d j u d i c a t i o n an d investigation.

to

the

Insti tut e

for

Educational

the scope of a b o a r d ’s re sp on si bi li ti es ,

legal terms,

resources;

oy

Leadership

exce pt in its

seems to de f y d e f i n i t i o n and s t r u c t u r e .

The IEL

s tu dy in dicates the g r e a te st r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a school b o a r d
is the se l e c t i on of a s u p e r i n t e n d e n t an d the b o a r d ’s p r i m a r y
fun c t i o n

is

to

be

policymakers

a nd

manage

the

board

of

00

e d u c a ti on meetings.
The s um ma r y of the IEL fin din gs p o i n t e d to the ne e d for
a

fr am e w o rk

wi th i n

which

school

boards

an d

those

concerned

w ith their g o v er na n c e fu nc tio n c o u l d as s es s ef f e c t i v e n e s s and
defin e areas of nee d for i m pr ov ed l e a d e r s h i p p e r f o r m a n c e .
IEL then d e v e l o p e d fifte en

i nd ic at or s

The

of an ef f e c ti ve b o a r d .

An ef f ec ti ve board:
1.

A d d r e s s e s most of its time a n d e n e r g y
e d u c a t i o n and e d u c a t i o n a l outcomes.

to

^ K e i t h Goldhammer, The School B o a r d (New Yo r k Ce n t e r for
A p p l i e d R e s e a r c h in Ed ucation, 1964), p. 114.
<\n

Nat io na l School Boar ds A s s o c i a t i o n , Be c o m i n g a Be t te r
B o a r d M e m b e r (A l e x a n d r i a , V i r g i n i a : N a t i o n a l School Boa rd s
A s s o c i a t i o n , 1982), p. 37.
00
IEL,

S t r e n g t h e n i n g G ra ss Ro o t L e a d e r s h i p , p.

21.

35
2.

B e l i e v e s that a d v o c a c y for all st ud e n t s
its p r i m a r y re sponsibility.

is

3.

C o n c e n t r a t e s on goals
a n d uses s t r a t e g i c
p l a n n in g to a c c o m p l i s h them.

4.

W or ks
to
ens ur e
an ad e q u a t e
flow
of
resou rc es and e q u i t y in their dis tr ib ut io n.

5.

Uses the st re ng th of d i v e r s i t y r e p r e s e n t e d
on sch oo l boar ds an d in the c o m m u n i t y to
ob t a i n the e n u n c i a t e d goals for the s y s t e m
and
fosters
bo t h
assertiveness
and
cooperation.

6.

Deals

w i t h c o n t r o v e r s y openly.

7.

Leads the c o m m u n i t y in setti ng
education
and
e n c o ur ag es
many
community participation.

8.

E x e r c i s e s c o n t i n u i n g o v e r s i g h t of e d u c a t i o n
programs,
acquiring
the
background
and
kn o w l e d g e to ask the right questions.

9.

W or ks out the d i v i s i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
with the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t .

goa ls for
forms
of

10.

Determines
mission
an d a g e n d a
of b o a r d
c o m m i t t e e s , if they are used, a n d m a k e s sure
they c o o r d i n a t e wi t h p o l i c y and o v e r s i g h t
functions,

11.

E s t a b l i s h e s p o l i c y to g o v e r n its own p o l i c y ­
m a k i n g a n d ov e r s i g h t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

12.

Invests

13.

E s t a b l i s h e s p r o c e d u r e s for s e l e c t i n g
evaluating
the
superintendent
and
evaluating its e l f .

14.

Collaborates
wi t h
other
school
board
l e a d e r s h i p to infl ue nc e state p o l i c y m a k i n g
and f u n d i n g .

15.

Understands
the
role
of
the m e d i a
and
d e v e l o p s p r o c e d u r e s for m e d i a c o n t a c t s that
do
not
manipulate
media
attention
for
p e r s o n a l gain.

in its own d e v e l o p m e n t .

^ I b i d ., p . v i i .

and
for

36
The

fu n c ti on s

of

the

present

sch oo l

boards

include fewer a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s th a n before,
of
for

responsibilities
Michigan

sch ool

responsibilities
1.

is

still
board

of b o a r d s

C o m p l y i n g wi t h

formidable.
members

well

but the list
1987

id en t i f i e s

handbook

the

ch ie f

of e d u c a t i o n as the following:

laws a n d re gu lations;

2.

Determining

3.

S e l e c t i n g a g o o d su pe r i n t e n d e n t ;

4.

The

may

the e d u c a t i o n a l

Responsibilities

for

objectives;

im p r o vi ng

educational

opportun­

ities;
5.

P o l i c y d e v e l o pm en t ;

6.

Personnel

7.

The school plant;

8.

Secu re

9.

Keeping people

10.

r es p o n s i b i l i t i e s ;

f i n a n c i al

resources;

informed;

Appraisal.^

School Board Membership
The

selection

process

of

school

boards

produces

a

di v e r s e c o l l e c t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s who b r i n g a wi d e v a r i e t y of
skills,

ex pe r i e n c e s

The

legal

a n d n ee ds

qualifications

to t h e i r positions.
for b o a r d m e m b e r s h i p

are onl y the r e q u i r e m e n t s of ge ne ra l ci tiz ens hip .
re q u i r e m e n t s

ad d r e s s

qualifications

for

only
sc h oo l

age

a nd

board

residence.
candidacy

usually

Mo st state

Reporting
in

Nevada

on
and

^ M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of Sc ho o l Boards, B o a r d s m a n s h i p in
B r i e f - - K e y s to Sc ho o l I m p r o v e m e n t (1987), p. 9.

37
Missouri,
other

St ee re wrote: "I nde ed b o a r d c a n d i d a c y in these

states

re qu i re s

su ff i c i e n t votes
The

lit tl e

more

than

a

Some

board members

are

elected

B o a r d m e m b e r s h i p b y p o p u l a r vote

partisan.

The

membership

f i ft ee n persons.

of

Pr esently,

a

board

more

board

m e m be rs

wer e

a n d some

than

from

96,000

income.

In

and

to

and w o me n

of education.

described

cities

three

men

at

one

a g e , m a l e s , C a u c a s i a n , R e p u b l i c a n s , and
av e r a g e

are

is u s u a l l y n o n ­

var ie s

the m e m b e r s h i p of A m e r i c a n boa rd s

Scho ol

abo ve

and

to be e l e c t e d .

appointed.

mid d l e

warm body

e l e c t i o n laws of school b o a r d me mb e r s are far from

uniform.

comprise

and

of

towns,

time

as

sl i g h t l y

the

board

m e m b e r s ’s o c c u p a t i o n was

li k el y to be a b a n k e r , l a w y e r , real

esta te

retired

operator,

or

accountant.

In

rural

c o m m u n i t i e s , the o c c u p a t i o n s of b o a r d m e m b e r s we re pr o s p e r o u s
farmers or store k e e p e r s .^
In 1915,
compositions
school

board

m e r c h a n t , or
preferably

C h a n c e l l o r , a n d in 1927,

of

school

member
a

boards.

was

identified

b a n k e r , or

college

The

educated

a

Coun ts d i s c u s s e d the

profile
as

a

p h y s i c i a n , or
and

mi d d l e

of

a

ma n
a

aged.

preferred

who

was

a

manufacturer,
In

contrast,

the f o l lo wi ng c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were c i te d as s e ld om pr e s e n t in
va l u a b l e

school

board

members:

inexperienced

younger

men,

^ R o b e r t S t e e r e , " Sc ho ol in g of School B o a r d C a n d i d a t e s ,"
Scho ol & C o m m u n i t y (March 197 5) : p. 20.
A9
Rebecca
Luckett, Kenneth
E . Underwood & Jimmy C .
F o r t u n e , "Board S u r v e y : Who Y o u A r e ," The A m e r i c a n Sch oo l
B o a r d J o u r n a l . (Janua ry 1987), p. 24.

38
ol d e r

retired

men,

polit ic ian s,

newspaper

men,

men

in

s u b o r d i n a t e p o s i t i o n s a n d w o m e n as the least p r e f e r r e d school
b o a r d members.
The fi ndi ng s of social c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of school b o a r d
members

changed

1958-59

s ur v e y b y W i r s t

1927

and

very

1958-59

little

was

from

Counts’

a n d Kirst.

the

de cl i n e

1927

survey

to

a

The m a i n ch a n g e b e t w e e n
in

the

num be r

of

farmers,

reflecting

the farm c l o s u r e s a n d r u r a l - s c h o o l c o n s o l i d a t i o n .

Th e

of

income

board

members

n a t i o n , reflecting

the

fact

was

well

that

above

board

average

members

for

were

the

d ra wn

p r i m a r i l y from a d v a n t a g e d ec o n o m i c p o s i t i o n s .^
The
board

identifying

members

continuing
has

t hr ou gh

developed

characteristics
consecutive
who

has

serve

portrait
gender,

of

1988,

of

the

characteristics
Beginning

American

board

members.

sch oo l

"typ ica l"

bo a r d s
school

sample

was

For

school

1978

and

Board

Journal

the

leadi ng

the
men

surveyed.

board member

education,

to the annu al

of

of

of

in

School

p r of i l e

representative

et hn i c bac kg ro un d ,

According

The

annu al

scho ol

year, a

social

continued.

an

on U.S.

of

A

ele ve nt h
a nd

wom en

co mp os it e

included

age,

o c cu p a t i o n an d income.

J o ur na l b o a r d me mb e r survey,

the
"1988
Mr.
School
Board
Membe r"
looked
r e m a r k a b l y s i m i l a r c o m p a r e d wi t h the last ten
"typical" b o a r d me m b e r s who ha v e p r e c e d e d hi m on
c e nt er stage . . . W h i l e school p o pu l a t i o n s are
10
G e or ge C o u n t s , The Soci al Co m p o s i t i o n s of
E d u c a t i o n (C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o , 1927 ) .

Bo a rd s

of

^ F r e d e r i c k M. W i r s t & M i c h a e l W . K i r s t , The P o l i t i c a l Web
of A m e r i c a n S c h o o l s (Boston: Little, B r o w n & Company, 1972),
pp. 78-80.

39
g r owi ng
i n c r e a s i n g ly
di ver se
and
polit ica l
parti es show signs of r e p r e s e n t i ng a br oa d e r mix
of ethn ic and m i n o r i t y groups that make up U.S.
society, co mm u n i t i e s c o nt in ue to elect to their
local school b o a r d s a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of m i d d l e aged, co lle ge educated, well-off, wh it e males.
One s i g n if i c an t
com position:
above

35

change sh ow e d in the

1988 school b o a r d

the pe rc e n t a g e of w o m e n on school boa rd s

pe r c e n t

for

the

past

few

years

1987 ’s 39 p er ce n t to 1 9 8 8 ’s 31.97 percent.

but

dropped

De s p i t e

this change,

wh ite
-50

(1978--91
pe rc en t

$40,000+)
years;

percent;

e a rn e d

and

mi dd l e

ag e d

1988--51.8

(1978--59

factors of

The vast m a j o r i t y are

19 8 8 — 93.7 percent),

$20,000+;

68.1 pe r c e n t

the other m aj or

U n d e r w o o d ’s pr of il e r em a i n e d the same.

from

In the 1978 poll,

74 pe rce nt of the me mb er s were male and in 1988,
were males.

s t ay ed

p e rc en t

wealthy
pe rc en t
between

(1978ea rn e d
40-60

1988--64.5 percent).
Some a d d it io n al

detai ls of the 1988 survey:

-68.2 pe rce nt have co l l e ge degrees;
-49.9 pe rc en t ha ve p r o f e s s i o n al or ma na g e r i a l
occupations;
-60.2 pe rc en t ha ve c h i l d r e n
-60 pe rc en t
years;

served

-94.3
pe rc en t
appointed.

on

were

in pub li c schools;

board

for

el ec te d

five

or

rath er

fewer

than

^ E d g a r B. H a t r i c k III, K e n n e t h E. Underwood, J i m C.
Fo r t u n e & K a t h e r i n e Krough, "The ’T y p i c a l ’ School Member:
Still White, Male, Fo r t y i s h and Well Off," The A m e r i c a n School
B o a r d J o u r n a l . (January 1989), p. 21.
46Ibid. , p.

22.

40
The

American

demographics

by

Sch oo l

Board

regions.

The

Journal

Centra l

m em b e r s from the states of Illinois,
Michigan,
The

Minnesota,
Ce ntr al

Missouri,

Region

board

Ohio,

also

Region

Indiana,

divided

the

inc lu de d b o a r d
Iowa, Kentucky,

a n d Wisconsin.

members

of

the

1988

sur ve y

were:
t>
CO
1

p er ce n t m a l e ;

-96.4 p er ce nt w h i t e ;
CO

1

p erc ent

-33.4 pe r c en t
Although
board

41-50 years of age;
in the $60,000 or more income.

it was

i n t e re st in g

members,

it

became

characteristics

or

qualities

to un c o v er

equally
of

valuable
ef f e c t i v e

A?

the p r o f i l e
to

id en tif y

school

members.
. O t h e r things b ei ng equal, the ca lib er of
i n d i v i d u a l b o a r d me m b e rs la rg el y de t e r m i n e the
a d e q u a c y a n d q u a l i t y of the ed u c a t i o na l service
they p r o v i d e as a group.
High stan da rd s of
p e r s o n a l i n t e g r i t y a n d s u cc es sf ul a c co mp l i s h m e n t
as A m e r i c a n c i t i z e n s are e s s en ti al in the m e n and
w o m e n who serve as Boa rd s of E d u c a t i o n ; but it is
also d e s i r a b l e t h a t , severally, they sh o u l d be
the pr od u c t s of v a r y i ng b a ck g r o u n d s and e x p e r ­
iences in h u m a n a f f a i rs . . . B o a r d me mb er s sho ul d
po s s e ss a b o u n d i n g ph ys i c al h e a l t h , sound ment al
balance, a n d g r e at social p o is e and sho ul d be
w i l l i n g to d e v o t e their time fr e e l y to a st ud y of
the p r o bl e ms of the s c h o o l s . Th eir views sho ul d
be t o l e r a n t , t he ir c o o p e r a t i o n g e n e r o u s , their
m in ds o p e n , th eir judg me nts considered.
They
s h o u l d e v id en c e a p r o f o u n d int erest in ch i l d r e n
of
the
community
as
a
w h o l e , and
not
one
particular
s e gm en t
or
faction.
They
shou ld
develop
a
sympathetic
understanding
of
the
te ac h i ng a n d l e a rn i n g proce ss as it involves the
h u m a n r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n those wh o w o u l d teach
a n d those who w o u l d learn.

^ I b i d . , p.

23.

of

board

41
Abo ve all, me m b er s of Bo a rd s of E d u c a t i o n sh ou l d
be
men
and w o m e n
who
hold
universal
p u bl ic
e d u c a t i on in gr e a t e s t esteem; w h o b e l i e v e that
A m e r i c a n ’s future rests p r i m a r i l y on the su p e r i o r
d e v e l o p m e n t - p h y s i c a l , mental, moral, sp ir it ua l-of our c h i l d r e n and y ou th for personal, social,
eco nom ic and civ ic compete nc e; a n d wh o will work
u n r e m i t t i n g l y to provide, defend, a n d s u p p o r t the
hi gh e s t de g r e e of pub li c e d u c a t i o n w h i c h their
res pe c ti ve
communities
can
be
persuaded
to
demand.
In

1946,

Reeder

me mb er s sho ul d not be
shoul d b e .

wrote

"to

in di c a t e

what

sch oo l

board

is mu c h e a s i e r than to st at e w h a t th e y

A few of his

undesirable

trai ts w e r e : pe rs on s

who have not made a succe ss of a n y v o c a t i o n ; p e r s o n s who are
associated

with

"p olitically"

a

te xt b o ok

company;

m i n d e d ; pe r s o n s

who

are

persons

inclined

to

wh o

are

"pass

the

b u c k ;" person s who "ride h o b b i e s " too s t r e n u o u s l y ; pe rs on s who
are "penny pinc her s" a n d also p e r s o n s wh o s p e n d like "d ru nk en
s o l d i e r s ."
the

He c o n c l u d e d that the e f f e c t i v e b o a r d m e m b e r ha d

foll ow in g

qua li f i c a t i o n s :

su cc es s

in

vocation,

pub li c

s p i r i t , go o d j u d g m e n t , c o o p e r a t i v e n e s s , go o d a c q u a i n t a n c e wi t h
the

local

school

system,

faith

in

education

an d

moral

character.
Reev es
board

i de nt i f i e d

membership:

c h i l d r e n ; (2)

(1)

act wi t h

f ive

be

qualities

interested

sincerity

in

required
the

an d w i t h o u t

for

school

development

of

p r e j u d i c e ; (3)

be b a l a n c e d an d u n b i a s e d ; (4) be p r o g r e s s i v e yet c o n s e r v a t i v e ;

^Tuttle,
4Q

School B o a r d L e a d e r s h i p

in A m e r i c a , p.

276.

W a r d G. R e e d e r , School B o a r d a nd S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s : A
Manu al on T he ir P ow e r s a nd D u t i e s (N e w Y o r k : The M a c M i l l i a n
Company, 1946), pp. 2-3.

42
(5) be w i l l i n g to learn.®®
Jor d a n

discussed

seven

qu a li ti es

the

effective

school

b o a r d m e m b e r s h o u l d possess:
1.

Dedication--to
the
ca us e
of
public
education, to b e c o m i n g an e f f e c t i v e school
board
member,
to
providing
quality
e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s for students;

2.

De t e r m i n a t i o n - - d e t e r m i n e d to pr o v i de qu al i t y
e d u c a t i o n to the d e g r e e that he sets as ide
his own bi a s a n d int erests an d pla ce s his
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as a b o a r d m e m b e r first;

3.

Deliberation--the
process
of
carefully
e x a m i n i n g the issues b e f o r e a d e c i s i o n is
made ;

4.

Decisiveness--decisions
unambiguous;

5.

D e l e g a t i o n - - o f a u t h o r i t y a nd r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
to the p r o p e r school official;

6.

D e f e n d e r - - t h e school b o a r d m e m b e r sh ou l d
hav e int er es t and k n o w l e d g e in the school
pr o g r a m s a n d p o l i c i e s to be able to ex p l a in
them c o mp et ent ly ;

7.

D e p e n d a b i l i t y - - b o t h in r e gu la r b o a r d me e t i n g
a t t e n d a n c e a n d in his c o n v i c t i o n and role
and
responsibilities
as a
school b o a r d
member.

Ashby
members

mu s t

self-serving

studied
be

school

boa rd s

individuals

ambiti on s;

ra t h e r

wi t h

must

and
no

be

c le ar

concluded
s e lf is h

th e y mu s t

see

and

that

board

inte res ts
the

total

or

role

Ch ar le s S. Reeves, Scho ol Boards. Th ei r Status. F u n c t i o n
and A c t i v i t i e s (E ng l e w o o d Cliffs, N ew Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l ,
Inc., 1954), p. 101.
®^Forbis K. Jorden, "The D ’s of Ef f e c t i v e School Bo ar d
M e m b e r s h i p , " The A m e r i c a n Scho ol B o a r d Journa l 150 (December
1963): p p . 7-8.

43
cn

e d u c a t i o n p la ys

in a d e m o c r a t i c

Discussing
7 0 ’s

and

the

8 0 ’s,

characteristics
must possess.

challenge

Wiles
a

and

society.
of

board

Conley

"functional"

or

membership

identified

"effect iv e"

in

the

the

major

board

mem be r

T h e y were:

1.

A d a p t a b i l i t y - - a p e r s o n a l a b i l i t y for stylec h a n g i n g in n e g o t i a t i o n setting;

2.

T o l e r a n c e for a m b i g u i t i e s - - r e c o g n i t i o n of
the f l u i d , d y n a m i c n a tu re of the p o l i c y
a r e n a w h i c h o f t e n m ak es d e c i s i o n m a k i n g
i r r at io n al
and
short
te rm
ty pes
of
a g r e e m e n t s ; and

3.

Political
sa vi n g
[s i c ]- - r e c o g n i z i n g
the
n u i s a n c e s of c o m p r o m i s e , c o n f r o n t a t i o n an d
conflict.

Fr an co is

concluded

"highly qualified,

that

school

board

members

must

be

highly motivated and highly conscientious

citizens" g i v en the e n o r m o u s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of th eir r o l e .^
In

1986,

Benjamin

described

the

qualities

of

board

members:
Whe n we put on the m a n t l e of schoo l b o a r d m e m b e r s ,
we b e co m e s o m e t h i n g mo r e than o u r s e l v e s . We ca r r y
the dre am s and the h op es p e o p l e have for our
y o u t h . We ha v e the optimism, the i d e a l s , a n d the
i n t e g r i t y that c i t i z e n s want us to have.
As
m e mb er s of the communi ty, we m a y be su bj e c t to
the same doubts,
cy nicism,
a n d s u s p i c i o n s as
o t h e r s . But as scho ol b o a r d m e m b e r s we are

^ As h b y ,

Effective

Sch oo l B o a r d M e m b e r , p.

20.

^ D a v i d K. Wi le s a n d H o u s t o n Conley, Sc h oo l Boards: T he ir
P o l i c y Ma ki n g R e l e v a n c e (ER IC D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e ,
ED. 110 022, 1974), pp. 11-12.
^ J o h n F r a n c o i s , " B e t t e r - - L o t s B e t t e r - - T r a i n i n g is N e ed ed
for N ew B o a r d M e m b e r s , " The A m e r i c a n Sc h oo l B o a r d J o urn al 157
(July 1970): p. 9.

44
different.
In
this
off ic e
we
honesty, i n t e g r i t y an d optimism.
Almost

every

delineates

the

state

school

specific

board

Sch oo l

member

Bo a r d s

and

effective

d ef i n e s

p ro v i d e s

a

what

it

di sp l a y

association

q u al if i c a t i o n s

"ef fe ctive" school b o a r d membership.
of

mu st

handbook

e s se nt ial

for

The M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n
means

ch e c k l i s t

to

of

be

an

e f fe ct ive

characteristics

of

school b o a r d membership:

BOARD UNITY
-Subordinate
wh a t is be s t

p e r s o n a l interests, c o n c e n t r a t e
for the enti re district.

-A dh er e
to
the p o l i c y - m a k i n g
f u n ct io ns of the board.
- A cc ep t
board.

and

su pp or t

majority

- I d e n t i f y w i t h b o a r d po li ci es
-R e f u se
to
sp eak
or
act
i n d e p e n d e n t of the board.

an d

on

l e g i sl at ive

d e c is io ns

of

the

and actions.
on

school

ma tt er s

LEADERSHIP
- S u s p e n d j u d g m e n t until the facts are available.
-Make use of p e r t i n e n t experience.
-Help

i d e n ti f y problems.

-Determine

s a t i s f a c t o r y solu ti ons

to problems.

- D e v ot e time ou ts i d e b o a r d m e e t i n g s as needed.
- A cc ep t

ideas

from others.

-Have e n t h u s i a s t i c
students.

interest

in

the

welfare

of

^ J a m e s M. Be njamin, "The School B o a r d M e m b e r ’s Mantle,"
The B o a r d (Manhattan, Kansas: The M a st e r T e a c h e r Inc. 10, May
15, 1986).

45
EXECUTIVE FUNCTION
- Un d e r s t a n d
the
desirability
of
administrative
responsibility
su p e r i n t e n d e n t of schools.

d e le g a t i n g
to
the

-Su pport a u t h o r i z e d functions.
-E nc o u r ag e t e a m w or k b e t w e e n the su pe ri n t e n d e n t and
the board.
-R ec o g n i z e pr o b l e m s
ex e c u t i v e concern.

and

conditions

that

are

of

STA FF AND G R O U P R E L A T I O N S H I P S
-Speak e f f e c t i v e l y in public.
-Be li ev e fir ml y in d e m o c r a t i c p r o c es se s and in the
right of all gr ou p s to be heard.
-Work t a c t f u l l y and s y m p a t h e t i c a l l y wi t h teache r
groups.
- U n d e r s t a n d h o w gr o u p s
-Assi st oth er s

th in k an d act.

in w o r k i n g effectively.

-Show social poise.
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
-Work with
fellow board
p e r s o n a l i t y d i f fe re nc es .

members

-Di s p l a y both tact a n d fi rm n e ss
with individuals.
-Treat all m e m b e r s of
staff,
students,
and
ethically.
-Promo te h a r m o n i o u s

in

spite

of

in r e la ti on sh ip s

your community,
school
te ac h e r s
fa i rl y
and

rel at io ns hi ps .

COURAGEOUS ACTION
-W ea th er criticism.
- M a in ta in firm c o n v i c t i o n s .

46
-Take a st and on c o n t r o ve rs ia l
-Assu me r es p o n s i b i l i t i e s

issues.

for b o a r d decisions.®®

Board Development

Th e N e e d for I n s er vi ce T r a i n i n g of School B o a r d Members:
The n e e d for inse rv ic e tr ai nin g (board de ve lo p me nt )
scho ol

board

literature.

m e m be r s
As

has

e a r l y as

be e n
1924,

su p p o r t e d

by

a

C h a p m a n & Counts

for

variety
stated

of

that

e d u c a t i o n has b e c o m e such an intr ic ate ente rp ri se that pe rs on s
s h o u l d be well t r a i n e d for the task of g o v e r n a n c e . ^
In

1949,

sch oo l

board

within

a

board

Da vi s

and

me m b e r s

school

members

b ein g

system.

mu s t

Hosi er

also

stressed

kept

the

u p -t o - d a t e

In addition,
acq ua in t

they

on

i mp or ta nc e

developments

emphasized

th ems elv es

of

wi th

that

na t i o n a l

tren ds and d e v e l o p m e n t s in education, as m a n y of the d e c i s i o n s
school

board

m e m be rs

may

be

asked

to

make

depend

on

their

a w a r e n e s s an d k n o w l e d g e of such matters.®®
In

1954,

Reeder

emphasized

the

pe rs on al

initiative

of

b o a r d m em ber s wi t h this statement:
He must de si r e
to increase his k n o w l e d g e
of
present, ne w and b e t t e r school practices.
If he
does not have these d e si re s an d abilities, he

®®MASB,

Boardsmanship

in B r i e f , pp.

7-8.

pn

Cr os by J. C ha p m a n and Ge or g e C. Counts, P r i n c i p l e s of
E d u c a t i o n (Boston, M as sa chu set ts , H o u g h t o n - M i f f i n Company,
1924), p. 14.
®®Daniel R. Da vis and Fred W. Hosier, The C h a l l e n g e of
Sch oo l B o a r d M e m b e r s h i p (New York: Ch a r t w e l l House,
Inc.,
1949).

47
cann ot give the best se rv i c es to the school s and
community.
Go l d h a m m e r
seek
as

to

improve

members

of

Kfl

community.
variety

noted

of

their
the

He

board

ability

scho ol

to p e r f o r m

th e m

including:

meetings,

members

board

encouraged

ways,

association

that

an d
to

should

th eir duties,

as

seek

c it iz en s

tr ai ni ng

in

school

programs,

both

of

i m pr ov em en ts

"participation

i n s er vi ce

constantly

the
in

a

board

clinics,

A -I

a n d school b o a r d c o n f e r e n c e s . "
In

1975,

St e e r e

m e m b e r training.

examined

the

ne e d

for

school

board

He c o n c l u d e d in part:

1.

School
boards
s p e n d mo r e
hours
in
the
decision
making
pr o c e s s
than
large
industries.

2.

There
is a s i g n i f i c a n t
ne e d
for
board
me m b e r s
who
are
t r ai n e d
to
re c o g ni ze
appropriate
and
inappropriate
(a)
e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s and (b) k n o w l e d g e of
school d i s t r i c t ass et s and liabilities.

3.

Be alert
to a l t e r n a t i v e
v a r i e t y of problems.

s o l ut io ns

to

a

He furth er s t a t e d that u n t r a i n e d b o a r d me mb er s are not
lik e l y

to

decisions

make
as

processes.

as

trained
School

rational,
board
board

effective

members
members

schooled
should

about the e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s a n d concept,

KQ
Reeder,

School Bo ar d s

^Goldhammer,
61Ibid.,

p.

and

be

in

f ut ur is ti c
e d u c at io na l

knowledgeable

the cu rr en t issues

and S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s , p.

The School B o a r d , p.

6.

36.

36.

^R .
F. Steere,
"School B o a r d
C o m m u n i t y (March 1975): pp. 20-21.

T ra in in g, "

School

and

48
and

trends

community.
boa rd s

of

in

education

an d

the

projected

n ee ds

of

the

Ste ere s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d the m a j o r n e e d of
ed u c at io n

to

be

a

program

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’s d i r e c t i o n a nd

un de r

of

tr a i n i n g

the

auspice

under

the

and design

of the State D e p a r t m e n t of Education.
In
must

view

possess,

curriculum

for

of

the

diverse

St ee re
school

qualities

recommended

board

a

ap pl icants.

that

board

m e mb e r s

minimum
This

tra ini ng

training

include:
A.

B.

C.

D.

School F i na nc e
1.

Budgets--including
educational,
r e ve nu e and f un din g plans.

2.

Financial processes

3.

Negoti a t io ns.

of d is tr ic ts .

School B u i l d i n g an d E q u i p m e n t
1.

E x i s t i n g f ac il it ie s a n d r e s o u r c e s
school districts.

2.

K n o w l e d g e of d i s t r i c t n e e d s as r e l a t e d
to facilities, e q u i p m e n t a n d supplies.

3.

O b s e r v a t i o n a l s t ud y of all b u i l d i n g s
w i t h i n the district.

P o l i c i e s of D i s t r i c t s a n d S c h o o l

of

Law

1.

S t u d y of po li c i es in d i s t r i c t s ’ p o l i c y
manuals, t e a c h e r s ’
handbooks
and
student g u i d e s .

2.

Sch oo l L a w — c u r r e n t c o u r t r u l i n g s and
c r i t i c a l issues in education.

Relations
Groups

wi t h

and

Functions

of In te r e s t

1.

Teacher Professional Organizations.

2.

St ud e n t s and s t ude nt gov er nme nt .

must

49
4.

Pa re n t s a n d citizens.

5.
E.

C u r r i c u l u m and

Ste er e
uninformed
our

own

Ne ws media.
I n s tr uc ti on

1.

Knowledge
of
cl ass loads.

2.

S t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n trends w i t h i n the
district.

3.

A c c e p t e d le ar n i ng th eo r i es on whi ch
c u r r i c u l a a n d i n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d be
structured.

4.

Innovative
curricular
pr a c t i c e s
in c l u d i n g
concepts
of
continuous
p r o g r e s s an d n o n g r a d e d n e s s , fle xib le
schedul in g, o p e n - a r e a schools, yearround scho o l s , programmed instruction,
ETV, m i n i - co ur se s, i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n
a n d c l a s s r o o m grouping.

5.

Evaluative
teachers.
members.
concluded

group

making

busi nes ses .

si mil ar s i t u a t i o n
Brodinsky

Why

by

s t a f f i ng

ratios,

p r o c e d u r e s for students,
ad mi n i s t r a to rs ,
staff

saying

decisions
s h ou ld

"We
and

we,

w o u l d n ’t

budgeting

the

people,

in the b u s i n e s s of ed uc ati on? "

in

a

Phi

and

Delta

Kappa

fastback

wan t

an

mo ni e s

for

tol er at e

a

£J

titled

How

a

School B o a r d O p e r a t e s

(1977) c it es the wo r k of C ly de M c K e e of

Trinity

i d e n t i f y i ng

College

in

classifications

of

members.
Fi rs t
there
are
ratifiers.
fu n c t i o n as l e g i t i m i z i n g the

63Ibid.,

pp.

42-43.

64Ibid.,

pp.

42-43.

They
see
their
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s of

board

50
the ed u c at i on al a dm in is tra to rs,
p o l i c y initiators.

w h o m they see as

Next are the ne got iators, who see th eir role as
m e d i a t i n g c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n in d i v i d u al s an d groups
who are b a t t l i n g for d i f f e r e n t poi nt s of vi e w
w i t h i n the e d u c a t i o n a l arena.
Th ir d are the e d u c a t io na l advocates.
Th e y have
strong ties to p a r t i c u l a r grou ps or int er est s or
they
select
pet
p r o j e c ts
up on
w hi ch
to
concentrate--the
school
band,
v o c a ti on al
education, r ea di ng or football.
Then there are judges.
T h e y have p a r t i c u l a r
interests in ju dgi ng this t e ach er or that te ach er
or all teachers.
We come now to the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
T he ir eyes
light up w h e n e v e r the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t submi ts a
con tr ac t that has gone out to b i d or wh e n he
re com me nd s b u y i n g n e w equipment.
R e l a t e d to the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are the bu dg e t
analysts,
who are rea ll y f r u s t r a t e d finan cia l
wizards.
T h e y like at
least
five
s h a rp en ed
pe nci ls to a c c o m p a n y the first d r af t of the new
budget.
N e a r l y e v e r y b o a r d has its go ssipers, who want the
names of p r e g n a n t te ac he rs an d st ud e n ts an d to
kn o w who is d i v o r c i n g whom.
Finally, there are the status seekers, who p re en
bef or e
the
pr ess
at
board
meetings,
m a ki ng
"ne wsworthy" s ta te me nt s or who call the state
c o m m i s s i o n e r of e d u c a t i o n b y his first name an d
report this at the next b o a r d meeting.
Brodinsky

recognized

the

cl ea r

need

for

training

in

order to m o l d the d i v e r s e m o t i v a t i o n s of scho ol b o a r d m e m b e r s
into a com mo n act io n plan.
The

N a ti on al

Sch ool

Boa rd s

Association

e mp ha si ze s

the

B e n j a m i n B r o d i n s k y (1977) H ow a Schoo l B o a r d Op e r a t e s
(Bloomington, Indiana:
The Phi D e l t a K a p p a E d u c a t i o n a l F o u n ­
dation), pp. 9-10.

51
n e e d for tr ai n in g b e c a u s e of the high t ur no ve r rate in school
board

memb er shi p.

The

School

Board

N a t i o n a l Scho ol B o a r d s Assoc ia ti on ,

by

the

ind ic ate s there is a nee d

for c o n t i n u o u s

education

b o a r d members.

It is al so an ad v a n t a g e to the local c o m m u n i t y

to

attract

believes

and

that

retain

local,

tr a i n i n g p r o g r a m s
In
boards

1980,

for bo t h

N e w s , published

n e w and c o n t i n u i n g

well-informed

board

state a nd nat io na l

are

school

members.

co nt i n u o u s

NS BA

inser vic e

imperative.

V a n Voor he es,

based

on his

studi es

of

school

in M i c h i g a n , c o n c l u d e d :
It is i m p o r t an t that we p la ce e m ph as is w h e r e it
ca n do the mo s t g o o d — on p r o v i d i n g a p p r o p r i a t e
ins er vi ce
an d
pre-service
tra in in g
for b o a r d
me m b e r s an d ad mi n is t r a to rs .
Wit h k n o w l e d g e comes
ability;
with
ability
comes
better
decision
making.
Wi t h
better
decisions
comes
selfcon fid en ce.
W i t h s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e comes r e d u c e d
stress a n d e f f i c i e n t and ef f e c t i v e use of time and
m a n p o w e r . A nd wi t h all these things comes b e t t e r
e d u c a t i o n for our c h i l d r e n - - o u r f u t u r e .
It is
time we stop r ea c t i n g an d take act io n- -a ct ion
wh i ch re fle ct s the s e r v i c e , kn o w l e d g e a n d selfc o n f i d e n c e of p u b l i c se rv a n t s who are i n v o l v e d ,
i n f o r m e d , and i r r e p r o a c h a b l e . Se lf -e x a m i n a t i o n ,
as to m o t i v e a n d b e h a v i o r , a n d p u r p o s e f u l tra i n i n g
for b o a r d m e m b e r s are the logical pla c e s to b e g i n .
A n y t h i n g less will e v e n t u a l l y lead to d i s a s t e r for
p u bl i c e d u c a t i o n .
This c o u n t r y can no t su rvi ve
w i t h o u t good, free, pu bl i c education.
Board

of

awe

in

following

members
t he ir

themselves

role

confession

of
of

a

rep or t

governance.
veteran

Ne w

an

overwhelming
Jones

Jersey

sense

reported
school

the

board

m e m b e r : "During m y first few m o nt hs at the b o a r d t a b l e , I was

RR

Cu rt is Va n Voorh ee s,
" T o d a y ’s E d u c a t i o n a l Pro bl em s
D e m a n d Well P r e p a r e d B o a r d s of E d u ca ti on ," The News a nd Views
of M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n 1 (Educator Press, N o v e m b e r 1988): p.

6.

52
w or se off than an u n t r a i n e d arm y recru it sent st ra i g ht to the
front

lines of battle.

training

but

complex,
bo ard ,"

elected
few

or

of

demanding

ina bil iti es

to

an

making,

I lac ke d the n e c e s s a r y

be
be

role

made.

me mb er s

School
of

we

occupy

have

board

goal

on

are

to

the

a

school

recognized
area

me m b e r s

setting

we

emphasized

in ev ery

methodologies

de ve lo p m e nt ,

boards

r e l e va nt

Anderson

knowledgeable

understanding
policy

board

to school

h a d tr ai n i n g

fiQ
A n d e r s o n . 00

to

se rvi ng as

must

have

leadership

a c c o r d in g

d e c is io ns

appointed

us

i nd iv id ua ls

that

B e ca us e

. . .1,67

"Being
leaders

Why?

al s o

such
and

in

as

that
their
whi ch

reali ze
decision

evaluation

is

n e c e s s a r y for e f f e c t i v e b o a r d s m a n s h i p .
C a m p b e l l , Cu nni ng ha m,
c ur re nt

assessment

d i s p l a y towards

as

to

im pr ov i ng

Nystrand

the

and U s d a m

read in es s

their skills

that

id e n t i f y
board

the

members

t h ro ug h t r a i n i n g :

School b o a r d me mb e r s are u s u a l l y s e l e c t e d from the
p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d m a n a g e r i a l groups of s o c i e t y
(though in rural areas they are often f a r m e r s ).
This fact has c a u s e d some to c o n c l u de that b o a r d
me mb er s are stro ng d e f e n de rs of the status q u o .
Studie s of b o a r d p e r f o r m a n c e s , h o w e v e r , in dicate
that this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is too simple and not
warranted.
Mo s t b o a r d me mb e r s are se r i o u s l y
c o n c e r n e d wi t h th eir r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a nd w e l c o m e

K7

P h i l l i p G. Jones,
"How to T r ai n a N e w Schoo l Bo ar d
M e m b e r and Ways to H e l p Se a s o n e d Ve t e r a n s B r u s h up, too," The
A m e r i c a n School B o a r d J o ur na l 161 (September 1874), p. 21.
fiQ
Robert H . Anderson & Karolyn J . S n y d e r ,
Training
for
the
Sch oo l
Board
Members:
One
E d u c a t i o n (Spring 1980), p. 11.

" L e a d e r s h ip
A p p r oa ch ,"

53
professional
assistance
in
in te rp re ti ng
i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e i r r e s p o n s i b il it ie s.

and

The rec ent

in di ca te d

IEL i n t e rv ie ws wi th b o a r d me mb er s

that m a n y i n i t i a l l y w e r e ig no ra nt of the ext e n t of i n f o r m a t i o n
a nd skills

r e q u i r e d of them as b o a r d members.

O n l y as b o a r d

m e m b e r s b e g a n to use t h e i r n e w l y a c q u i r e d a u t h o r i t y d i d their
ne e d

for

They

t r a i ni n g

needed

yourself"

American
quiz

on

and

become

a pp ar en t

t r a i n i ng

in

to

them.

management,

c o m m u n i c a t i o n and l e a d e r s h i p s k i l l s .^
Sc h o o l

Board

Jo urn al

for b o a r d me mb e r s

ness a n d e f f e c t i v e n e s s
questions

development

development

interpersonal
The

and

presented

a

"do

it

to test their own p r e p a r e d ­

as b o a r d members.

M e m b e r s we r e a s k e d

items such as these:

1.

How
well
in div id u al

are
yo u
prepared
d e c i s i o n you make?

2.

How do you h a n d l e y o u r s e l f wh e n
turn to c a r r y the bal l?

3.

Do
you
d ut ie s?

ha v e

a

clear

for

each

it is your

knowledge

of

your

A.

Do yo u get out of the w a y an d let the
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t imp le me nt the pol ic ie s
you
have
cleared
for
the
school
sy ste m?

B.

Wha t are your
(5-10 years)
a n n u al ly ?

C.

Wh a t are you r sho rt range p ri or it ie s
(1-2 y e a r s )?

l o ng -r a n g e o b je ct iv es
an d are th ey u p d a t e d

cq

R. Campbell, L. Cu nn ing ham , R. Nystrand, & M. Usdam,
The O r g a n i z a t i o n a nd C o n t e n t of A m e r i c a n S c h o o l s . 4th ed.
(Ohio: Merrill , 1980) p. 258.
70

IEL,

S t r e n g t h e n i n g G ra ss R o ot s L e a d e r s h i p , p.

22.

D.

W h a t are your o b j e c t i v e s in pr o p e r
e v a l u a t i o n of the s u p e ri nt en de nt ?

4.

Ar e you a go o d l i st en er?
Do yo u lis te n to
all a v a i l a b l e facts?
Is the p r o b l e m c le ar
in your
m i n d b e fo r e
you p r e s c r i b e
an y
solu ti on ?

5.

Do
you
have
an
ag r e e m e n t
wi t h
your
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t on h o w to h a n d l e c o m p l a i n t s?

6.

Wha t rules do you fo ll o w
p e r s o n n e l ma tt er s?

7.

Ho w
well
acquainted
are
d e c i s i o n m a k i n g pr oc e s s?

8.

H ow do y o u hand le

9.

Do you u n d e r s t a n d its c a u s e a n d h o w do you
cope wi th it?

10.

If
you
are
having
troubl e
wi t h
the
su pe ri nt end ent , do you call h i m d i r e c t l y and
t a l k ? 71

r e g a r di ng

you

school

wit h

the

stress?

D e l i v e r y of B o a r d D e v e l o p m e n t Activities:
The
from

delivery

informal,

of

board

sporadic,

re ad in g materials,
Th er e

of

development

ac ti vi t i e s

varies

n o n - s y s t e m a t i c , to d i s t r i b u t i o n

to regional,

of

state and n at io na l workshops.

is a s c a r c i t y of l i t e r a t ur e a v a i l a b l e on the sp ecifics

board

development

effectiveness

for

school

board

me mbe rs

and

of any e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m for b o a r d members.

Generally
f o l lo wi ng

pr og ra ms

ways:

board
(1)

development

from

the

scho ol

occurs

in

one

superi nte nde nt,

of

the

and

(2)

s p o n s o r e d by the state school b o a r d association.

71
K e n n e t h Underwo od, "P ortrait of A m e r i c a n School Bo ard
M e m be rs ,"
The A m e r i c a n School B o a r d Jo urn al (January 1980),

p. 12.

55
L i te ra t ur e
te nd en t

and

development

s u p p or t s

board

the

president

contention
must

is to be effective.

take

that

the

superin­

in it i a t i v e

if

board

E s p e c i a l l y of im por tan ce

is

their l e a d e r s hi p in p l a n n i n g o r i e n t a t i o n programs.

Ne w b a u e r

indicated

often

delegate

and

na ti o n a l

that

provisions

local

of

as so ciations.

school

inservice

to

the

st ud i e d

participation

state

of

perceived

Southwestern

me mb er s in l o c a l , regional,

needs

Michigan

Sch us te r c o n c l u d e d that

in dividual

operationalized

the

p u bl i c

well

school

as
board

i n s er vi ce e d u c a t i o n c o u l d
that it meets the ne e d

school b o a r d members.
at

as

an d s t a t e w i d e i n se rv ice ed u c a ti on

be d e t e r m i n e d ef f e c t i v e to the d e g r e e
of the

too

7?

S c h us t er

programs.

districts

local

level

This

is mo st e a s i l y

where

school

board

tr ai n i n g can impact on the local d e c i s i o n m a ki ng process.
Ke r r i n s

studied

i n s er vi ce

b o a r d m e mb er s

as well

school

board

ins er vi ce

school

board

m e m b e rs

Colorado.
least

School

thi rt ee n

as

what

different

nee ds

delivery method

training

and

board

tr ai n i ng

of

70

school

of cho ic e

for

p r o g ra ms

is

preferred

by

superintendents

in

the

State

of

used

at

members

and

delivery

superintendents

m e th o d s

for

school

board

71
A n t o n i a Newbauer, "E du c a t i n g the B o a r d of Education:
D o ’s and D o n ’t s ," p ap er p r e s e n t e d at the A n nu al C o n f e r e n c e of
the A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of School Ad mi n i s t r at or s, Chicago,
Illinois, July 6-9, 1980.
71

Jon Neil Schuster, "An A s s e s s m e n t of P e r c e i v e d Needs and
P a r t i c i p a t i o n of S o u t h w e s t e r n M i c h i g a n Pu bl i c School Bo ar d
M em be rs in Local, R e g i o n a l an d S t a t e w i d e P r o g r a m s of Inser vic e
Ed uc at io n, " (Ph.D. d i s s er ta ti on , M i c h i g a n St ate University,
1980) .

56
members’

in se rvi ce

tr ai ni ng

training.

s e s s i o n s , w o r k s h o ps

She

concluded

and di sc u s s i o n s

that

local

would meet

the

tr ai n i n g n ee ds an d p re f e r e n c e s of most b o a r d m e m b e r s .^
Selby

s tu di ed

perceptions

of

su p e r i n t e nd en t

in s e r v i c e

tr aining

for

and

board

Kan sa s

president

School

Boards,

and d e l i v e r y me t h o d s of inservice tr ai nin g for b o a r d members.
He

fo und

both

gro ups

ranked

readi ng

ma te ria l

as

the

mo s t

oft en u s e d d e l i v e r y m e t h o d wi t h a t t e n di ng co nv e n t i o n s fa lli ng
as

the s e c o n d m e t h o d

us e d

for

ins er vic e t r a i n i n g .

He

noted

that r e a di ng m a t e r i a l s were shown to be most o ft en us e d wh il e
r an ki ng

on l y

fourth

in

e f f e c t iv en es s

of

in se rvi ce

delivery

m e t h o d s .^
K l e i n s t i v e r ’s s tu dy of in service needs of school b o a r d
me mb er s

as

perceived

superintendents
d e l i v e r y syste ms
have

been

us e d

in

by

the

school

State

of

board

me mb er s

Arizona

also

an d

school

included

wh a t

for school b o a r d tra in in g s e s s i o n s / p r o g r a m s
and

wh a t

viewed by board members

is

and

the

most

preferred

superintendents.

She

method

as

concluded

that the state school b o a r d a s s o c i a t i o n was the most u t i l i z e d
for p r o v i d i n g i n s er vi ce tr aining for school b o a r d m e m b e r s but

7i

Ju d i t h A. Kerrins, "I nservice Tr a i n i n g Needs of Schoo l
B o a r d M e m b e r s as P e r c e i v e d by Scho ol B o a r d M e m b e r s a n d Sc ho o l
Superintendents
in
the
State
of
C o l o r a d o ,"
(Ph.D.
d i s s e rt at io n, U n i v e r s i t y of C o l o r a d o , 1984).
7^

James Otis Selby, "S up er in t e n d en ts and B o a r d P r e s i d e n t
P e r c e p t i o n s of I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g for K a n s a s School Bo ar d s , "
(Ph.D. D i s s e r ta ti on , K a n s a s State Univers it y, 1984).

57
local tra i ni ng by the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t wa s the p r e f e r r e d m e t h o d
of a c q u i r in g

in se rvi ce education.

7 fi

Orientation:
Spe c if ic em pha si s has b e e n p l a c e d on the
tr ai n i n g
Andrew

for

beginning

concluded

Spe cifically,

he

that

new

board

beginning

noted

that

imp or ta nc e of

members— orientation.

orientation

it

s h ou ld

is

begin

essential.
as

soon

as

p o ss ib l e an d involve the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of schoo ls and fe l l o w
board

members.

school

Activities

organization,

en co ur a ge

p ri or

should

inclu de

familiarization

attendance

at

board

an

awareness

wi t h

of

facilities,

me e t i n g s

lo c a l l y

and

r e g i o n a l l y and ex t e n s i v e o ng oi ng s u ppo rt b y fe ll o w members.

77

Salen s u r v e ye d b o a r d me mbe rs in f or ty -n in e di s t r i c t s in
four

cou nt ie s

few dis tr ic ts

in

the

pr ov id e

Philadelphia

are a

and

fo und

their n e w b o a r d me mb e r s

with

that

ver y

any

type

of lo cal ly p r e p a r e d o r i e n t a t i o n p r o g r a m .7 8
Fr an co is
in

fo rty -fi ve

su r v e y e d b o a r d p r e s i d e n t s an d s u pe ri n t e n d e n t s
school

di st ri ct s

nationwi de.

The

d i s tr ic ts

7 fi

Louis e Kle ins ti ve r, "Inser vic e Tr a i n i n g Needs of School
B o a r d Me mb er s as P e r c e i v e d by School B o a r d Me m b e r s a nd School
S up e r i n t e n d e n t s , "
(Ph.D.
D i s s e rt at io n,
Northern
Arizona
University, 1986).
77

James A n d r e w , "A St udy of the P e r c e p t i o n s He l d by N ew
School
Board
Members
T o wa rd s
Their
Tr a i n i n g
for
Board
M e m b e r s ," (D is se rta tio n A b s t r ac ts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , U n i v e r s i t y
M i c r o f i l m N o . 72-1533, 1971 ).
^ F r e d C . S a l e n , "A Sur ve y of the O r i e n t a t i o n of New
School B o a r d Me mb er s
P r a c t i c e d b y S e l e c t e d Local School
D i s t r i c t s ," (D is se rta tio n A b s t r ac ts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , U n i v e r s i t y
M i c r o f i l m No. 7-12835, 1970).

58
were

scientifically

enrollment,

size

res po nd e nt s
a minimum

(69

selected

and

on

g e og ra p h i c

percent)

b as is

location.

indicated

of or ien tation,

the

that

of

pup il

Most

t he ir

generally consisting

of

the

districts

ha d

of a p r i v a t e

m e e t i n g with the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , a tour of the f a c i l i t i e s an d
r ea din g materials.
re c e i v e d

a

T h i r t y pe rce nt i n d i c at ed a d e s i r e to have

better

orientation

and

felt

th e y

received

only

7Q

li mi te d tra in in g a f t er they we r e on the j o b .
In
m em b e r s
no

a

st udy

su r v e y e d

orientation

Doyle,

over

in P e n n s y l v a n i a

orientation

districts.

by

50

and We st

program

f or

new

Respondents

did

ind icate

program

a nd

other

p e rc en t

board

tra in in g

of

the

Virginia
members

a

need

to

be

reported
in

for
held

board

their

both

an

during

a

b o a r d m e m b e r 's first two years of office.^®
Ev er et t and S lo an ar ri v e d at the f o l l ow in g c o n c l u s i o n s :
(1)
an

only

17 pe rc en t of the b o a r d me mb er s c o n s i d e r e d t h e y had

or g a n i z e d

pe rc en t

of

existed;
agreed

the

(2)

that

e x i s t ; and
board

and

s ys te ma ti c

superintendents

bo th

school

written
(3)

me mbe rs

orientation

it
di d

board

policy

appeared
not

considered
me mb e r s

concerning
that

vi e w

p r o g r a m , while

the

and

such

a

40

program

superintendents

orientation

superintendents
orientation

did

and
or

not

school

tr a i n i n g

nn

Francois,

"Trai nin g for New B o a r d M e m b er s, " pp.

9-10.

0A
W a y n e W. Doyle, "A Mo de l O r i e n t a t i o n P r o g r a m for N e w l y
E l e c t e d or A p p o i n t e d School B o a r d Me mb e r s
as V i e w e d by
Superintendents
and
Boards
of
E d uc at io n, "
( D is se rt at io n
A b s tr ac ts In t e r n a t i o n a l 37, U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s N o . DCJ 76 22433, 1976).

59
pr o g r a m

in

summarize,

the

same

li g h t - - a

communication

problem.

To

E ve re tt a n d S l o a n c o n t e n d e d that

. . . school b o a r d me m b e r s n e e d mo r e k n o w l e d g e on
mo r e subjects.
Mo reover, these persons, in order
to
be
effective
school
board
members,
need
in t e n s i ve
o r i e n t a t i o n , training
and
ins er vi ce
g r o w t h t h r o u g h o u t th ei r terms on the board.
Ro g e r s d e v e l o p e d g u i d e l i n e s for small school syste ms in
developing
in d i c a t e d
agree

on

orientation
that
the

orientation

programs

scho ol

board

majority

of

program

f or

m a j o r i t y of r e s p o n d e n t s
p o l i c y to r eq ui re
a joint

for

members
items

new

board m e mbers.
and

that

school

She

superintendents

we re e s s e nt ia l

to

board m e m b e r s .

do
an
The

i n d i c a t e d th e y w o u l d s u p p o r t a

board

o r i e n t a t i o n a n d that o r i e n t a t i o n s h o u l d be

responsibility

of

the

superintendent

and

the

school

board p r e s i d e n t .
In
pe r c e n t

the

IEL

survey

of

216

U.S.

board

c h a i r p e r s o n s , 81

r e p o r t e d that an o r i e n t a t i o n p r o g r a m is p r o v i d e d for

new m e m b e r s ; 42 p e r c e n t we r e i n v o lv ed at the local level only.
H o w e v e r , 86 p er c e n t of the b o ar ds have m e m b e r s p a r t i c i p a t i n g
in

s e m i n a r s , tr ai n i n g

p r o g r a m s , and

conferences

(other

than

new m e m b e r o r i e n t a t i o n ) p r o v i d e d to b o a r d m e m b e r s b y the state
d e p a r t m e n t of e d u c a t i o n a n d state school b o a r d a s s o c i a t i o n s .
Data from the IEL s t u d y in di c a t e that e d u c a t i o n p r o f e s s i o n a l s
at d i s t r i c t and state lev el s are the c h i e f p r o v i d e r s of a new
m e m b e r ’s i n t r o d u c t i o n

to b o a r d

membership.

This

f in di ng

is

01
R. E. E v e r e t t a n d C. A. Sloan, Are we P a y i n g Lip S e rv ic e
to
Training
New
School
Board
Members?
(ERIC
D o c u m e nt
R e p r o d u c t i o n Service, ED 248 587, 1984).

60
c o r r o b o r a t e d b y the A A S A 1982 s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ st ud y in w hi ch
it

was

s ho wn

conducting

that

the

orientation

responsibility
programs

for

rested

developing

with

the

and

education

00

professionals

at

the

local

and

state

level.

Almost

one-

fifth of the school d i s t r i c t s in the IEL study d id not pr ov id e
orientation

and

16

percent

s p o n s o r e d programs.
the

remaining

did

not

participate

in

state-

A b o u t o n e - f o u r t h we r e not i n t e r e s t e d and

indicated

a

variety

of

reaso ns

for

not

00
participating.
IEL concluded:
that b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t sh o u l d be p l a n n e d like any
ot he r le ar n i n g a c t i v i t y with sp ec if ic objectives,
o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d e v a l u a t i o n of the outcomes.
A
c o n t i n u i n g p r o g r a m of b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
is a
n e c e s s a r y and d e s i r a b l e as pe c t of school b o a r d
s e r v i c e . " 84

M a n d a t o r y In s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g
Legislatures
ne e d

for

school

in

board

of School B o a r d Members:

sever al
member

states
tr ai n i n g

have

by mandating

of p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t ho ur s per year.
d e t e r m i n e d that
is

an

es s e n t i a l

excellence

to

the

a n u mb er

These states have

i n s er vi ce e d u c a t i o n for school b o a r d m e m b e r s
el eme nt

in the p u b l i c

According

responded

to

the

in

effort s

to

ensur e

e d uc a t i o n a l

school.
National

School

Bo a r d s

A s so ci at io n,

00

School
1982).

L u v e r n L. C u n n i n g h a m & Jose ph Hentges, ed., A m e r i c a n
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s . A Full R e p o r t , (AASA, Ro sslyn, VA,

848I b i d . , p.
Q4
IEL,

46.

S t r e n g t h e n i n g G ra ss R oo ts L e a d e r s h i p , pp.

49-50.

61
Arkansas,

Georgia,

established
following

Ke ntucky,

school

board

i n f o r m a ti on

Oklahoma,

education

"board d e v e l o p m e n t "

is the

Texas

have

requirements.

is b a s e d on pe r s o n a l

this r e s e a r c h e r and the w o r d i n g
of

and

The

co rr es p o n d e n c e

" i nse rv ice training"

t e r m i n o l o g y u s e d by

to

inste ad

the

legal

statutes.
House
the

General

Bill

153,

school

Assembly during

board
the

training,

1984

was

session

passed

by

of the C o m m o n ­

w e a l t h of Kentucky:
All local school b o a r d m e mb er s shall c o mp le te at
least fifte en (15) ho ur s of i n - s er vi ce tra ini ng
annually.
The State B o a r d of E d u c a t i o n shall
identify
the
criteria
for
fu lf il li ng
this
requirement.
The K e n t u c k y Sc h o o l B o a r d s A s s o c i a t i o n is the a p p r o v e d
p r o v i d e r of the

in s e r v i c e tr ai n i ng a c t i v i t i e s .

In G e o r g i a , it was
within

one

orientation
therefore

year
to

the

a ft er

felt

a s s u mi ng

educational
Quality

that n e w school b o a r d m e m b e r s ,

B as ic

program

of f i c e ,

sho ul d

objectives

Education

Act

was

of

receiv e
Georgia,

passed.

The

G e o r g i a School Boar ds A s s o c i a t i o n is the pr o v i d e r of inservice
training.
Education.
m em b e r s

The

are

developed

One of the r e q u i re me nt s

will

reimbursed

criteria

be

pa i d

for actu al

for

by

of the Act

attendance

expenses.

the

at

De pa r t m e n t

of

is that b o a r d
w o r k sh op s

and

ftft

^ P e r s o n a l c o r r e s p o n d e n c e with the K e n t u c k y School Boards
As soc ia ti on , J a n u a r y 1989.

OC

Pe r s o n a l C o r r e s p o n d e n c e wi th the Ge or g i a School Boards
As soc ia ti on , D e c e m b e r 1988.

62
The

State

of

Se s s i o n

1987,

me mb er s

to receive

the

school

passed

laws

p o w e r s , duties
req ui re m en t

Arkansas
Act

76th

767,

six hours

of

and

the

Gener al

which

and

responsibilities

is to be met

re quires

of tr ai nin g

state

Assembly

an d

the

Regular

school

board

i n s t r u c t io n

laws

governing

of school

boards.

by onl y new m e m b e r s .

in
the

This

The p r o v i d e r

of in st ruc tio n ma y be from an in st itu tio n of h i gh er lea rn in g
in

Arkansas,

from

i n st ru ct io n

s p o ns or ed

by

the

State

De pa r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , or by an in service tr ai n i n g p r o g r a m
on

c o n d u c t e d by the A r ka n sa s School Boa rd s A s s o c i a t i o n .
Me mb er s

of

the

Texas

L e gi s l a t u r e

p a s s e d H o us e

Bill

72

du ri ng the summer of 1984 to requi re tr ai nin g of school b o a r d
members.

The

State

Board

St an dar ds on the Du ti es

of

Ed u c a t i o n

adopted

of a School B oa rd M e m b e r

S t a t ew id e

in D e c e m b e r

1985 , which include a m i n i m u m of twen ty hours of tr ai ni ng from
ap p r o v e d
st at ewi de
to

the

sponsors

to

standards

end

of

gain

a

on duti es

their

first

wo rk i n g
of

year

knowledge

school
of

of

all

b o a r d me m b e r s

service.

the

pri or

Board m e m b e r s ,

upon co mp l e t i n g the initial r e q u i r e d t r a i n i n g , shall a n n u a l l y
p ar t i c i p a t e in an a s s e s s m e n t of their tr ai nin g ne ed s a n d shall
p a r ti ci pa te in six hours of tra in in g a ct iv it ie s a n n u a l l y .
pr ov id er s

of

the

t r ai ni ng

m ay

be

the

reg ion al

The

education
00

service center s or an a p p r o v e d pr iva te o r g a n i z a t i o n .

on

Per so na l C o r r e s p o n d e n c e wit h the Ark an sa s School Boa rd s
Association, D e ce mb er 1988.
00

Pe rso nal C o r r e s p o n d e n c e
School Boards, De c e m b e r 1988.

with

the Texas

Association

of

63
W h il e
concerned
some

little

with m a n d a t o r y

re se a r c h e r s

requiring

re sea rch

have

is

a v a il ab le

tr ai n i ng

for

school

offered

ge n e r a l

specifically
b o a r d members,

o b se rv at io ns

on

fo rc e d compliance.

In an a r t i c l e d i r e c t e d at m a n d a t o r y inse rv ic e tr ai ni ng
laws for school b o a r d members, the 1984 Nat ion al School Boards
A s s o c i a t i o n Pr esident,

Te d Comstock,

had taken opposition:

The c o m p e t e n c y of school b o a r d me m b e r s has as s u m e d
a n e w d i m e n s i o n with a c ti on s b e in g taken b y some
state
l e g i sl a t or s
in
re sp o n s e
to
the
many
'excellence r e p o r t s . 5 It has b e e n s u g g e s t e d that
some sort of c e r t i f i c a t i o n or even m a n d a t o r y
r e qu i r e m e n t be e s t a b l i s h e d for i n d i v id ua ls who
serve on scho ol b o a r d s .
At first b l u s h , this
m ig h t s oun d r ea so n a b l e and m a y b e even a t t r a c t i v e
as a w a y to p ro m o t e g r ea te r skills in these publ ic
servants.
But I b e l i e v e m a n d a t e d b o a r d - m e m b e r s h i p r e q u i r e ­
m e n t s are not a good i d e a . This w o u l d be d i s c r i m ­
in a t o ry j b e c a u s e
it w o u l d p la ce school b o a r d
m e m b e r s in a c a t e g o r y d i f f e r e n t from v i r t u a l l y
all ot he r e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s . It c e r t a i n l y appear s
c o n t r a d i c t o r y to our form of g o ve rn m e n t a nd it
w o u l d be a fa ul t y p r e c e d e n t to e s t a b l i s h .
T h o m as

A.

S h a n n o n , Executive

Director

of

the Nat io na l

School Bo ar ds A s s o c i a t i o n c o n t e n d e d t h a t :
A
vital
pa rt
of
the
American
t r a di ti on
of
representative
government
. . .
is
that
no
p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n a l or p r o f e s s i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s
are r e q u i r e d for e l e c t i o n or re-election.
As a
s o c i e t y we d on 't requi re "training" of an y e l ec t e d
official, from the Pr e s i d e n t of the U n i t e d States
th r o u g h
the
whole
spectrum
of
representative
government.

®®Ted Comstock, "Give B o ar d T r a i n i n g High Pr io ri ty ," The
A m e r i c a n School B o a r d Journ al (November 1984), p. 67.
^ N a t i o n a l Sch oo l Boa rd s Asso ci at io n, School B o a r d News
(Alexandria, VA: N S B A P u b l i c a t i o n (September 1985).

64
In a 1980 M i c h i g a n study, S c h u s t e r f o u n d that w h i l e mor e
than

80

pe rc en t

of

the

board

me mb er s

surveyed

agreed

that

c on ti n u o u s ins er vi ce e d u c a t i o n is v i t a l l y im po rta nt to all who
d es i r e to p e r f o r m their dut ie s
tw o-t hir ds

disagreed

w ith

in a c o m p e t e n t manner,

a

p r op os al

ca l l i n g

nearly

for

the

c o m p l e t i o n of a r e q u i r e d o r i e n t a t i o n program,

b y school b o a r d

candidates , p ri or to thei r runni ng for office.

S c h u s t e r found

that

more

elected

than

t wo -t hi r ds

or a p p o i n t e d

of the m e m b e r s

membe rs

sho ul d be

agreed

that

required

to

newl y-

co m p l e t e

a l o c a l l y d e t e r m i n e d inse rv ic e p r o g r a m d u r i n g their first year
of s e r v i c e . ^
In

1985,

Goins

sought

to d e t e r m i n e

if s e l e c t e d

grou ps

inv o l v e d wi t h e d u c a t i o n felt that m a n d a t o r y i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g
for

school

in cl u d e d

fifty

directors,
one

board

state

was

needed.

school

board

one h u n d r e d di st r i c t

hu nd r e d

Il li no is

m em be rs

board

state

pr es i d e n t s

legislators.

s e l e c t e d grou ps

association

superintendents
in

The

e v e n l y split c o n c e r n i n g m a n d a t o r y
b o a r d members.

These

ex e c u t i v e

in Illinois,

I l l i n o i s , and

thirty-nine

four

gr ou p s

referent

in se rvi ce

tr a i n i n g

were

for all

S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s an d b o a r d p r e s i d e n t s s u p p o r t e d

the co nce pt w hil e ex e c u t iv e d i r e c to rs a nd le gi s l a t o r s o p p o s e d
mandatory

inser vic e

training.

The

general

four groups was that new b o a r d members,
well

prepared

without

formal

training.

Schuster,
"An
As se ss m e n t
P a r t i c i p a t i o n of B o a r d M e mb er s
E d u c a t i o n ."

consensus

in general,
Th re e

of

of

all

w e r e not
the

four

of
Perceived
Needs
and
in P r o g r a m s
of In se rv ic e

65
re fe r e n t
be fo re

not

ne ed e d

school b o a r d m e m b e r s we r e s e a t e d on the board.

Sixty

pe rc e n t

gr ou ps

of

felt

the

pre-service

superintendent

t ra in in g

group,

was

however,

responded

p o s i t i v e l y to p r e - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g b e f o r e b e in g se at e d on the
board.
felt

The

that

elected

data

r ev e a l e d

i n s er vi ce

school

board

three

of the

t r ai ni ng

should

members.

The

four

be

re fe r e n t

mandatory

school

board

gro up s

for

newly

association
Q0

ex e c u t i v e g r o u p d i s a g r e e d at a rate of 61 percent.
M a n d a t e d school b o a r d in se rv ic e tra in in g is an em ot ion al
and

professional

The

ob je ct i o n s

issue— a

to

mandated

reflection
t ra in in g

of

belief

have

an d

ran ge d

values.

from

"not

n e c e s s a r y a n d co stl y" to "s ub ver siv e to r e p r e s e n t a t i v e g o v e r n ­
ment . "
Hu r w i t z

said:

I f i rm ly b e l i e v e that if lay co nt ro l of pub li c
e d u c a t i o n is to exist in the futu re it will d e p e n d
to a large ext en t upon wha t is done d u ri ng the
next few years to train school b o a r d me m b e r s so
the y m a y e x e r c i s e re sp o n s i b l e a nd ef fe ct iv e lay
control.
Concerning

re q u i r e d

in se rvi ce

training,

St.

John

suggested:
1.

Sta te b o ar ds of e d u c a t i o n and d e p a r t m e n t s
of
education
should
ad opt
rules
and
regulations
r e g a rd in g
orientation
and
inservice.

Q?
M a nu el W i n s t o n Goins, "P er c e p t i o n on In -S er vi ce T ra in in g
for Ill ino is
Schoo l B o a r d Me m b e r s , "
(Ph.D.
Di sse rta tio n,
S ou t h e r n Ill in oi s Univ ers ity , 1985).
Ma r k W. Hurwitz,
"How to T r a i n a N ew Scho ol Bo ar d
M e mb er ," The A m e r i c a n Scho ol B o a r d J o u r n a l , (April 1972),

p. 21.

66
2.

St at e sch ool b o a r d as soc iat io ns, in c o o p e r ­
a t i on w i t h the ir ex e c u t i v e of fi ce rs a n d
their n a t i o n a l as so cia tio n,
shou ld adopt
a p p r o p r i a t e resolutions.

3.

Local b o a r d s of e d u c a t i o n sho ul d adopt s p e ­
c if ic p o l i c y r e la ti ng to imp ro ve d p r og ra ms
for members.

Summary
A l t h o u g h c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h has be e n d i r e c t e d to wa r d
school boards,
addressed

the

by

area

only

a

in v e s t i g a t i on s ha ve not
a g r o u p about w h i c h

of b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
few

studies.

needs

has

Further,

be e n
these

e x a m i n e d in te rm ed ia te scho ol b o a r d s ,

almost

nothing

is known,

and

t he ir

ne e d

for inse rvi ce ed ucation.
Ma n y
boa rd s

of

d iv e r s e
education

literature.
also

roles,
have

fu n c t io ns
been

Responsibilities

i m p a c te d

by

responsibilities

identified
are

expectations

and

of

by

the

d e l i n e a t e d by
community

review

law a n d

members.

of
of
are
The

impact of d e c i s i o ns m a d e b y me mb e r s of the b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n
is

far-rea ch ing ;

kn ow led gea ble ,

rat io na l

Nation-wide
pr ofi le

of

me mbe rs

te nd

thus,

school
to

there

is

a

nee d

for

fair,

and r e s p o n s i b l e dec isi on -m ak in g.

su rv ey s ha ve be e n c o n d u c t e d to e s t a b l i s h a
board
be

School b o a r d m e m b e r s

members.

white,

mi d d l e -

Generally,
to

school

u p p er -c la ss

board
males.

r e m a i n b e t t e r e d u c a t e d than the ge ner al

publi c and the m a j o r i t y of b o a r d me mb e r s

ide nt if y t he ms el ve s

W a lt er D. St.John, "Why B o a r d m e n N e e d T r a i n i n g - - a n d What
Th ey N e e d to Kno w, " The A m e r i c a n Schoo l B o a r d Journa l 158,
(February 1971), pp. 27-28.

67
in p r o f e s s i o n a l
The re

or m a n a g e r i a l

is an

abundance

of d e s i r e d qu al it i es
board

members.

job roles.

of l i t e ra tu re

and characteristics

Mo s t

ed u c a to rs

ag ree

with d e s c ri pt io ns

of ef fe cti ve
that

board

s h o u l d be of high m or al an d ethical character,
b el i e f

system.

At

the

with a strong

and

open,

r e c e p t i v e and e n c o u r a g i n g of n ew ideas and innovations,

in

a

variety

of

managerial

time,

me mbe rs

value

w i l l i n g to lis te n a n d discuss,

same

school

they

sho ul d be

fair m i n d e d and kn o w l e d g e a b l e

areas.

Pe r h a ps

most

important,

e f f e c t i v e b o a r d m e m b e r s sh ou l d be h i g h l y c o n s c i e n t i o us peop le
w h o s e e m p h a s i s on w h a t is go o d for st udents is g i ve n foremost
c o n s i d e r a t i o n when m a k i n g decisions.
The
members

need

was

for

frequently

This ne e d is often
ill-prepared
rational,
ne e d

for

inse rv ic e

at

mentioned

program.

in

board

meetings

school

Mandatory

for

the

i d e n t i f i e d by m e m b e r s

ef f e c t iv e decisi on s.
new

t r a i n i ng

an d

school

l it er at ur e

board
review.

thems el ve s who felt

thus

una bl e

to

make

S t udi es have es ta b l i s h e d the

b o a r d me m b e rs

to

receiv e

in s e r v i c e tr ai n i ng

b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d in s e ve ra l states.

an o r i e n t a t i o n

for school boa rd s has

In r e v ie wi ng in f o r m a t i o n

p e r t a i n i n g to i n s er vi ce tr ai n i ng p ro gr am s and the d e l i v e r y of
in s e r v i c e

training,

informal,

sp or a di c a n d n o n - s y s t e m a t i c .

What

a pp ea rs

the

to

r e se a r c h e r

not

have

f o un d

been

done,

such

tr ai ni ng

however,

is

is

to

d e t e r m i n e the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t ne eds of b oa rd me mb er s prior
to o r g a n i z i n g and s c h e d u l i n g w o r k s h o p s an d conferences.

68
With
information,
development

this
this
needs

d e v e l o p m e n t needs.

applicable
s tu dy
and

wil l

the

li te r a t u r e
focus

approaches

on

as

background

determining

used

to

mee t

board
board

CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The r e s e a rc h p ro ce d u r e s us e d in c o n d u c t i n g the s t u d y are
d e s c r i b e d in this chapter, w h ic h is d i v i d e d into the fo l l o w i n g
sections:

(1) R e s e a r c h Questions;

Development

of

Collection;

and

The

the

Que st io nn ai re ;

(5) P r o c e d u r e s

major

(2) R e s e a r c h Po pu lation;

focus

of

(4)

Procedures

for

(3)
Da t a

for Da t a Analysis.

this

study

was

to

determine

the

p e r c e i v e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t needs of in t e r m e di at e school b o a r d
m e m b e r s for fut ur e b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t programs.
study

was

designed

school bo a r d s
of

the

board
to

determine

the

approaches

in th ei r own b o a r d de ve lopment.

study was

to d e t e r m i n e

development

certain

to

Secondly,

and

demographic

the

in

in

questions

the
were

State

of

Michigan.

investigated,

The

listed

activities

Finally,

was d e s i g n e d to d e v e l o p a c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r o f i l e
me m b e r s

the

s tu dy

of ISD b o a r d

f o l lo wi ng

under

ISD

of p e r c e i v e d

i n s er vi ce

charact er is ti cs .

by

A n o t h e r focus

relationship

participation

used

the

each

re se a r c h
sp ec i f ic

purpose:

R e s e a r c h Q u e st io ns
To a d dr es s
1.

the sp ecific purpose:

To d e t e r m i n e the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t needs of i n t e r m e d i a t e

69

school

board

programs,

members

for

future

board

d e ve l o p m e n t

as p e r c e i v e d b y c u r r e n t l y se rvi ng

ISD school

board memb e r s .
The fol low ing
1.1

q u e s t i o n was generated:

What s p e c i f i c b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t nee ds do c u r r e n t l y
servi ng

ISD

board

me mb e r s

perceive

to

be

most

im por tan t?
To addre ss

the spe ci fi c purpose:

To d e t e r m i n e the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t ne eds of int erm ed ia te
school

board

members

for

future

board

development

programs, as p e r c e i v e d b y p r e s e n t l y e m p l o y e d ISD school
superintendents.
The
2.1

f ol low in g q u e s t i o n s we r e generated:
What s p e c i f i c b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t ne eds do p r e s e n t l y
e m p l o y e d ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s p e r c e i v e to be most
im po rt an t?

2.2

Is

there

ISD

board

a difference
members’

between

and

currently

presently

serving

employed

ISD

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s of b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
needs?
To a d d r e s s
To

the s p e c i f i c purpose:

determine

intermediate

the
sch oo l

different
boards

to

approaches
me et

the ir

used

by

own

bo ar d

established

board

d e v e l o p m e n t needs.
The
3.1

foll ow in g q u e s t i o n s were generated:
How

many

ISD

boards

have

an

d e v e l o p m e n t p o l i c y with b u d g e t

re so u r c e s ?

71
3.2

Ho w m a n y ISD bo ar d s have a formal o r i e n t a t i o n for
a ne w b o a r d m e mb er ?

3.3

How

many

ISD

board

o r i e n t a t i o n wh e n

members

received

a

formal

i n i t i a l l y b e c o m i n g an ISD b o a r d

member?
3.4

How

ma n y

ISD

board

members

participated

in

the

participated

in

the

participated

in

the

1988 MA S B A c a d e m y of B o a r d s m a n s h i p ?
3.5

How

ma n y

ISD

board

me mb e r s

1988 MAS B Ann ua l C o n f e r e n c e ?
3.6

How

man y

ISD

board

me m b e r s

1989 MAS B M i d w i n t e r C o n f e r e n c e ?
3.7

How ma n y ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s p a r t i c i p a t e d in their
local c o u n t y school b o a r d a s s o c i a t i o n ?

3.8

How

many

e d u c a t i on
3.9

ISD

board

for b o a r d m e m b e r s

think

inser vic e

s h o u l d be r e q ui re d?

How m a n y s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s th ink in se rvi ce e d u c a t i o n
for b o a r d m e m b e r s

3.10

members

s h o u l d be re q u i r e d ?

Is there a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the b o a r d m e m b e r s ’
and

superintendents’ perceptions

ins ervice

education

for

board

as

me mb e r s

to

wh et h e r

sh ou l d

be

required?
To addre ss
To

the s p e c i f i c purpose:

de t e rm in e

the

relationships

of

perceived

board

d e v e l o p m e n t n ee ds to c e r t a i n d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
such as gender,

tenu re of b o a r d service,

location.
The

following

q u e s ti on s were generat ed:

and ge og ra p h i c

72
4.1

Is

there

a relationship

between

perceived board

d e v e l o p m e n t n ee ds and gender?
4.2

Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n
the

4.3

Is

in

1988 M A S B Ann ua l C o nf e r e n c e and gender?
there a

relationship between

perceived board

d e v e l o p m e n t ne ed s and ten ur e of bo ar d service?
4.4

Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n

in

the

of

1988 MA S B

Ann ua l

Conference

and

ten ur e

b o a r d se rv ic e?
4.5

4.6

Is

between

perceived

d e v e l o p m e n t ne ed s an d g e og r a p h i c

location?

Is

there a

there a

the

1988

relationship

bo ar d

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n in

MA S B

Ann ua l

Conference

and

geographic

lo cation?
To a d d r e s s

the s p e c i f i c purpose:

To d e v e l o p a c o m p r e h e n s i v e pr of il e of ISD school bo ar d
members.
The
5.1

fo l l ow i ng
Is

q u e s t io ns were generated:

there a

similarity

between

the

comprehensive

p r o f i l e of ISD b o a r d m e mb er s and the co m p r e h e n s i v e
p ro f i l e of the "typical" U.S. school b o a r d member ?
5.2

Is

there a

similarity

between

the

co m p r e h e n s i v e

p ro fi l e of ISD b o a r d me mb er s and the co mp re h e n s i v e
pr of i l e of the "typical" school b o a r d me mb er s from
the

Ce nt ra l

Kentucky,

Region

Michigan,

(Illinois,
Minnesota,

Indiana,
Ohio,

Iowa,

Wisconsin)?

73
Research Population
In the State of Michigan,

the e d u c a t i o na l r e s p o n s i b i l i ­

ties, by law, are d e l e g a t e d to g o v e r n i n g boa rd s at the state,
i nt er m e d i at e

an d

int er me di a t e

school

(Appendix A).

local

levels.

districts

Each d i s t r i c t has

Th er e are
in

the

fi f t y - s e v e n

State

of

Michigan

its own g o v e r n i n g b o a r d and

a super in te nd ent .

The p o p u l a t i o n for this stu dy c o n s i s t e d of

all

scho ol

i n t er m ed ia t e

i n t e r m e d i a te

school

board

members

superintendents

(318)

(57)

in

the

and all
State

of

Michigan.
The list of
obtained

from the

ISD school b o a r d me m b e r s

and a d d r e ss es was

Michigan

School

Association

of

Boa rd s and

a list of ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s and a d d r e s s e s was o b t a i n e d from
the

Michigan

tors .

Both

school

Association
lists

district

presently
year of

were
to

employed

of

Intermediate

verified

as s u r e

by

phone

current

superintendents

School
calls

board

for

Administra­

the

to

each

membership
calendar

ISD
and

school

1988-89.

D e v e l o p m e n t of the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
Content:
Initially
li te r a t u r e

and

the

process

research

an d

began

wi t h

a

consultation

review
with

of

the

r e la te d
Na ti o n al

School Boa rd s A s s o c i a t i o n (N S B A ) an d the M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n
of

School

Boar ds

questionnaire

from

( M A S B ).

Items

were

various

articles

in

generated
The

for

American

the

School

B o a r d J o u r n a l , M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of Sch oo l B o a r d s ’ h a n d b o ok

74
for

school

e f f e c ti v e

board

board

Leadership
boards,
book.

and

members,

developed
the

legal

the
by

fifteen

The

In stitute

fu nctions

s t a t u t o r i l y d e f i n e d in the
An

ori gi na l

pool

i nd ic at or s

of more

of

for

of

an

Educational

intermediate

school

1976 M i c h i g a n Sch oo l Code

than

one

hundred

p o t e nt ia l

items was r e d u c e d by c o m b i n i n g r e la te d topics a n d e l i m i n a t i n g
items u n r e l a t e d to this study.
Part

of

the

b o a r d members'

to gat he r p e r so n al

questionnaire

was

designed

in fo r m at io n similar to the n a t i o n a l s u rv ey

us ed a n n u a l l y by The A m e r i c a n School B o a r d Journ al to d e v e l o p
a c o m p r e h e n s i v e pr o f i l e of the

"typical" U.S.

b o a r d member.

Construction:
F or ty

id entical

items

were

presented

m e m b e r and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t qu estionnaires.
were

r e l a t ed

seven

to

ISD

clusters.

board

T he se

were

h a n d b o o k for school b o a r d members.
ISD

superintendents

im por tan ce

were

the y att ac h

inservice

e d u ca ti on

a v a i la bl e

to b o a r d

following:

1 as

im por tant."

to each

me mb er s

and

f or ty items
grouped

by MASB

indicate

the

item as goals

for

The

re sp on se

in

into
their

2 as

future

in c l u d e d

"a little

"very important;"

degree

selection

s up er in te nd en ts

important;"

4 as

us e d

and

board

Both ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s and
to

programs.

"not

3 as "im por ta nt ;"

a sk ed

both

T he se

responsibilities

clu s te rs

in

and 5 as

of
ISD

made
the

imp ort ant ;"
"e xt r e m e l y

Add iti ona lly , a b l an k line was p r o v i d e d f o l l ow in g

each of the c lu st er s and p a r t i c i pa nt s were e n c o u r a g e d to "add
a ny topic you b el i e v e to be of s u ffi ci ent i m p o rt an ce to me ri t

75
a future b o a r d i n s e r v i c e p r ogram."
To d e t e r m i n e the d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s u s e d b y ISD boa r d s
for

their

own

board

requested

"yes"

determine

previous

state-wide
county

or

"no"

orientation;

of

programs

MASB

and

the

res p o n s e s

participation

i n service

chapter

education

d e v e l opment,

or

to

in

local,

intended
regional,

either

itself;

regarding

for b o a r d membe r s .

questionnaire

items

sponsored by
MASB

opinion

board

the

receiving

required

Additionally,

to
and

local
formal

ins e r v i c e

a blank

line was

provided, f o l l o w i n g eac h q u e s t i o n to a l l o w for e x p l a n a t i o n of
response.
The
different

superintendent
than

the

questionnaire

board

qu e s t i o n n a i r e ,

included
to

items,

determine

d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s u s e d for b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t .

the

A "yes"

or

"no" to each item was s o l i c i t e d a n d a b l a n k line was p r o v i d e d
f o l l o w i n g each q u e s t i o n to a l l o w for e x p l a n a t i o n of response.
The

questi o n n a i re

was

constructed

with

the

assistance

of the c o m m i t t e e c h a i r m a n and a c o n s u l t a n t wit h e x p e r i e n c e in
test

d e v e l opment,

survey

instrumentation

an d

questionnaire

development.

Validity:
Two pa n e l s wer e a s k e d to r e v i e w the q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i t h
consideration
five

ISD

content

superintendents

s taff m e m b e r s
position

to b o t h

in

of M A S B
the

field

were
of

and

and c o n s t r u c t i o n .
a

panel

considered
pu b l i c

of

four

to be

education

A p anel

professional

in a
to

of

leadership

assist

wit h

76
validity,

clarity,

instrument.

In

le n g t h

response

some m i n o r r e v i s i o n s
The
c oun c i l

the

the

was

Michigan

Administrators
Michigan

to

e ase

of

administration

p anel

of

the

m e m b e r s ’ suggestions,

and d e l e t i o n s wer e made.

questionnaire

of

and

(MAISA)

Association

shared

with

Association
and

of

the

of

board

Sc h o o l

both

the

executive

Intermediate
of

Boards

School

directors

(MASB)

in

of

order

the
to

secure their e n d o r s e m e n t of the study.

Procedures
The
members
1989

questionnaire

and

57

was

mailed

superintendents

(Append ix B).

identify

for D a t a C o l l e c t i o n

during

318

ISD

the w e e k

school

of M a r c h

location

of

each

ISD

district

and

22,

for

(Appendix C).

A letter of i n t r o d u c t i o n e x p l a i n i n g the p u r p o s e
s t u d y was

board

E a c h q u e s t i o n n a i r e was c o d e d b y r e g i o n to

geographic

follow-up purposes

to

of the

sent to e a c h p e r s o n w h o r e c e i v e d the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

(Appendix D).

In addition,

a j oint le t t e r from M A I S A a n d M A S B

e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r s was sent s e v e r a l days p r i o r to the m a i l i n g
of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

(Appendix E).

The r e s p o n d e n t s

w ere r e q u e s t e d to r e t u r n the c o m p l e t e d

q u e s t i o n n a i r e in a s e l f - a d d r e s s e d , s t a m p e d e n v e l o p e a n d r e t u r n
a s e l f - a d d r e s s e d pos t
of the results
who

d i d not

letter

w ith

encouraging

card

to

in the future

respond
an

to

the

identical

indicate

a request

( A ppendix F).

All p a r t i c i p a n t s

questionnaire

wer e

questionnaire

of

their p a r t i c i p a t i o n

for a c o p y

(Ap p e n d i x G ) .

sent
the

a second
original,

77
Procedures

for D a t a A n a l y s i s

The d a t a wer e a n a l y z e d at the M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y
Computer
Science
utilized
the

Center,
(SPSS

the

P r o gram).

in the

research

using

study.

Statistical

Seve r a l

Package

statistical

for

methods

The d a t a wer e p r o c e s s e d

questions

generated

by

the

Social
were

for e ach of

speci f i c

purpose

as

follows:
S p e c i f i c P u r p o s e # 1 - -To d e t e r m i n e the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
n eeds

of

intermediate

development

programs

school
as

board members

perceived

by

for

future

currently

board

serving

ISD

school b o a r d m e m b e r s .
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 1.1.

W hat s p e cific b o a r d

d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s do c u r r e n t l y serv i n g

ISD b o a r d

m e m b e r s p e r c e i v e to be m ost impo r t a n t ?

Responses

to

questions

development

of

needs

f orty

items

related

w ere

treated

as

to

board

ordinal

data.

T he c a l c u l a t i o n of the m e d i a n was the a p p r o p r i a t e
m e a s u r e of c e n t r a l t e n d e n c y a n d a n a l y s i s i n c l u d e d
aggregation
(count)

of

scores

and r e l a t i v e

by

absolute

frequencies

fr e q u e n c i e s

(percentages).

S p e c i f i c P u r p o s e # 2 --To d e t e r m i n e the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
needs

of

intermediate

d e v e l o p m e n t programs,

school

board members

for

future

as p e r c e i v e d b y p r e s e n t l y e m p l o y e d ISD

superintendents.
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 2.1.
development

needs

superintendents

board

do

Wha t s p e cific b o a r d

presently

perceive

to

be

employed

m ost

ISD

important?

78
R e s p o n s e s to q u e s t i o n s of f o r t y items r e l a t i n g to
board

development

data.

The

measure

included

absolute
frequencies

treated
the

as

median

central

aggregation

ordi n a l
was

tendency
of

(count)

an d

scores

an d

the

by

relative

(percentages).

Research

members’

of

of

frequencies

difference

wer e

calculation

appropriate
analysis

n eeds

Question

between
and

2.2.

currently

presently

Is

there

serving

employed

ISD

ISD

a

board

superin­

t e n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s of b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t needs?
Rank
of

order

the

was

f orty

needs.

employed

items

to

establish

related

to b o a r d

a priority
development

The five p o i n t rating scale was c o l l a p s e d

into two c a t e g o r i e s
gained.

so more

i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d be

The c a l c u l a t i o n of m e d i a n r e s p o n s e s was

use d for c omparison.
Specific
approaches

Purpose

use d b y

# 3 --To

intermediate

determine
sc h o o l b o a r d s

the

different

to m eet

own b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t needs.
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 3.1.

H o w m a n y ISD bo a r d s

have an e s t a b l i s h e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t p o l i c y w i t h
budget

resources?

Responses

w ere

tabulated

by

f r e q u e n c i e s e x p r e s s e d in terms of p e r c e n t a g e s an d
count.
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 3.2.

H o w m a n y ISD bo a r d s

hav e a formal o r i e n t a t i o n for a n e w b o a r d m e m b e r ?

their

79
R e s p o n s e s wer e

t a b u l a t e d b y fr e q u e n c i e s

of p e r c e n t a g e s

and count.

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 3.3.
members

received

a

in terms

Ho w m a n y ISD b o a r d

formal

orientation

when

i n i t i a l l y b e c o m i n g an ISD b o a r d memb e r ?

Responses

were

terms

tabulated

percentages

by

frequencies

3.4.

m e m b e r s p a r t i c i p a t e d in the
Boardsmanship?

Ho w m a n y ISD b o a r d
1988 M A S B A c a d e m y of

Responses

were

participated

Conference?
frequencies

in

Conference?
frequencies

1988

in

w ere

3.6.
the

Responses

and counts.

MASB

An n u a l

tabulated

in terms of p e r c e n t a g e s

participated

by

How m a n y ISD b o a r d

the

Responses

Research Question
members

tabulated

in terms of p e r c e n t a g e s

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 3.5.
members

of

and c o u n t s .

Research Question

frequencies

in

by

and counts.

H o w m a n y ISD b o a r d
1989

MASB Midwinter

w ere

tabulated

by

in terms of p e r c e n t a g e s and counts.

Research Question

3.7.

H o w m a n y ISD b o a r d

m e m b e r s p a r t i c i p a t e d in their local c o u n t y school
board

association?

frequencies

Responses

members

t a b u l a t e d by

in terms of p e r c e n t a g e s and counts.

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 3.8.
members

were

think

i n s ervice

s h o u l d be req u i r e d ?

Ho w m a n y ISD b o a r d

education

for

R e s p o n s e s were

board

80
tabulated by frequencies

in terms of p e r c e n t a g e s

a n d counts.
Research

Question

superintendents

think

3.9.

How

inservice

b o a r d m e m b e r s s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d ?
tabulated by frequencies

many

education

for

Responses were

in terms of p e r c e n t a g e s

an d counts.
Research
difference

Question

between

superintendents’
ins e r v i c e

freedom,

The

gamma

at

.25

board

level

to

members

use d

or

to

there

members'
as

for b o a r d

.05

was

significance.

Is

C h i - s q u a r e test w i t h

using

significance

the

perceptions

education

req u i r e d ?

3.10.

less

measure

a
an d

whether
s h o u l d be

1 d e g r e e of
to

conclude

statistical

To m e a s u r e p r a c t i c a l s i g n ificance,
or

less

level

of

significance

was

used.
Specific Purpose
perceived

board

characteristics
geographic

# 4 --To d e t e r m i n e

development

n eeds

such as gender,

to

the r e l a t i o n s h i p s
certain

demographic

t e n u r e of b o a r d service,

location.
Research

Question

4.1.

Is

there

a

relationship between perceived board development
needs
degree

and
of

conclude

gender?

The

freedom,

using

significance

statistical

signi f i c a n c e .

Chi-square
.05

was

level
used

To

test
or
to

measure

of

with
less

1
to

measure
practical

an d

81
significance,

gamma

at

.25

or

less

level of

s i g n i f i c a n c e was used.
The
of
The

the

use

of p r a c t i c a l

researcher,

measure

of

(educational)

significance

particularly

gamma

was

with

used

is a v a l u e

a

to

sample

convey

size
any

i n f o r m a t i o n for R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s

Research
relationship

Question

between

4.2.

Is

participation

M A S B An n u a l C o n f e r e n c e an d g e n d e r ?
test w i t h

of

4.1-4.6.

the

a

1988

The C h i - s q u a r e

1 d e g r e e of f r e e d o m u s i n g

.05 level or

less to c o n c l u d e s i g n i f i c a n c e was u s e d to m e a s u r e
statistical

signi f i c a n c e .

significance,

gamma

at

To
.25

measure
or

practical

less

level of

s i g n i f i c a n c e was used.
Research

Question

4.3.

Is

there

a

relationship between perceived board development
needs an d tenure of b o a r d s e r v i c e ?
b

was

used

as

a

measured

K e n d a l l ’s tau

index,

using

the

.05

level or less to c o n c l u d e s i g n i f i c a n c e b e t w e e n the
two

ordinal

variables.

significance,

gamma

at

To
.25

measure
or

less

practical
level of

s i g n i f i c a n c e was used.
Research
relationship
MASB

between

Annual

s e r vice?
freedom

question

The
using

4.4.

Is

participation

in

Conference
Chi-square
.05

level

an d

te n u r e

test

with

or

less

there
the
of

a

1988
board

1 degree
to

250.

practical

there

in

judgment

of

conclude

82
significance

was

signif i c a n c e .
gamma

at

used

to

measure

statistical

To m e a s u r e p r a c t i c a l significance,

.25

or

less

level

of

significance

was

used.
Research

Question

4.5.

Is

t here

a

relationship between perceived board development
n eeds

and

geographic

loc a t i o n ?

test w ith 1 d e g r e e of freedom,

The

using

Chi-square
.05 level or

less to c o n c l u d e s i g n i f i c a n c e was u s e d to m e a s u r e
statistical

significance.

significance,

gamma

at

To
.25

measure
or

less

4.6.

Is

practical
level

of

s i g n i f i c a n c e was used.
Research
relationship
MASB
The

Annual

between

.05

participation

Conference

Chi-square

u sing

Question

level

test

and

wit h

t here

in

geographic
1

degree

or less to c o n c l u d e

the

1988

l o cation?

of

freedom,

significance

was u s e d to m e a s u r e s t a t i s t i c a l signi f i c a n c e .
measure
less

practical

level

s i g n ificance,

a

gamma

at

To

.25 or

of s i g n i f i c a n c e was used.

S p e c i f i c P u r p o s e # 5 - -To d e v e l o p a c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r o f i l e
of ISD school b o a r d members.
Research
similarity

Question

between

the

5.1.

Is

comprehensive

there
profile

a
of

the "typical" U.S. school b o a r d m e m b e r s ?

The mode

was

tendency

on

the

appropriate

the

measure

distribution

of the

of

central

nominalvariables

83
(gender,

occupation,

computed

for

a

distributional
variables

measure

the

Question

between
members

"typical"

the
an d

the

cent r a l
on

(number of children,

similarity

of

of

conformation

Research

ISD b o a r d

region) an d

tendency

Is

there

a

profile

of

comprehensive

board

for

ISD tenure).

comprehensive

school

was

internal/ratio

5.2.

the

mean

members

profile
fro m

the

C e n t r a l R e g i o n (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Michigan,
was
on

the
the

M innesota,

appropriate

computed

occupation,

variables

of

cent r a l

the nomi n a l

region) a n d

the

of c e n t r a l

information

on

(number of children,

Data accrued during
IV.

of

for the m e a s u r e

distribution

Wisconsin)?

measure

distribution

(gender,

in C h a p t e r

Ohio,

The m ode
tendency
variables
mean

was

t e n d e n c y for

internal/ratio
ISD tenure).

the co u r s e of this s t u d y are

found

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF DATA
The p u r p o s e s
board

development

of

this

needs

s t u d y were:

of

(1)

intermediate

to d e t e r m i n e

(ISD)

school

the

board

m e m b e r s for fu t u r e b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m s as p e r c e i v e d by
currently
employed

serving
ISD

different
board
of

ISD

school

board

used

by

n e e d s ; (3)

ISD
to

perceived board development

characteristics
geographic

such

as

location;

comprehensive profile
The

population

during

data

the

were

months

p a r t i c i p a t i o n was

of
252

an d 56 s u p e r i n t e n d e n t

to

boards

to

meet

the

their

the
own

relationships

certain demographic
of b o a r d

and

(4)

finally

presently

determine

to

determine
needs

and

g e n d e r , ten u r e

to

service
develop

and
a

of ISD school b o a r d m e m b e r s .
of

this

m e m b e r s a n d ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s
The

members

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ; (2)

approaches

development

school

s t u d y was

from m a i l e d

and

April

board member
responses

school

board

in the State of Michigan.

collected
March

ISD

questionnaires

1989.

responses

The
(79.2

(98.2 p e r c e n t ).

overall
percent)

In a l l , 308

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e r e c e i v e d — -an 82.3 p e r c e n t rate of r e t u r n .
The

responses

this c h a p t e r .

from

the

questionnaires

are

reported

in

Th e fo r m a t of the a n a l y s i s of o b t a i n e d d a t a i s :

(1 ) s t a t e m e n t of the s p e c i f i c p u r p o s e ; (2 ) r e s e a r c h questions;

84

85
(3) a n a l y s i s of data;

and

(4) n a r r a t i v e comments.

S p e c i f i c P u r p o s e # l -~to d e t e r m i n e the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
needs

of

intermediate

development

school

programs,

as

board members

perceived by

for

fu t u r e

currently

board

serving

ISD

sc h o o l b o a r d m e m b e r s .
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 1.1.
n eeds
most

do c u r r e n t l y

serving

W hat s p e c i f i c b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s

perceive

to be

i m portant?
ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s w e r e a s k e d to r e s p o n d to f o r t y i t e m s ,

r e l a t e d to b o a r d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , on a five p o i n t s cale from
"not i m p o r t a n t to e x t r e m e l y i mportant"
of

importance

attached

to

e ach

specific

board inservice education p r o g r a m s ,
were

tabulated

were utilized.

for all

forty

c o n c e r n i n g the de g r e e
g oal

for

future

ISD

Board m e m b e r s ’ responses

items

a n d in a l l , five

ratings

F r e q u e n c i e s in terms of c o u n t an d p e r c e n t a g e s

w e r e e x p r e s s e d a n d the m e d i a n was the a p p r o p r i a t e m e a s u r e to
use to look at the d i f f e r e n t p r o p o r t i o n of r e s p o n s e s .
To
w er e

facilitate

presented

by

the

reader

clusters

a n a l y s i s , Tables

which

list

the

1 through
relative

7

and

a b s o l u t e f r e q u e n c i e s a n d m e d i a n for e ach i tem as r a t e d " o n e ,"
" t w o ,"

" t h r e e ,"

" f o u r ,"

" f i v e ,"

and

"no

response"

by

bot h

board members and superintendents.
The

data

pertaining

Responsibilities"
percent

or

more

ar e
of

to

the

presented

the

board

cluster

in

Table

members

"Communication
1.

rated

Fifty

(50)

" B uilding

a

p e r m a n e n t b a s e of c o m m u n i t y s u p p o r t ," " I m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n
with

constituent

sc h o o l

b o a r d s ,"

an d

"Influencing

State

TABLE 1
BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
COMMUNICATION RESPONSIBILITIES

RATING OF I M P O R T A N C E

B O A R D D E V E L O P M E N T NEEDS
NOT
IMPORTANT
1

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT
2

f

%

f

%

IMPORTANT
3

VERY
IMPORTANT
4

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
5

N O
RESPONSE

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

MEDIAN

1. B u i l d i n g a p e r m a n e n t b a s e
of c o m m u n i t y support

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

13
1

5.2
1.8

5
1

2.0
1.8

37
7

14.7
12.5

68
12

27.0
21.4

128
35

50.8
62.5

1
—

.4
—

5,000
5,000

2. D e f i n i n g t h e r o l e a n d
functions of advisory
committee

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

16
2

6.3
3.6

28
4

11.1
7.1

99
16

39.3
28.6

74
20

29.4
35.7

32
14

12.7
25.0

3

1.2

3,000
4,000

3. I m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n
w i t h constituent school
board

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

10

4.0

4

1.6

15
1

6.0
1.8

80
15

31.7
26.8

143
40

56.7
71.4

_

_

5,000
5,000

4. I m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n
with I S D personnel

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

7
1

2.8
1.8

11
1

4.4
1.8

55
11

21.8
19.6

98
22

38.9
39.3

76
21

30.2
37.5

5
—

2.0
—

4,000
4,000

5. I m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n
with parents of students
in s c h o o l p r o g r a m s

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

8
1

3.2
1.8

14
6

5.6
10.7

71
11

28.2
19.6

78
19

31.0
33.9

81
19

32.1
33.9

_

_

4,000
4,000

6. I n f l u e n c i n g S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

9

3.6

9

3.6

30
9

11.9
16.1

60
16

23.8
28.6

139
31

55.2
55.4

5

2.0

5.000
5.000

7. U n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e r o l e o f
t h e m e d i a & its i n f l u e n c e

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

8
1

3.2
1.8

18
1

7.1
1.8

72
11

28.6
19.6

90
24

35.7
42.9

63
19

25.0
33.9

1

.4

4,000
4,000

CO

cn

TABLE 2

BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
INSTRUCTIONAL/CURRICULAR RESPONSIBILITIES
RATING OF I M P O R T A N C E

B O A R D D E V E L O P M E N T NEEDS
NOT
IMPORTANT
1

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT
2

IMPORTANT
3

VERY
IMPORTANT
4

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
5

N O
RESPONSE

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

MEDIAN

8. A p p r o v i n g c o o p e r a t i v e
instructional p r o g r a m s

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

7
1

2.8
1.8

12
2

4.8
3.6

50
17

19.8
30.4

109
16

43.3
28.6

72
20

28.6
35.7

2
—

.8
—

4,000
4,000

9. A p p r o v i n g s p e c i a l
education plan

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

8
3

3.2
5.4

12
2

4.8
3.6

61
17

24.2
30.4

90
16

35.7
28.6

80
18

31.7
32.1

1
—

.4
—

4,000
4,000

10. P l a n n i n g for u s e
of t e c h n o l o g y

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

6
2

2.4
3.6

8
—

3.2
-

54
10

21.4
17.9

86
18

34.1
32.1

97
26

38.5
46.4

1
—

.4
—

4,000
4,000

11. U n d e r s t a n d i n g the p u r p o s e s
& procedures underlying
regulation of
special e d u c a t i o n

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

7
2

2.8
3.6

15
4

6.0
7.1

59
18

23.4
32.1

93
17

36.9
30.4

77
15

30.6
26.8

1
—

.4
—

4,000
4,000

TABLE 3
BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

RATING OF I M P O R T A N C E

B O A R D D E V E L O P M E N T NEEDS
NOT
IMPORTANT

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT

1
f

2

16.3
17.9

81
18

32.1
32.1

102

40.5
41.1

2.4

10

12.7
17.9

85
18

33.7
32.1

oo
7

26.2
12.5

48

2.4
7.1

15

.9
21.4

95
13

37.7
23.2

102

5.6

32

1.8

10

12.7
17.9

72
9

8.3
17.9

88

34.9
23.2

71
11

41

3.6

7.5
17.9

32
10

6
4

3.2

15. L o b b y i n g w i t h o t h e r
school b o a r d s for
a d e q u a t e state f u n d s

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

3.6

1 6 . P a r t i c i p a t i n g in
collective b a r g a i n i n g

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

1.8

14

1

11

%

6.0

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

20

%

2

14. E n s u r i n g a d e q u a t e f l o w
of financial resources

10

f

15

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

7.9
19.6

21

10

N O
RESPONSE

%

2.8
5.4

13 . C o n d u c t i n g a n n u a l h e a r i n g s
for general f u n d
operating budget

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
5

f

f

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

VERY
IMPORTANT
4

%

%

1 2 . A c h i e v i n g e q u i t y in
distribution of
financial r e s o u r c e s

19

IMPORTANT
3

%

12

13

23

MEDIAN

4.000
4.000

19.0
19.6

.8

3.000
3.000

40.5
46.4

.4

26

4.000
4.000

28.6
16.1

125
36

49.6
64.3

28.2
19.6

48

19.0
19.6

11

11

4.000
5.000

1.6

3.000
3.000

00
00

89
Le g i s l a t u r e s "

as

"extremely

i m portant"

items

or

g oals

for

future b o a r d i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s .
The

data

pertaining

to

Curricular Responsibilities"

the

are p r e s e n t e d

d a t a p e r t a i n i n g to the c l u s t e r
are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 3.

cluster

" I n s t r u ctional/
in T a b l e

2.

The

"Financial R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s "

U n d e r b oth c l u s t e r s , b o a r d memb e r s

r a t e d all i t e m s , but n o n e of the items w e r e r a t e d "ext r e m e l y
important" b y 50 p e r c e n t or m o r e of the b o a r d m e m b e r s .
The d a t a p e r t a i n i n g to the c l u s t e r
ities " are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 4 .
members

rated

regulations"

"Complying
an d

s chool d i s t r i c t s " as
The

data

superintendent"

state
to

the

and

federal

needs

of

laws

and

constituent

" e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t ."

pertaining

Responsibilities"

Ove r 50 p e r c e n t of the b o a r d

with

"Responding

"Legal R e s p o n s i b i l ­

are

to

the

presented

cluster

in

T able

"Administrative

5.

" S electing

a

a n d " E v a l u a t i n g a s u p e r i n t e n d e n t " w e r e rated

" e x t r e m e l y i mportant" b y o ver 50 p e r c e n t of the b o a r d m e m b e r s .
The

data

pertaining

Responsibilities"

are

pertaining

cluster

to

the

to

the

presented
"Other

in

cluster
T able

Issues"

"Boardsmanship
6.

are

The

data

presented

in

Ta b l e 7. Of the se two c l u s t e r s , t here w ere no items r a t e d as
"extremely

i mportant"

for

fu t u r e

board

i n service

education

pr o g r a m s b y 50 p e r c e n t or m o r e of the b o a r d m e m b e r s .
Board members

were

asked

to a d d an y

topics

c l u s t e r w h i c h t h e y b e l i e v e to be of s u f f i c i e n t
m e r i t a future b o a r d i n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m .

under

each

i m p o r t a n c e to

No a t t e m p t was made

to a n a l y z e the s u g g e s t e d to p i c s a n d t h e y w e r e i n c l u d e d in this

c h a p t e r to g i v e
The

insight

into the a n a l y s i s of data.

f o l l o w i n g topics b y c l u s t e r s w e r e suggested:

1.

C o m m u n i c a t i o n R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s - - n o s u g g e s t e d topics.

2.

Instructional/Curricular Responsibilities—
"Awar e n e s s of e d u c a t i o n a l trends in the U.S.
level"

a n d gl o b a l

"E v a l u a t i n g n e w p r o g r a m con c e p t s "
"Understanding
i n s t ruction"

of

the

b o a r d ’s

role

in

curriculum

an d

" U n d e r s t a n d i n g the scope of the I S D ’s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y an d
p o t e n t i a l for p r o g r a m s such as at the skill c e n t e r , p r e ­
school p r o g r a m s a n d at r isk p r o g r a m s "
"REMC d e v e l o p m e n t "
3.

Financial Responsibilities-"Multi-district bargaining"
" A v o i d a n c e of d e f i c i t s p ending"
"Long range b u d g e t p l a n n i n g "
"Goal s e t t i n g re b u d g e t a l l o c a t i o n "

4.

Legal R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s - " I d e n t i f y i n g n e e d s of c o n s t i t u e n t d i s t r i c t s "

5.

Administrative Responsibilities-"Understanding board members

role in p o l i c y maki n g "

" E v a l u a t i n g w r i t t e n policy"
6.

Boardsmanship Responsibilities--no suggested t opics.

7.

Other

Issues—

" U n d e r s t a n d i n g s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’s a s s o c i a t i o n "
"Ways to i n v o l v e c o u n t y school b o a r d a s s o c i a t i o n "
"N e t w o r k i n g w i t h other b o a r d m e m b e r s "
" I d e n t i f y i n g b u s i n e s s a n d i n d u s t r y needs"

91
S p e c i f i c P u r p o s e # 2 --To d e t e r m i n e the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
needs

of

intermediate

d e v e l o p m e n t programs,

school

board members

for

future

board

as p e r c e i v e d b y p r e s e n t l y e m p l o y e d ISD

sc h o o l s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s .
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 2.1.
needs

do

be mos t

presently

superintendents

id e n t i c a l

rate

employed

ISD

superintendents

perceive

to

impor t a n t ?

ISD

board

What specific board development

asked

to

respond

to

the

f o r t y i t e m s , r e l a t e d to b o a r d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , as

members
the

were

had

items

extremely

done.

on a five

impor t a n t "

The

superintendents

p o i n t scale

concerning

f rom

the

were

"not

degree

asked

to

important

to

of

importance

a t t a c h e d to e ach s p e c i f i c goal for future ISD b o a r d i n s e r v i c e
education p r ograms.
for all

data

pertaining

Responsibilities"
the

tabulated

f o r t y items a n d p r e s e n t e d b y c l u s t e r s .

The

of

Superintendent responses were

to

the

cluster

are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e

superintendents

rated

"Building

1.

"Communication
Over

50 p e r c e n t

a permanent

base

of

c o m m u n i t y s u p p o r t ," "I m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h c o n s t i t u e n t
school

b o a r d s ,"

"extremely

and

"Influencing

important"

goals

for

S tate

future

ISD

Legislature"
board

as

inservice

education programs.
The

data

pertaining

to

Curricular Responsibilities"
of

t hese

four

items

were

the

cluster

"I n s t r u c t i o n a l /

are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e

rated

"extremely

2.

important"

None
by

50

p e r c e n t or m o r e of the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s .
The

data

pertaining

to

the

cluster

" Financial

TABLE 4
BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

B O A R D D E V E L O P M E N T NEEDS

RATING OF I M P O R T A N C E
NOT
IMPORTANT
1

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT
2

IMPORTANT
3

VERY
IMPORTANT
4

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
5

N O
RESPONSE

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

MEDIAN

%

17. A c t i n g o n
p r o p e r t y transfers

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

12
3

4.8
5,4

31
9

12.3
16.1

86
26

34.1
46.4

65
5

25.8
8,9

56
13

22.2
23.2

2

18. A s s u r i n g d e l i v e r y
of services

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

9
1

3.6
1.8

6
4

2.4
7.1

38
14

15.1
25.0

94
14

37.3
25.0

100
23

39.7
41.1

5
—

19. C o m p l y i n g w i t h state
a n d federal l a w s
& regulations

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

10
2

4.0
3.6

7
4

2.8
7.1

45
14

17.9
25.0

59
14

23.4
25.0

130
22

51.6
39.3

1

20. C o n s o l i d a t i o n , a n n e x a t i o n
& r e o r g a n i z i n g districts

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

24
9

9.5
lo.l

46
14

18.3
25.0

80
18

31.7
32.1

55
9

21.8
16.1

43
6

17.1
10.7

4
—

1.6
—

3,000
3,000

21. F u r n i s h i n g m a n a g e m e n t .
consultant or
s u p e r v i s o r y services

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

10
2

4.0
3.6

20
6

7.9
10.7

66
9

26.2
16.1

92
22

36.5
39.3

61
17

24.2
30.4

3

1.2

4,000
4,000

22. R e s p o n d i n g to i n c r e a s e d
state m a n d a t e s

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

10
5

4.2
8.9

17
2

6.7
3.6

63
21

25.0
37.5

92
16

36.5
28.6

65
12

25.8
21.4

5
—

2.0
—

4,000
3,500

23 . R e s p o n d i n g t o t h e
n e e d s of constituent
s c h o o l districts

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

12
2

4.8
3.6

1
1

.4
1.8

10
4

4.0
7.1

85
8

33.7
14.3

144
41

57.1
73.2

_

_

5,000
5,000

'

.8
—

3,000
3,000

2.0
—

4,000
4,000

.4

5,000
4,000

-

vO

ro

TABLE 5
BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

RATING OF I M P O R T A N C E

B O A R D D E V E L O P M E N T NEEDS
NOT
IMPORTANT

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT

1

2

f

%

f

%

IMPORTANT
3

VERY
IMPORTANT
4

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
5

%

f

%

f

%

%

1.2

24. Selecting s u p e r i n t e n d e n t

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

11
1

4.4
1.8

7
3

2.8
5.4

17
9

6.7
16.1

49
7

19.4
12.5

165
36

65.5
64.3

25. E v a l u a t i n g s u p e r i n t e n d e n t

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

12

4.8

3

1.2

29
9

11.5
16.1

73
13

29.0
23.2

135
34

53.6
60.7

26. Setting administrators'
salaries & fringe
benefit p r o g r a m s

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

9
1

3.6
1.8

11
2

4.4
3.6

50

19.8
14.3

91
17

36.1
30.4

90
28

35.7
50.0

27. U n d e r s t a n d i n g
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e rules,
regulations & p r o c e d u r e s
vs policy formulation
& implementation

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

12

4.8

14
3

5.6
5.4

53

21.0

86

10

17.9

11

34.1
19.6

87
32

34.5
57.1

8

N O
RESPONSE

MEDIAN

5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000

.4

4.000
4,500

4.000
5.000

TABLE 6
BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
BOARDSMANSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES

B O A R D D E V E L O P M E N T NEEDS

RATING OF I M P O R T A N C E
NOT
IMPORTANT
1

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT
2

IMPORTANT
3

VERY
IMPORTANT
4

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
5

N O
RESPONSE

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

MEDIAN

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

8

3.2

—

—

13
1

5.2
1.8

57
12

22.6
21.4

98
23

38.9
41.1

66
20

26.2
35.7

10
—

4.0
—

4,000
4,000

29. D e v e l o p h u m a n
r e l a t i o n s skills

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

9

—

3.6
—

16
1

6.3
1.8

60
12

23.8
21.4

88
22

34.9
39.3

68
21

27.0
37.5

11
—

4.4
—

4,000
4,000

30. D e v e l o p self-evaluations
for b o a r d s of e d u c a t i o n

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

13
—

5.2
—

20
6

7.9
10.7

70
17

27.8
30.4

84
17

33.3
30.4

52
16

20.6
28.6

13
—

5.2
—

4,000
4,000

3 1 . D e v e l o p i n g skills f o r
strategic p l a n n i n g

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

7
2

2.8
3.6

17
3

6.7
5.4

63
8

25.0
14.3

86
24

34.1
42.9

67
19

26.6
33.9

12
—

4.8
—

4,000
4,000

32. D e v e l o p i n g
t h e b o a r d ’s
philosophy
educational

s t a t e m e n t s of
educational
& m o r e s p e cific
objectives

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

9

3.6
3.6

20

72
16

28.6
28.6

80
19

31.7
33.9

56
17

15

6.0

2

7.9
3.6

22.2

2

30.4

4,000
4,000

33. I m p r o v i n g b o a r d /
superintendent relationship

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

10

4.0
5.4

22
2

8.7
3.6

56
15

22.2

26.8

76
14

30.2
25.0

22

30.6
39.3

11
—

4.4

3

—

4,000
4,000

34. L e a r n i n g to a s k
the right q u e s t i o n

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

12
2

4.8
3.6

15

6.0
5.4

53
16

21.0
28.6

87
15

34.5
26.8

75
20

29.8
35.7

10
—

4.0
—

4,000
4,000

35. U n d e r s t a n d i n g b o a r d
responsibilities

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

15

6.0
3.6

2.8
5.4

33
4

13.1
7.1

71
13

28.2
23.2

115

45.6
60.7

11

4.4

4,000
5,000

28. D e a l i n g w i t h c o n t r o v e r s y

CO

2

3

7
3

77

34

TABLE 7
BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
OTHER ISSUES

RATING OF I M P O R T A N C E

B O A R D D E V E L O P M E N T NEEDS
NOT
IMPORTANT

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT

1

2

IMPORTANT
3

f

%

f

%

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

17
5

6.7

30
7

11.9
12.5

102

8.9

37. I m p r o v i n g b u s i n g

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

32
15

12.7
26.8

33
13

3 8 . U p g r a d i n g facilities

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

13
7

5.2
12.5

39. U n d e r s t a n d i n g M A S B - s t a t e
b o a r d associations

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

16
3

40. U n d e r s t a n d i n g c o u n t y
school b o a r d associations

Board M e m b e r
Superintendent

14
5

36. I m p r o v i n g b o a r d m e e t i n g s

VERY
IMPORTANT
4

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
5

f

N O
RESPONSE

MEDIAN

%

%

%

f

%

40.5
32.1

62

29
16

11.5
28.6

4.8

10

24.6
17.9

12

18

3.000
3.000

13.1
23.2

104
19

41.3
33.9

46
5

18.3
8.9

24
4

9.5
7.1

13

5.2

3.000
2,500

35
5

13.9
8.9

79
24

31.3
42.9

81

32.1
21.4

29

11.5
14.3

15

6.0

12

3.000
3.000

6.3
5.4

38

95
23

37.7
41.1

63
13

25.0
23.2

27
9

10.7
16.1

13

5.2

8

15.1
14.3

3.000
3.000

5.6
8.9

37
8

14.7
14.3

79
20

31.3
35.7

72
14

28.6
25.0

34
9

13.5
16.1

16

6.3

3.000
3.000

8

CD

en

96
Responsibilities"
ot h e r

sc h o o l

are

boards

presented

for

in T a b l e

adequate

state

3.

" L obbying

funds"

wa s

with

rated

as

" e x t r e m e l y impo r t a n t " b y 64.3 p e r c e n t of the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s .
T h e d a t a p e r t a i n i n g to the c l u s t e r "Legal R e s p o n s i b i l i ­
ties"

are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 4.

constituent

sc h o o l

" R e s p o n d i n g to the n e e d s of

districts"

was

rated

as

"extremely

i m p o r t a n t " b y 73.2 p e r c e n t of the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s .
The

data

pertaining

Responsibilities"
administrative
formulation

are

to

the

presented

cluster

in T able

r u l e s , regulations

and

and

implementation"

"Administrative

5.

"Understanding

procedures

was

rated

vs

"extremely

i m p o r t a n t " b y over 50 p e r c e n t of the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s .
50 p e r c e n t of the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s

rated

policy

A n even

"Setting a d m i n i s t r a ­

tors ’ s a l a r i e s an d fr i n g e b e n e f i t s " as " e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t ."
Th e

data

pertaining

Responsibilities"

are

pertaining

cluster

Table

7.

to

the

Items

to

the

presented

pertaining

in

"Other
to

cluster

b oth

Table

Issues"

"Boardsmanship
6.

are

clusters

The

data

presented

w ere

not

in

rated

" e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t " b y ove r 50 p e r c e n t of the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t
respondents.
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s w e r e a s k e d to a d d an y topics u n d e r each
c l u s t e r w h i c h t h e y b e l i e v e to be of s u f f i c i e n t i m p o r t a n c e to
m e r i t a fu t u r e b o a r d i n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m .

No a t t e m p t was m a d e

to a n a l y z e the s u g g e s t e d top i c s an d t h e y w e r e i n c l u d e d in this
c h a p t e r to g i v e the r e a d e r insight into the a n a l y s i s of d a t a .
Five t o p i c s w e r e s u g g e s t e d b y the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t r e s p o n d e n t s :

97
1.

Communication Responsibilities —
"Team bu i l d i n g "
" C o m m u n i c a t i o n plans"
"P a rtnerships"

2.

Instructional/Curricular Responsibilities--no suggested
topics.

3.

F i n a n c i a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s — no s u g g e s t e d topics.

4.

Legal R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s - - n o s u g g e s t e d topics.

5.

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s - - n o s u g g e s t e d topics.

6.

B o a r d s m a n s h i p R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s — no s u g g e s t e d topics.

7.

O t h e r Issues —
" K nowledge of sch o o l

law"

" K nowledge of l abor r e l a t i o n s "
Research Question
currently

serving

ISD

ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s '
The m e d i a n
members’

and

2.2.

Is

there

a difference

board m e m b e r s ’ and

presently

between
employed

p e r c e p t i o n s of b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s ?

is u s e d to c o m p a r e

superintendents’

the d i f f e r e n c e s

ratings

of

the

of b o a r d

forty

items

c o n c e r n i n g the d e g r e e of i m p o r t a n c e a t t a c h e d to eac h s p e c i f i c
goal

for

future

(Appendix H ) .
were

ISD

board

inservice

education

programs

Of the f o r t y i t e m s , t h i r t y - t h r e e of the

rated with

an e qual

degree

of

importance

by both

items
board

members and supe r i n t e n d e n t s .
To

establish

a

priority

of

the

forty

i t e m s , the

p o i n t scale was c o m b i n e d into two c a t e g o r i e s .
enough
ratings

f ive

T h e r e wa s not

i n f o r m a t i o n or d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the f o r t y items
"3"

(important),

"4"

(very

i m p o r tant),

and

if
"5"

98
TABLE 8
A RANK COMPARISON OF PERCEIVED BOARD
DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AS REPORTED
BY ISD BOARD MEMBERS AND
ISD SUPERINTENDENTS

Board D evelopm ent Needs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

Building a perm anent base of com m unity s u p p o rt
Defining role and functions of advisory co m m ittee
Im proving com munication w ith constituent school b o a r d s
Im proving com munication w ith ISD p e rs o n n e l
Im proving com munication w ith parents of students in school program
Influencing state legislature
U nderstanding the role of the media and its in flu e n ce
A pproving cooperative instructional p ro g ra m s
A pproving special education p l a n
Planning for use of technology......................................................................
Understanding the purpose and procedures underlying regulations . . .
Achieving equity in distribution of financial re so u rc e s...........................
Conducting annual hearing for general fund operating budget .............
Ensuring adequate flow of financial re s o u rc e s ..........................................
Lobbying w ith other school boards for adequate state f u n d s .................
Participating in collective bargaining...........................................................
Acting on property transfer
Assuring delivery of services..........................................................................
Com plying w ith state and federal laws and regulations
Consolidating, annexing and reorganizing d istric ts..................................
Furnishing management, consultant or supervisory s e rv ic e s .................
Responding to increased state m a n d a te s .....................................................
Responding to the needs of constituent school d istricts...........................
Selecting a superintendent..............................................................................
Evaluating a su p e rin ten d e n t..........................................................................
Setting adm inistrator's salaries and b e n e fits..............................................
Understanding administrative rules, regulations and procedures
vs. policy formulation and im p lem e n ta tio n ..............................................
Dealing w ith c o n tro v e rs y
Developing hum an relations s k ills ..............................
Developing self-evaluations for boards of e d u c atio n ...............................
Developing skills for strategic p la n n in g .......................................................
Developing statements of board's educational philosophy and
more specific educational objectives
Improving board/superintendent rela tio n sh ip
Learning to ask the right questions
U nderstanding board responsibilities...........................................................
Improving board meetings
Improving b u sin g ............................................................................................
Upgrading facilities
U nderstanding MASB—state board association
Understanding county school board associations

ISD
Board M ember
Rank

ISD
Superintendent
Rank

9
36
2
16
26
S
28
14
19
13
20
12
34
6
8
32
31
7
11
37
27
24
1
3
4
15

3
27
1
10
20
4
11
22
28
9
30
17
37
18
7
34
38
21
23
39
19
31
2
8
5
12

17
18
22
30
23

13
14
15
29
16

29
25
21
10
38
40
33
39
35

24
25
26
6
32
40
36
35
33

99
( ext r e m e l y

important)

therefore,

ratings

"1"

i m p o r t a n t ), a n d

"3"

impo r t a n t "

"less

or

i m portant) and

were

combined

(not

i m p o r t a n t ),

(i m p o r t a n t ) w e r e

"5"

i mportant"

(e x t r e m e l y

into

one

category;

"2 "

combined

category

(a

into the

and

important) were

little

"4"

combined

"not
(v e r y
into

the " important" c a t e g o r y .

B y c o l l a p s i n g the c a t e g o r i e s , m o r e

i n f o r m a t i o n was g a i n e d

rank

to

an od d n u m b e r scale is used,

order

the

items.

A l s o , when

such as the five p o i n t scale u s e d

in this study, one c a n a s s u m e a r e s p o n d e n t m a y take the m i d d l e
ground

when

feeling

ambivalent

about

an

i t e m ’s

importance.

The rank o r d e r of items b y b o t h b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d s u p e r i n t e n ­
dents

is p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 8 .
Of the f irst t e n ran k items i d e n t i f i e d b y b o a r d m e m b e r s ,

e ight

w ere

also

superintendents

identified
as

inservice p r o g r a m s .
be

important

in

the

for

The e i g h t

first

g oals

ten

for

r ank

future

order

by

ISD b o a r d

items w h i c h w e r e p e r c e i v e d to

imp o r t a n t b y b o t h b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s w e r e :

1.

B u i l d i n g a p e r m a n e n t b a s e of c o m m u n i t y s u p p o r t .

2.

I m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h c o n s t i t u e n t school b o a r d s .

3.

Influencing State L e g i s l a t u r e .

4.

Lobbying
funds.

5.

with

other

school

boards

for

adequate

state

R e s p o n d i n g to the n e e d s of c o n s t i t u e n t school d i s t r i c t s .

6.

Selecting a supe r i n t e n d e n t .

7.

Evaluating a superintendent.

8.

Understanding board responsibilities.

100
A

comparison

of

the

board

members’

rank i n g

and

the

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ r a n k i n g r e v e a l e d that their first a n d s e c o n d
rank, " I m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h c o n s t i t u e n t school boar d s "
a n d " R e s p o n d i n g to the needs of c o n s t i t u e n t school d i s t r i c t s , "
were

reversed

in o r d e r

a n d f ifth rank,
ting

of p e r c e i v e d

importance.

" I n f l u e n c i n g S tate L e g i s l a t u r e "

a superintendent,"

w ere

reversed

The

fourth

an d " E v a l u a ­

in o rder

of p e r c e i v e d

i m p o r t a n c e , w h e n dual c o m p a r i s o n was m a d e .
Specific
approaches

Purpose

used by

# 3 --to

determine

intermediate

school

the

boards

different

to m e e t

their

ow n b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s .
Research

Question

3.1.

How

many

boards

hav e

an

e s t a b l i s h e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t p o l i c y wit h b u d g e t r e s o u r c e s ?
Forty-two
indicated

their

(75.0
board

percent)
does

inservice education policy

not

of

hav e

the

superintendents

a written

school

board

(T a b l e 9).
TABLE 9

BOARDS WITH BOARD DEVELOPMENT POLICY
AS R E P O R T E D BY S U P E R I N T E N D E N T S
S upts

f

yes
no

14
42
56

total

%
25.0
75.0
100.0

If the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t a n s w e r e d "yes" to h a v i n g a w r i t t e n
school
was

board

asked

(57.1

if

inservice
the

percent)

resources

(Table

education

policy

hav e
10).

included

board

policy,
budget

development

the

superintendent

resources.
policy

with

Eight
budget

101
TABLE 10
BOARD DEVELOPMENT POLICY WITH
B U D G E T R E S O U R C E S AS R E P O R T E D
BY SUPERINTENDENTS
Supts________________f______________ %
yes
no

8
6_
14

total

Research

Question

3.2.

57.1
42.9
100.0

How many boards

have

a formal

o r i e n t a t i o n for a n e w b o a r d m e m b e r ?
T h i r t y - t h r e e (58.9 p e r c e n t ) of s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d
a formal o r i e n t a t i o n is p r o v i d e d for n e w b o a r d m e m b e r s

(Table

1 1 )•
TABLE

11

F O R M A L O R I E N T A T I O N FO R N E W M E M B E R S
AS R E P O R T E D B Y S U P E R I N T E N D E N T S
Supts________________ f______________ %
yes
no

33
g3

total

56

58.9
41.1
100.0

S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s w h o r e s p o n d e d "no" to this q u e s t i o n wer e
a s k e d to i n d i c a t e

"why not"

to c l a r i f y t h e i r

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s c h o s e no t to g i v e a response.

response.

Two

The f o l l o w i n g

r e a s o n s w e r e s ummarized:
1 l - - i n d i c a t e d a n i n f o r m a l o r i e n t a t i o n was
s u f f i c i e n t or a d e q u a t e
7- - i n d i c a t e d v e r y little or no t u r n o v e r in m e m b e r s h i p
l - - i n d i c a t e d t h e r e wa s no i n t e r e s t
1- - e x p l a i n e d t hat M A S B ’s A c a d e m y of B o a r d s m a n s h i p was
considered sufficient
l - - i n d i c a t e d a formal o r i e n t a t i o n n e e d s to be p l a n n e d
for his b o a r d m e m b e r s

102
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 3.3.
a

formal

orientation

when

H o w m a n y b o a r d m e m b e r s rece i v e
initially

becoming

an

ISD

board

member?
One h u n d r e d f o r t y
receive

a

formal

board member

(55.6 percent)

orientation

(Table

when

b o a r d m e m b e r s d i d not

initially becoming

an

ISD

12).

TABLE

12

BOARD MEMBERS WHO RECEIVED
A FORMAL ORIENTATION
Bd Members

f

yes
no

112
140
252

total

Board

members

who

%

received

44.4
55.6
10070

a

formal

orientation

a s k e d to i n d i c a t e w h o p r o v i d e d the ori e n t a t i o n .
(65.8

percent)

board

members

p r o v i d e d the o r i e n t a t i o n

indicated

(Table

TABLE

the

13).

13

PROVIDERS OF FORMAL ORIENTATION
FO R B O A R D M E M B E R S
P r o v i d e d b y ________ f______________ %
Supt
B d Pres
Bd Comm
Sup t & B d Pre s
Sup t & B d C o m m
Other
Total

7 3

65.8

1
24
5
_9_
1T2

.9
20.7
4.5
8 .1
10070

w ere

Seventy-three
superintendent

103
B o a r d m e m b e r s w h o d i d no t r e c e i v e a formal o r i e n t a t i o n
w h e n t h e y b e c a m e a n e w ISD b o a r d m e m b e r w e r e a s k e d to i n d i c a t e
"why not."

Of

the

140 b o a r d

members,

c h o s e not to r e s p o n d to this question.
were

twenty

board

members

The f o l l o w i n g reas o n s

summarized:
5 6 - - i n d i c a t e d o r i e n t a t i o n no t a v a i l a b l e / o f f e r e d
16— i n d i c a t e d t h e y h a d local b o a r d e x p e r i e n c e p r i o r to
b e c o m i n g an ISD m e m b e r
12- - i n d i c a t e d t h e y " d i d n ’t know" w h y t h e y d i d n ’t rece i v e
an o r i e n t a t i o n
10- - r e c e i v e d an i n f ormal o r i e n t a t i o n
7 - - i n d i c a t e d t h e y h a d p r i o r k n o w l e d g e / e x p e r i e n c e such
as b e i n g a fo r m e r s u p e r i n t e n d e n t
6 - - i n d i c a t e d t h e y w e r e p art of "original" c o u n t y b o a r d
6 - - i n d i c a t e d the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t was the r e a s o n for no
orientation
6 - - i n d i c a t e d o r i e n t a t i o n was "not n e c e s s a r y "
l - - i n d i c a t e d t here was no w r i t t e n p o l i c y c o n c e r n i n g an
o r i e n t a t i o n for n e w ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s
Research

Question

p a r t i c i p a t e d in the
One
indicated

hundred
the y

3.4.

How

many

ISD

board

members

1988 M A S B A c a d e m y of B o a r d s m a n s h i p ?
fifty

(59.5

no t

attended

had

percent)
the

ISD

1988

board

MASB

members

Academy

of

Boardsmanship.

Fou r

(1.6 p e r c e n t ) b o a r d m e m b e r s c h o s e n o t to

r e s p o n d to this

item

(Table

14).

TABLE

14

B O A R D M E M B E R A T T E N D A N C E - - 1988 M A S B
A C A D E M Y OF B O A R D S M A N S H I P
Bd Members
yes
no
no r e s p o n s e
t otal

f

%

98
150
___4
2 ET2

38.9
59.5
1 .6
100.0

104
B o a r d m e m b e r s w h o r e s p o n d e d "no" to this q u e s t i o n wer e
asked
MASB

to

indicate

Academy

of

"why not"

if they di d not a t t e n d the

Boardsmanship.

Of

the

150

board

f o u r t e e n c h o s e not to r e s p o n d to this question.

1988

members,

The f o llowing

r e a s o n s w e r e summarized:
28- - indicated a scheduling conflict
2 8 - - i n d i c a t e d "no time"
24- - indicated work/employment conflict
1 3 - - i n d i c a t e d no interest
12- - i n d i c a t e d "been to t hem before"
9 — i n d i c a t e d "distance"
6 - - i n d i c a t e d "do no t p e r t a i n to ISD's"
5 - - i n d i c a t e d illness
3 - - i n d i c a t e d o ther m e m b e r s of their b o a r d a t t e n d e d
3 - - i n d i c a t e d c o s t as a factor
2— cam e on b o a r d a f t e r the c o n f e r e n c e
2 - - i n d i c a t e d that t h e y " d i d n *t know"
Research

Question

p a r t i c i p a t e d in the
The

1988

3.5.

How

(Table

board

members

1988 M A S B Annual C o n f e r e n c e ?

MASB

Annual

Conference

M i c h i g a n wa s not a t t e n d e d b y 170
members.

many

in

Grand

Rapids,

(67.5 p e r c e n t ) of the b o a r d

F our b o a r d m e m b e r s d i d not r e s p o n d to this q u e s t i o n

15).

TA B L E

15

B O A R D M E M B E R A T T E N D A N C E - - 1988 M ASB
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Bd Members
yes
no
no r e s p o n s e
total

f

%

78
170
4
252

31.0
67.5
1.6
100.0

Board members who responded
asked

to

indicate

"why not"

"no" to this q u e s t i o n w e r e

if the y d i d not a t t e n d

the

1988

105
M A S B A n n u a l Confer e n c e .
board

members

chose

Of the 170 b o a r d members,

no t

to

respond

to

this

twenty-six

question.

The

fo l l o w i n g r e a s o n s w e r e summarized:
35--indicated a scheduling conflict
2 9 — i n d i c a t e d "no time"
29--indicated work/employment conflict
1 1- - i n d i c a t e d "no interest"
9 - - i n d i c a t e d "illness"
9 - - i n d i c a t e d o t h e r m e m b e r s of their b o a r d a t t e n d e d
7 - - i n d i c a t e d c o s t as a factor
5— w e r e on v a c a t i o n
5 - - i n d i c a t e d "distance"
5 - - i n d i c a t e d "not r e l a t i v e to I S D ’s"
Research
participated

Question

in the

3.6.

How

many

ISD

board

members

1989 M A S B M i d w i n t e r C o n f e r e n c e ?

The 1989 M A S B M i d w i n t e r C o n f e r e n c e in L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n
was

not

attended

by

198

of

the

board

members.

m e m b e r s c h o s e no t to r e s p o n d to this q u e s t i o n

TABLE

Tw o

(T a b l e

board

16).

16

B O A R D M E M B E R A T T E N D A N C E — 1989 M A S B
MIDWINTER CONFERENCE
Bd M e m b e r s
yes
no
no r e s p o n s e
total

f

%

52
198
2
252

20.6
78.6
.8
100.0

Board members who responded
asked

to

indicate

"why not"

MASB Midwinter C o n f e r e n c e .

"no" to this q u e s t i o n w ere

if t h e y d i d not a t t e n d
Of the

the

198 b o a r d m e m b e r s , forty-

six b o a r d m e m b e r s c h o s e n o t to r e s p o n d to this q u e s t i o n .
fo l l o w i n g r e a s o n s w e r e

1989

summarized:

33--indicated a scheduling conflict
2 9 - - i n d i c a t e d "no time"

The

106
2 7 - - w e r e on v a c a t i o n / o u t of the a rea
9 - - i n d i c a t e d "no interest"
9 - - i n d i c a t e d "distance"
6 - - i n d i c a t e d "illness"
6 - - i n d i c a t e d c o s t as a factor
5 - - i n d i c a t e d o t h e r m e m b e r s of their b o a r d a t t e n d e d
l - ~ i n d i c a t e d "not r e l a t i v e to I S D ’s"
Research

Question

p a r t i c i p a t e d in t heir
Two

hundred

3.7.

How

many

ISD

board

members

local c o u n t y school b o a r d a s s o c i a t i o n ?

thirty

(91.2

percent)

board

members

had

a t t e n d e d p r o g r a m s s p o n s o r e d b y the local c o u n t y school b o a r d
a s s o c i a t i o n in the last y e a r

(Table

TABLE

17).

17

BOARD MEMBER ATTENDANCE--LOCAL COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION PROGRAMS
Bd Members

f

yes
no
no r e s p o n s e
total

230
20
2
252

Board members who responded
a s k e d to i n d i c a t e "why not"

%
91.3
7.9
.8
100.0

"no" to this q u e s t i o n wer e

if t h e y h a d not a t t e n d e d p r o g r a m s

s p o n s o r e d b y the l ocal c o u n t y school b o a r d a s s o c i a t i o n in the
last year.

Of the t w e n t y b o a r d members,

c h o s e not to r e s p o n d to this question.

eleven board members
The f o l l o w i n g reas o n s

w e r e summarized:
5— i n d i c a t e d no c o u n t y a s s o c i a t i o n
3 - - i n d i c a t e d "distance"
l - - i n d i c a t e d "no interest"
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 3.8.

in their a rea

H o w m a n y ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s t hink

i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n for b o a r d m e m b e r s s h o u l d be req u i r e d ?

One
answered

hundred

fifty-two

"yes"--inservice

board members

(Table

(60.3

p e r cent)

education

should

board
be

members

required

for

18).
TABLE

18

BOARD MEMBER AND SUPERINTENDENTS’
R E S P O N S E S TO R E Q U I R E D I N S E R V I C E
E D U C A T I O N FO R B O A R D M E M B E R S
Supts

Bd Members
Response
yes
no
no r e s p o n s e
total

f

%

f

152
92
8
252

60. 3
36.5
3.2
100.0

39
16
1
56

%

69.6
28.6
1.8
100.0

B o a r d m e m b e r s w e r e a s k e d to c o m m e n t on t h e i r r e s p o n s e s
to

this

question.

comment.
required

The

Twenty-one

following

ins e r v i c e

board

reas o n s

education

for
for

members

chose

responding
board

no t

to

"yes"

to

members

were

summarized:
37--indicated required inservice education would make
b o a r d m e m b e r s b e t t e r d e c i s i o n m a k e r s a n d m ore
ef f e c t i v e
2 2 - - i n d i c a t e d i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d so
m e m b e r s c o u l d u n d e r s t a n d the c o m p l e x i t y a n d role
of the ISD
17- - i n d i c a t e d "change" as the r e a s o n for r e q u i r e d
i n s ervice
16- - i n d i c a t e d r e q u i r e d i n s e r v i c e w o u l d i n f o r m b o a r d
m e m b e r s of c u r r e n t e d u c a t i o n a l t r e n d s , i s s u e s ,
ideas an d p r a c t i c e s
15— i n d i c a t e d tha t r e q u i r e d i n s e r v i c e is n e c e s s a r y for
b o a r d m e m b e r s to u n d e r s t a n d b o a r d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
an d to u n d e r s t a n d w h a t is e x p e c t e d
12- - i n d i c a t e d i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n be r e q u i r e d of o n l y
new board members
10- - i n d i c a t e d r e q u i r e d i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n w o u l d "make
all m e m b e r s a t t e n d w h o n e e d t r a i n i n g "

108
Ninety-two

(36.5

percent)

board

i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n for b o a r d m e m b e r s
we r e

a s k e d to p l e a s e

c h o s e not to respond.

state

members

wh o

indicated

s h o u l d not be r e q u i r e d

"why n o t ."

Twenty board members

Th e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s w e r e summarized:

2 2 - - i n d i c a t e d i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n for b o a r d m e m b e r s
s h o u l d be o p t i o n a l , a v a i l a b l e , e n c o u r a g e d b u t not
required
1 0 - - i n d i c a t e d tha t r e q u i r e d i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n w o u l d
d i s c o u r a g e q u a l i f i e d (" g o o d " ) p e o p l e to ru n for
election
9 - - i n d i c a t e d b o a r d m e m b e r s are a l r e a d y q u a l i f i e d (local
experience)
6 - - i n d i c a t e d "learn b y doing"
3- - i n d i c a t e d no r e q u i r e m e n t s for v o l u n t e e r s e r v i c e
2 - - t h o u g h t if a b o a r d has a c o m p e t e n t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ,
i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d not be r e q u i r e d
Fou r

of

the

eight

board

members

chose

e i t h e r "yes" or "no" b u t w r o t e c o m m e n t s :
is

not

enf o r c e a b l e ,

how

can

you

not

to

respond

"Inservice education

know

if

people

'p a y

a t t e n t i o n ’?" a n d two b o a r d m e m b e r s w r o t e , "don* t m ake p e o p l e
lose time fro m w o r k ."

Th e final c o m m e n t wa s "who wil l p r o v i d e

the t r a i n i n g so b o a r d m e m b e r s c o u l d r e t a i n an o b j e c t i v e v i e w ? "
Research Question

3.9.

H o w m a n y s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s t hink

i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n for b o a r d m e m b e r s
Thirty-nine
"yes"--inservice
required

(T a b l e

(69.6

percent)

education

for

s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d ?

superintendents
board

members

indicated
should

be

18).

S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s w e r e a s k e d to c o m m e n t on their r e s p o n s e s
to this q u e s t i o n .

Ou t of the t h i r t y - n i n e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s who

s a i d i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be required,
d e n t s d i d not c o m m e n t .

two s u p e r i n t e n ­

The f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s w e r e summarized:

16--indicated required inservice education would help
b o a r d m e m b e r s u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r role e x p e c t a t i o n ,
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , functions

109
9 --indicated required inservice education would help
b o a r d m e m b e r s be i n f o r m e d / a w a r e of problems,
issues, trends, v i t a l e d u c a t i o n a l issues, c h a n g e s
an d t e c h n o l o g y
3— i n d i c a t e d r e q u i r i n g i n s e r v i c e w o u l d m a k e b e t t e r
decision makers
2--thought required inservice education would help
b o a r d m e m b e r s u n d e r s t a n d the u n i q u e n e s s and
p a r t i c u l a r s of I S D ’s
2— i n d i c a t e d t h e y n e e d t r a i n e d b o a r d m e m b e r s
1- - c o m m e n t e d tha t r e q u i r e d i n s e r v i c e w o u l d i n c r e a s e
c o m m i t m e n t a n d d e d i c a t i o n to b o a r d s m a n s h i p
l - - i n d i c a t e d r e q u i r e d i n s e r v i c e w o u l d giv e b o a r d
m e m b e r s a n o p p o r t u n i t y to h a v e c o n t a c t w i t h his
peers
Sixteen

(28.6

percent)

superintendents

wh o

indicated

i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n for b o a r d m e m b e r s

s h o u l d not be r e q u i r e d

st a t e d

following

reasons

as

to

"why n o t ."

The

reasons

w ere

summarized:
8 - - i n d i c a t e d i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n for b o a r d m e m b e r s
s h o u l d be s t r o n g l y e n c o u r a g e d a n d provided, but
not be r e q u i r e d
5 — i n d i c a t e d "ma n d a t e s do not work"
l - - i n d i c a t e d his b o a r d m e m b e r s ar e s e a s o n e d local b o a r d
members
l - - i n d i c a t e d skills are n e e d e d bu t n o t "seat time"
On e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t c h o s e not to r e s p o n d to e i t h e r r e q u i r e d or
not

required

commented

he

clarification

inservice
could
as to

not

education
respond

"who will

for

board

because

require

the

members,

question

it a n d h o w

but

needed

it wil l

be

r equired?"
Research Question

3.10.

Is t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n

b o a r d m e m b e r s ’ an d s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s as to w h e t h e r
i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n for b o a r d m e m b e r s

s h o u l d be req u i r e d ?

A c o m p a r i s o n of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of b o a r d m e m b e r s * an d
superintendents’ responses

to this q u e s t i o n w e r e s i m i l a r ,

110
t h e r e f o r e a n y d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e no t d e t e r m i n e d b y u t i l i z i n g the
C h i - s q u a r e t est at the s i g n i f i c a n c e level of

TABLE

.05

(Table

19).

19

A C O M P A R I S O N OF B O A R D M E M B E R S ’ AN D
S U P E R I N T E N D E N T S ’ P E R C E P T I O N S OF
REQUIRED INSERVICE EDUCATION
FO R B O A R D M E M B E R S
Required
Not R e q u i r e d
T otal
Supts
39 (35)*
16 (2 0 )
55
Bd M e m b e r s
92 (8 8 )
152 (156)
244
total
191
108
299
Chi-square(jc )=1.09; p > .05
* Numbers represent the actual observed frequencies.
Numbers in parentheses represent the expected frequencies.
S p e c i f i c P u r p o s e # 4 --To d e t e r m i n e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of
perceived

board

characteristics
geographic

development

needs

to

certain

demographic

s uch as g e n d e r , te n u r e of b o a r d s e r v i c e , an d

location.

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4.1.

Is t h e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

p e r c e i v e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s a n d gend e r ?
The C h i - s q u a r e tes t at the s i g n i f i c a n c e level of .05 was
u s e d to d e t e r m i n e

if t h e r e w a s a r e l a t i o n s h i p or a s s o c i a t i o n

b e t w e e n two v a r i a b l e s - - p e r c e i v e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s a n d
board

members

wh o

are

fem a l e

or

male.

The

results

of

all

b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s b y g e n d e r w e r e s u m m a r i z e d in A p p e n d i x
I.
F o r t y b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s w e r e c a t e g o r i z e d into two
r a t i n g s , "i m p o r t a n t " a n d "not i m p o r t a n t ."
of b o a r d m e m b e r s
"not

important"

development

with
of

needs

regard

the

were

board
found

to t h e i r

rating

development
to

be

In c o m p a r i n g g e n d e r
" important"

n e e d s , six

or

board

significantly different.

Ill
TABLE 20
THE STATISTICAL A N D PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN CERTAIN
BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS A N D BOARD MEMBER GENDER

BUILDING A PERMANENT BASE
OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT

Male
Female
TOTAL

IMP

NOT
IMP

TOTAL

137 (144)

47 (40)

184

59 (52)

8 (15)

196

55

DEVELOPING SELF-EVALUATIONS
FOR BOARDS OF EDUCATION

IMP

NOT
IMP

TOTAL

Male

91 (97)

84 (75)

175

67

Female

45 (36)

19 (28)

64

251

TOTAL

136

103

239

Chi Square (x2) = 4.54; p < .0 5 ; gamma <.25

Chi Square (x2) = 5.68; p <.05; g am m a< .25

INFLUENCING STATE LEGISLATURE

DEVELOPING SKILLS FOR
STRATEGIC PLANNING

Male
Female
TOTAL

IMP

NOT
IMP

TOTAL

139 (145)

41 (35)

180

60 (54)

7 (13)

67

Female

247

TOTAL

199

48

Male

IMP

NOT
IMP

TOTAL

104 (112)

71 (63)

175

49 (41)

16 (24)

65

153

87

240

Chi Square (x2) = 3.98; p < .0 5 ; gam m a<.25

Chi Square (x2) = 4.55; p < .0 5 ; gamma <.25

DEVELOPING HUMAN
RELATIONS SKILLS

IMPROVING BOARD MEETINGS

Male
Female
TOTAL

IMP

NOT
IMP

TOTAL

106 (114)

70 (62)

176

50 (42)

15 (23)

156

85

IMP

NOT
IMP

TOTAL

Male

59 (67)

117 (109)

176

65

Female

32 (24)

32 (40)

64

241

TOTAL

91

Chi Square (x2) = 5.08; p < 0 5 ; g am m a< .2 5

149

240

Chi Square (x2) = 4.73; p < .05; gamma <.25

N u m b e rs re p re se n t th e a c tu a l o b s e rv e d freq u e n c ie s. N u m b e rs in p a re n th e s e s re p re se n t th e e x p ec te d freq u en cies.

112
T h e y were:

"B u i l d i n g a p e r m a n e n t b a s e of c o m m u n i t y support,"

"Influencing State Legislature,"
for

boards

of

planning,"

and

While
areas,

education,"

"Developing self-evaluation

"Developing

skills

for

str a t e g i c

"Improving board members."

statistical

significance

r e f l e c t e d in T a b l e

f o u n d u s i n g g a m m a at the

20,

practical

found

in these

six

s i g n i f i c a n c e was not

.25 level.

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4.2.
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the

was

Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

1988 M A S B A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e a n d gender?

The C h i - s q u a r e test at the s i g n i f i c a n c e level of .05 was
u s e d to d e t e r m i n e
between

the

attendance
comparing

two

an d
the

if t h e r e was a r e l a t i o n s h i p or a s s o c i a t i o n
v a r i a b l e s - - 1988

board
gender

members
of

board

wh o

MASB

Annual

Conference

are

male

or

female.

members

with

regard

to

In

their

a t t e n d a n c e at the 1988 M A S B A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e in G r a n d R a p i d s ,
Michigan,
practical

there

wa s

significance

a

statistical
using

gamma

at

significance
the

.25

bu t

level

not

(Table

21 ) .
T A B L E 21
ATTENDANCE OF BOARD MEMBER BY GENDER-MASB ANNUAL CONFERENCE
yes
no
total
male
48 (57)*
181
133 (124)
fem a l e
30 (21)
67
37
(46)
total
78
170
248
Chi-Square(x2)=6 .73; p < .05; gamma<.25
* Numbers represent the actual observed frequencies.
Numbers in parentheses represent the expected frequencies.

113
TABLE 22
THE STATISTICAL A N D PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN CERTAIN
BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS A N D TENURE OF BOARD SERVICE

PARTICIPATING IN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
YEARS
OF
BOARD
EXP
less than
1 yr

NO T
IMP

3 (3) *

IMP

IMPROVING BOARD/
SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

TOTAL

YEARS
OF
BOARD
EXP

NOT
IMP

IMP

TOTAL

3 (3)

6

less than
1 yr

2 (2)

4 (4)

6

1 to 5 yrs

52 (45)

35 (42)

87

1 to 5 yrs

44 (31)

41 (54)

85

6 to 10 yrs

41 (38)

32 (35)

73

6 to 10 yrs

24 (26)

46 (44)

70

11 yrs
or more

33 (43)

49 (40)

82

11 yrs
or more

18 (29)

62 (51)

80

TOTAL

129

119

251

Kendall's Tau b = .142; p -<.05; g am m a-<.25

TOTAL

NOT
IMP

IMP

less than
1 yr

5 (4)

1 (2)

1 to 5 yrs

59 (52)

6 to 10 yrs
11 yrs
or more
TOTAL

153

241

Kendall's Tau b = .223; p < .0 5 ; gamma <.25

IMPROVING BUSING

IMPROVING BOARD MEETINGS
YEARS
OF
BOARD
EXP

88

YEARS
OF
BOARD
EXP

NOT
IMP

IMP

6

less than
1 yr

6 (4)

0 (2)

6

25 (32)

84

1 to 5 yrs

66 (59)

18 (25)

84

38 (43)

32 (26)

70

6 to 10 yrs

47 (49)

22 (20)

69

47 (50)

33 (31)

80

11 yrs
or more

50 (57)

30 (23)

80

149

91

TOTAL

240

Kendall's Tau b = .108; p < 0 5 ; gamma < 2 5

TOTAL

169

70

TOTAL

239

Kendall's Tau b = .159; p < .0 5 ; gam m a< .25

* N u m b e rs re p re se n t th e a c tu a l o b se rv e d freq u e n c ie s. N u m b e rs in p a re n th e s e s re p re se n t th e e x p e c te d freq u e n c ie s.

114
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4.3.

Is t here a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

p e r c e i v e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n eeds a n d t e n u r e of b o a r d servi c e ?
K e n d a l l *s tau

b

at

the

significance

level

u s e d as an index of r e l a t i o n s h i p to d e t e r m i n e
relationship

between

the

two

of

.05

was

if t h e r e was a

variables--perceived

board

d e v e l o p m e n t n eeds an d n u m b e r of y ears of ISD b o a r d s e r v i c e of
board members.

The resu l t s of all b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s a n d

te n u r e of b o a r d s e r v i c e wer e s u m m a r i z e d in A p p e n d i x

I.

F o r t y b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s wer e c a t e g o r i z e d into two
r a t i n g s : "important" a n d "not i m p o r t a n t ."

The n u m b e r of years

of ISD b o a r d s e r v i c e were g r o u p e d a c c o r d i n g l y : less t h a n one
yea r of b o a r d s e r v i c e ; one to five y ears of b o a r d s e r v i c e ; six
to ten years of b o a r d s e r v i c e ; an d e l e v e n y ears or m o r e of ISD
board

service.

In

comparing

the

y ears

of

board

experience

w i t h r e g a r d to t heir ra t i n g "important" or "not i m p o r t a n t " of
f orty

board

development

statistically
"Participating

n e e d s , four

significant

(T a b l e

in c o l l e c t i v e

needs

were

22).

b a r g a i n i n g ,"

found
They

"I m p r o v i n g

to

be

were:
bo a r d /

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s , " " I m p r o v i n g b o a r d m e e t i n g s , " and
"Impr o v i n g

b u s i n g ."

u s i n g g a m m a at the

They

were

in

practically

significant

.25 l e v e l .

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4.4.
participation

not

1988

MASB

Is t here a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n
Annual

Conference

and

tenure

of

b o a r d service?
The C h i - s q u a r e test at the s i g n i f i c a n c e level of .05 was
u s e d to d e t e r m i n e
between

the

two

if there was a r e l a t i o n s h i p or a s s o c i a t i o n
v a r i a b l e s - - 1988

MASB

Annual

Conference

115
attendance
years

of

and

board

tenure

of

board

experience

with

1988 M A S B A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e
was no s t a t i s t i c a l

service.
regard

to

In

attendance

in G r a n d Rapids,

significance

comparing

Michigan,

at

the
the

there

(Table 23).

T A B L E 23
A T T E N D A N C E O F B O A R D M E M B E R S BY
T E N U R E OF B O A R D S E R V I C E - MASB ANNUAL CONFERENCE

Ye a r s
of
Board
Ex p

conference attendance
yes
no
2
(2 )*
3
(3)
26 (28)
62 (60)
49 (51)
25 (23)
56 (56)
25 (25)
78
170

less t h a n 1 yea r
1-5 y e a r s
6-10 years
11 y e a r s or mor e
total

total
5
88
74
81
248

Chi-square (x^)=.517; p > .05
* Numbers represent the actual observed frequencies.
Numbers in parentheses represent the expected frequencies.

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4.5.

Is t here a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

perceived board development needs and geographic

l o c ation?

The C h i - s q u a r e tes t at the s i g n i f i c a n c e level of .05 was
used

to

determine

if

variables--perceived
location

of

board

t here
board

was

relationship

development

members.

The

development needs and geographic
Appendix

a

needs

results

and
of

between

two

geographic
all

board

l o c a t i o n w e r e s u m m a r i z e d in

I.

F o r t y b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s w e r e c a t e g o r i z e d into two
r a t i n g s , "important"

and

"not

l o c a t i o n s of b o a r d m e m b e r s w e r e

i m p o r t a n t ."

N ine

geographic

i d e n t i f i e d b y regi o n s

116
TABLE 24
THE STATISTICAL A N D PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN CERTAIN
BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS A N D GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
PERMANENT BASE OF
COMMUNITY SUPPORT

PARTICIPATES IN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

GEOG
NO T
LOC
IMP
IMP
TOTAL
1
19 (9)*
23 (33)
42
2
5 (9)
35 (31)
40
3
8 (9)
35 (34)
43
4
4 (5)
20 (19)
24
5
3 (5)
21 (19)
24
6
3 (4)
16 (15)
19
7
6 (7)
24 (23)
30
8
4 (4)
14 (14)
18
9
3 (3)
8 (7)
11
TOTAL
196
55
251
Chi Square (x2) = 17.99; p -<05; gamma < 2 5

GEOG
NOT
LOC
IMP
IMP
TOTAL
1
19 (21)
22 (20)
41
2
23 (20)
16 (19)
39
3
25 (23)
19 (21)
44
4
9 (13)
15 (11)
24
5
7 (12)
16 (11)
23
6
9 (10)
10 (9)
19
7
19 (16)
11 (14)
30
8
9 (9)
9 (9)
18
9
9 (5)
1 (5)
10
TOTAL
129
119
249
Chi Square (x2) = 15.52; p < .05; gamma < 2 5 -

IMPROVING COMMUNICATION
WITH PARENTS

DEVELOPING STATEMENTS OF BOARD'S
EDUCATIONAL, PHILOSOPHY & MORE
SPECIFIC EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES

GEOG
NOT
LOC
IMP
IMP
TOTAL
1
17 (15)
25 (27)
42
2
20 (15)
20 (25)
40
3
15 (16)
29 (28)
44
4
7 (9)
17 (15)
24
5
5 (9)
19 (15)
24
6
6 (7)
13 (12)
19
7
15 (11)
15 (19)
30
8
2 (7)
16 (11)
18
9
6 (4)
5 (7)
11
TOTAL
159
93
252
Chi Square (x2) = 15.65; p < 0 5 ; gam m a< 2 5

NOT
GEOG
LOC
IMP
IMP
TOTAL
1
20 (17)
20 (23)
40
2
18 (16)
20 (22)
38
3
19 (17)
21 (23)
40
4
9 (9)
13 (13)
22
5
2 (10)
21 (13)
23
6
9 (7)
8 (10)
17
7
14 (12)
15 (17)
29
8 ■
9 (7)
8 (10)
17
9
1 (5)
10 (6)
11
TOTAL
101
136
237
Chi Square (x2) = 19.39; p <.05; gamma < 2 5

PLANNING FOR THE
USE OF TECHNOLOGY
NOT
GEOG
LOC
IMP
IMP
TOTAL
1
14 (11)
28 (31)
42
2
9 (11)
31 (29)
40
3
8 (12)
36 (32)
44
4
9 (6)
15 (18)
24
5
5 (6)
18 (17)
23
6
9 (5)
10 (14)
19
7
6 (8)
24 (22)
30
8
8 (5)
24 (23)
18
9
0 (3)
11
11 (8)
TOTAL
68
183
25T
Chi Square (x2) = 16.22; p < 0 5 ; gam ma < 2 5
* Num bers represent the actual observed frequencies. Num bers in parentheses represent the expected frequencies.

117

(Appendix C ) .
members

with

i m p o r t a n t ,"

In c o m p a r i n g the g e o g r a p h i c l o c a t i o n of b o a r d
regard

five

statistically

to

board

their

rating

development

significant.

They

"important"

needs

were:

were

or

"not

found

"Permanent

to

be

base

of

c o m m u n i t y s u p p o r t ;" "I m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h p a r e n t s of
students

in

t e c h n o l o g y ;"

school

p r o g r a m s ;"

"Participating

"Developing statements
an d

more

specific

in

" P lanning

collective

for

use

of

b a r g a i n i n g ;"

and

of the b o a r d ’s e d u c a t i o n a l p h i l o s o p h y

educational

o b j e c t i v e s ."

They

were

f o u n d to be p r a c t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t b y u s i n g g a m m a at th e
level

(T a b l e

.25

24).

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4.6.
participation
geographic

not

in

the

Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

1988

MASB

Annual

Conference

and

loc a t i o n ?

The C h i - s q u a r e test at the s i g n i f i c a n c e level of .05 was
used

to

determine

variables,

1988

if

there

MASB

geographic

location

geographic

location

of
of

was

An n u a l
board
board

a

relationship

Conference
members.
members

with

between

attendance
In

an d

comparing

regard

to

two

the

board

m e m b e r s a t t e n d a n c e at the 1988 M A S B A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e in G r a n d
R a p i d s f M i c h i g a n , t h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e b u t not
a practical
25) .

s i g n i f i c a n c e u s i n g g a m m a at the

.25 level

(T a b l e

118
TABLE 25
ATTENDANCE OF BOARD MEMBER BY GEOGRAPHIC
LOCATION— MASB ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Yes
Regions
No
Total
1
6 (13)*
36 (29)
42
2
11 (1 2 )
27 (26)
38
3
19 (14)
25 (30)
44
4
5
(8 )
19 (16)
24
5
(7)
10
12 (15)
22
6
(6 )
2
17 (13)
19
7
11
(9)
19 (2 1 )
30
8
7
(6 )
11 (1 2 )
18
9
(3)
7
4
(8 )
11
Total
78
170
= 248
Chi-square()=21.89; p<.G5; gamma<.25
* Numbers represent the actual observed frequencies.
Numbers in parentheses represent the expected frequencies

S p e c i f i c P u r p o s e # 5 --To d e v e l o p a c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r o f i l e
of ISD sc h o o l b o a r d m e m b e r s .
In o r d e r to p r o v i d e
5.1

and

5.2,

respondents.
surveyed

personal
Of

during

the

information

data were
318

thi s

ISD

collected

sc h o o l

study,

for r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s

252

board
board

from board member
members

who

wer e

members

returned

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w i t h c o m p l e t e d p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . The b o a r d
m e m b e r s w e r e a s k e d to d e s c r i b e t h e m s e l v e s a c c o r d i n g to g e n d e r ,
ethnic

origin,

age,

educational

attainment,

occupation,

i n c o m e , n u m b e r of c h i l d r e n in s c h o o l , y ears of b o a r d s e r v i c e ,
method

of

selection

to

b o a r d s , and

personal

information

responses

included

in

J.

Appendix

The

of

board
all

results

me m b e r s h i p .

board
can

be

members

The
w ere

summarized

as

follows:
1.

G e n d e r — ISD b o a r d m e m b e r r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e p r i m a r i l y m a l e
(73 p e r c e n t w e r e male;

27 p e r c e n t w e r e

female).

E t h n i c O r i g i n - - A l m o s t all board, m e m b e r r e s p o n d e n t s were
white

(96.4

percent

w h i t e ; 3.2

percent

b l a c k ; an d

.4

percent American I n d i a n ) .
A g e — Board members

r a n g e d f r o m t h i r t y - o n e years of age

to ove r s i x t y y e a r s

of age.

over s i x t y y e a r s of age
Educational
board

The

ranged

from

educational
less

graduate/professional d e g r e e s .
of

board

member

c a t e g o r y was

(34.5 percent).

A t t a i n m e n t - -The

members

largest

tha n

high

school

of
to

The l a r g e s t p e r c e n t a g e

respondents

graduate/professional degrees

attainment

indicated

they

ha d

(34.1 p e r c e n t ).

O c c u p a t i o n - - B o a r d m e m b e r s w e r e g i v e n a c h o i c e of el e v e n
different occup a t i o n s .
percentage

was

The o c c u p a t i o n w i t h the h i g h e s t

retired

(28.6

o c c u p a t i o n was p r o f e s s i o n a l
I n c o m e — The

in c o m e

of

and

the

next

(23.4 p e r c e n t ).

ISD

sc h o o l

r a n g e d f rom less tha n $ 3 0 , 0 0 0
or mor e (30.6 p e r c e n t ).

percent)

board

respondents

(21.4 p e r c e n t ) to $60,000

The m o d e (larg e s t c a t egory) was

$60,000 or more.
N u m b e r of C h i l d r e n

in S c h o o l - - B o a r d m e m b e r s w e r e a s k e d

h o w m a n y c h i l d r e n t h e y h a v e in the p u b l i c school s y s t e m
(K-12) during
percentage

the

(74.6

* 8 8 - ’89

sc h o o l

year.

The

p e r c e n t ) of b o a r d m e m b e r

greatest

respondents

do not hav e a n y c h i l d r e n in the p u b l i c s c h o o l s .
Years
an

of B o a r d

ISD b o a r d

five

years.

S e r v i c e --The

ranged
S ome

fro m

number

less

of

tha n one

board members

y ears
y ear

indicated

served

on

to

forty-

they

served

120
on

the

county

school

board

before

it

bec a m e

an

ISD

board.

Th e a v e r a g e te n u r e of ISD b o a r d serv i c e was 9.5

years.

B o a r d m e m b e r s w e r e a s k e d if the y h a d e ver s e r v e d

on

a

local

board

besides

serving

on

the

ISD

board.

T h i r t y - s e v e n a n d t h r e e te n t h s p e r c e n t of the ISD b o a r d
m e m b e r r e s p o n d e n t s h a d n e v e r s e r v e d on a local b o a r d and
of the r e m a i n i n g 62.7 p e r c e n t wh o h ave s e r v e d on a local
board, the a v e r a g e t e n u r e of local b o a r d s e r v i c e wa s 6.9
years.

B o a r d m e m b e r s w e r e a s k e d if t h e y w e r e p r e s e n t l y

simultaneously on b o t h

serving
board.

an

ISD b o a r d an d

local

The m a j o r i t y of b o a r d m e m b e r s i n d i c a t e d t h e y do

not s erve on b o t h ISD a n d local b o a r d s at the same time
(84.1 p e r c e n t n o ; 15.9 p e r c e n t y e s ).
9.

Method
we r e

of

Selection--Board members

elected

serve

on

or

the

appointed

ISD

board.

when
Over

member respondents were elected
38.9

percent

member

can

defined.
the

appointed).
be

elected

In
by

were

asked

initially
half

of

if they

selected

the

ISD

to

board

(61.1 p e r c e n t elected;

M i c h i g a n , the

two

methods,

ISD b o a r d

statutorily

On e m e t h o d of e l e c t i o n is b y p o p u l a r v o t e and

other

method

representatives.

of

election

The

is

majority

of

by

constituent

board

member

respondents were elected by constituent representatives
\

(85.7 p e r c e n t c o n s t i t u e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ; 14.3 p e r c e n t
p o p u l a r v o t e ).
10.

B o a r d M e m b e r s h i p - -The
five

members

or

seven

ISD b o a r d
members,

is

either

composed

statutorily

of

defined.

121
Fifty-six

superintendents

responded

to

this

question.

F o r t y b o a r d s h a v e five m e m b e r b o a r d s an d s i x t e e n boa r d s
h ave s e v e n m e m b e r b o a r d s .
Research Question
the

comprehensive

comprehensive

5.1.

profile

profile

of

Is t h e r e
of

ISD

the

a similarity between

board

"typical"

members
U.S.

and

school

the

board

member?
The

data collected

fro m

the M i c h i g a n

ISD b o a r d m e m b e r

r e s p o n d e n t s an d i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d f r o m the A m e r i c a n School
B o a r d Jour n a l were reflected in Table 26.
S i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n the M i c h i g a n ISD b o a r d m e m b e r a n d
the

"typical" U.S.

school b o a r d m e m b e r exist

g e n d e r , et h n i c origin,

f a m i l y i n c o m e , years on school board,

m e t h o d of s e l e c t i o n a n d e d u c a t i o n .
in age

The d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e n o t e d

( M i c h i g a n - - o v e r s i x t y y ears of a g e ; U . S . - - f o r t y - o n e to

f i f t y years of age);
and

in the a r e a s of

seven;

retired;
school

n u m b e r of b o a r d m e m b e r s

U.S.--seven

to

e i g h t );

occupation

U . S . - - p r o f e s s i o n a l / m a n a g e r i a l );

(M i c h i g a n - - n o c h i l d r e n in sch o o l

-no c h i l d r e n

in sc h o o l

(Mic h i g a n - - f i v e

and

(Michigan—
children

in

[74.6 p e r c e n t ]; U . S .-

[39.8 p e r c e n t ] ).

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 5 . 2--Is t here a s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n the
comprehensive
f rom

profile

the C e n t r a l

of

Region

the

"typical"

school

board

member

(I l l i n o i s , I n d i a n a , I o w a , Kentucky,

Michigan, Minnesota, O h i o , Wisconsin)?
Data
Jour n a l

for

wer e

obtained

the p r o f i l e

of

f rom

the

American

the C e n t r a l

Sc h o o l

Board

Region board m e m b e r .

I n f o r m a t i o n was n o t a v a i l a b l e on all of the v a r i a b l e s

(Table

122
TABLE 26
PROFILES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Michigan ISD Board
Member Profile

1988 National School Board
Member Profile

1988 Central Region Board
Member Profile (Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
M innesota, Ohio, Missouri,
Wisconsin)

%

%

%

Gender
M a le ........................................ .73.0
Female...................................... .27.0

Gender
M a l e ........................................ .68.1
Female...................................... .31.9

Gender
M a l e ........................................ .67.2
Female...................................... 37. 8

Ethnic
W h ite ......................................
B lack........................................
H ispanic..................................
American I n d ia n ...................
Asian A m e ric a n ...................
O t h e r ......................................

.96.4
. 3.2
. . .—
. .4
. . .—
. . .—

Ethnic
W h i te ......................................
B lack ........................................
H isp a n ic..................................
American I n d ia n ...................
Asian A m erican.....................
O ther ......................................

.93.7
. 3.4
. 1.3
. .7
. .3
. .3

Ethnic
W h i te ...................................... 96 4
B lack........................................ 7 5
7
H isp a n ic..................................
American In d ian ................... . . . —
Asian A m erican.....................
O ther ......................................
7

Age
less than 4 0 .............................
41-50 ........................................
51-60........................................
over 60 y e a r s .........................

. 5.2
.30.2
.30.2
.34.5

Age
less than 4 0 ..............................
4 1 -5 0........................................
51-60 ........................................
over 60 y e a r s .........................

.22.9
.44.5
.20.1
.12.6

Age
less than 4 0 .............................
4 1 -5 0 ........................................
51-60 ........................................
over 60 y e a r s .........................

Family Income
$29,999 or le s s .......................
$30,000-39,999.......................
$40,000-49,999.......................
$50,000-59,999.......................
$60,000 o r m o re .....................

.21.4
.15.1
.15.1
.13.9
.30.6

Family Income
$29,999 or le s s .......................
530,000-39,999.......................
$40,000-49,999.......................
$50,000-59,999.......................
$60,000 or m o re .....................

.11.3
.15.6
.17.5
.15.7
.36.5

Family Income
$29,999 or le s s .......................
$30,000-39,999.......................
$40,000-49,999.......................
$50,000-59,999.......................
$60,000 or m o re .....................

Years on School Board
0 - 5 ............................................ . .37.7
6 -1 0 ............................................29.5
11-15 ...................................... . .11.5
16 -2 0 ...................................... ..11.2
more than 20 y r s ................. . .10.4

Years on School Board
0 - 5 ............................................ .60.0
6 -1 0 ............................................25.0
11-15 ........................................ . 8.7
16-20......................................... . 3.5
more than 20 y r s .................... . 2.2

M ethod of selection—election

M ethod of selection—election

Number of board members5 and 7

Num ber of board members7 and 8

Education—G rad/ Prof

Education—College G rad

O ccupation—Retired

O ccupation—Professional/
Managerial

Children in school—74.6% have
no children in school

Children in school—39.8% have
no children in school

73 0
.43.4
19 ,5
1.7 1
14
16
70
15
33

1
7
0
8
4

123
26).
and

The one d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the M i c h i g a n ISD b o a r d m e m b e r
the

"typical"

Central

R e g i o n b o a r d m e m b e r was

age.

The

l a r g e s t n u m b e r of M i c h i g a n ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s w e r e over s i x t y
years

of age

and

members were

the

lar gest

n u m b e r of C e n t r a l

Region board

f o r t y - o n e to f i f t y years of a g e .

Although

this

was

not

a

study

of

superintendents,

personal data from superintendents were c o l l e c t e d .
ISD sch ool

superintendents

information

Fifty-six

returned surveys with demographic

f rom w h i c h to d r a w the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s :

1.

All ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e m a l e .

2.

All ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t

3.

ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t r e s p o n d e n t s r a n g e d in age from fortyone

years

percent

of

age

forty-one

to
to

respondents were w h i t e .

o ver
fifty

sixty

y ears

y e a r s ; 53.6

of

age

percent

(39.3
fifty-

one to s i x t y y e a r s ; 7 .1 p e r c e n t over s i x t y y e a r s .
4.

ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t r e s p o n d e n t s ’ formal e d u c a t i o n r a n g e d
from

a

m a s t e r ’s

degree

(19.7

degree

percent)

(35.7
to

p e r c e n t );

a

doctoral

ed

specialist

degree

(44.6

p e r c e n t ).
5.

ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t r e s p o n d e n t s ’ years of e m p l o y m e n t
t heir

present

ISD

position

yea r to t w e n t y - e i g h t y e a r s .
of e m p l o y m e n t
was

9.4

for a

ranged

from

less

t han

in
one

The a v e r a g e n u m b e r of years

superintendent

y e a r s , h o w e v e r , the

most

in his

present

frequently

ISD

reported

n u m b e r of y ears of s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s e r v i c e was one y e a r ,
a n d the m e d i a n was nine years.

124
6.

ISD

superintendent

constituent
ra n g e

of

respondents

districts

within

have

their

constituent districts

a

number

of

ISD d i s t r i c t .

within

an

The

ISD d i s t r i c t

was two c o n s t i t u e n t d i s t r i c t s to t h i r t y - f o u r c o n s t i t u e n t
districts.

The a v e r a g e n u m b e r of c o n s t i t u e n t d i s t r i c t s

within

ISD

an

district

frequently

reported

within

ISD

an

was

number

was

four;

9.7;
of

and

however,

constituent
the

median

the

mos t

districts
wa s

e ight

constituent districts.

C o m m e n t s R e l a t e d to the S t u d y
The r e s p o n s e s f rom b o a r d m e m b e r s an d s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s to
the r e q u e s t on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e to pose a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s
or

to p r e s e n t

comments

were c o m p i l e d .
and

two

an d s u g g e s t i o n s

regarding

this

study

No a t t e m p t was m a d e to a n a l y z e the s t a t e m e n t s

conditions

were

used

to

eliminate

statements:

(1 )

s t a t e m e n t s w h i c h m i g h t v i o l a t e the r e s e a r c h e r ’s c o m m i t m e n t to
conf i d e n t i a l i t y ,

an d

duplicated.

intent

The

(2 )
of

any

statements

list i n g

considered

the f o l l o w i n g

is

to
to

the range of c o m m e n t s :
"There is a n e e d to i n c rease the role of I S D ss to
h e l p s m a l l e r d i s t r i c t s m eet the e d u c a t i o n a l n eeds
of s t u d e n t s ."
"State m a n d a t e d p r o g r a m s , e s p e c i a l l y
education,
are
becoming
a
severe
p r o b l e m - - s h o u l d be state f u n d e d ."

in special
f i n a ncial

"How m a n y b o a r d m e m b e r s ca n r e a l l y r e a d a n d
u n d e r s t a n d a b u d g e t p r o c e s s , let a l o n e d e t e r m i n e
the r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of the r e p o r t e d costs."
"Need to fin d n e w ways to supp o r t the b u d g e t . "

be

sho w

125
"All
of
ISD
i n i t i a t i v e ."

directions

should

be

by

local

"Respect for l ocal D i s t r i c t . "
"Common
sense
d e c i s i o n s ."

goes

a

long

way

in

making

" E s t a b l i s h i n g I S D ’s mission, p u r p o s e an d g o a l s a n d
c o m m u n i c a t i n g t h e m is e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t for
s taff a n d c o n s t i t u e n t s . "
"Most i m p o r t a n t is the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the
ISD a n d local sc h o o l d i s t r i c t s a n d w h a t s e r vices
s h o u l d the ISD p r o v i d e . "
"We n e e d to t r y to i m p r o v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n wit h
p a r e n t s a n d c h i l d r e n on school r e l a t e d p r o b l e m s . "
"High d e g r e e of i n t e r e s t in s c h o o l b o a r d w o r k whe n
controversy appears."
"Give m o r e m o n e y for p r o grams,
fringes g e t t i n g out of c o n t r o l . "

salaries,

and

"Our b o a r d u n d e r s t o o d t hese area s . "
"Some r e s p o n s e s m a y s e e m low b e c a u s e our d i s t r i c t
does not h ave p r o b l e m s in t hese areas, if we h ave
problems, t h e y w o u l d h a v e a h i g h e r p r i o r i t y . "
"We mus t u n d e r s t a n d p r o b a b l e e x p a n s i o n of role of
ISD. "
"E v e r y ISD is d i f f e r e n t w i t h d i f f e r e n t n e e d s ,
p r i o r i t i e s , r e s o u r c e s a n d p o l i t i c s - - t h e r e is no
one w a y of h o w b o a r d s o p e r a t e ."
"Serv i c e rol e vs m o n i t o r i n g
"Present
law
a n t i q u a t e d ."

requires

role."

budget

hearing

"Is the role of the ISD c h a n g i n g
ac c i d e n t ?
Who will b e n e f i t ? "

by

and

design

is

or

" W h o , w h a t a n d w h y ISD?
L e t *s c h a n g e the n a m e to
r e f l e c t w h a t we ar e a n d w h a t we d o .
W h o does
r e g ional long t e r m p l a n n i n g ."
" I S D ’s are the S t a t e 's c o n d u i t for e q u a l i z i n g
d e f i c i e n c i e s in p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n b u t we n e e d mor e
S t a t e c o o p e r a t i o n a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g ."

126
" U n d e r s t a n d the p o l i t i c s b e h i n d I S D ’s."
"How m a n y times has the S t a t e o v e r t u r n e d p r o p e r t y
t r a n s f e r ."
"Under p r e s e n t practice, it is a w a s t e of time for
I S D ’s to c o n d u c t p r o p e r t y transfers; a l s o c o s t l y
a n d p uts I S D ’s in b a d light."
"Sho u l d not do p r o p e r t y t ransfer."
"Board d e c i s i o n s
u s e l e s s ."

on p r o p e r t y t r a n s f e r are a l m o s t

"What p r o g r a m s are the I S D ’s r e s p o n s i b l e for an d
h o w p r o g r a m s o p e r a t e - - ' o n s i t e ’ or 'in h o u s e . ’"
"The Skill C e n t e r
for our boar d . "

is the

mos t

important

concern

"In rural d i s t r i c t s , the ISD wil l s erve as a
leader a n d p l a y a m o r e i m p o r t a n t r ole in d e a l i n g
wit h small school p r o g r a m s ."
"We n e e d to d e v e l o p a n d r e v i e w b o a r d s ’ b y - l a w s ."
"My t h i n k i n g
s e r v i c e ."

is

'colored’

by

my

local

board

"School b o a r d s s h o u l d p ick g o o d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s an d
a l l o w t h e m to do their job w i t h o u t u n d u e b o a r d
i n t e r f e r e n c e ."
"How to m o v e b o a r d s from p r o v i n c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e
to w a r d b e n e f i t s of c o l l e c t i v e e f f o r t a n d v a l u e of
c o n c e r n for the b i g g e r e d u c a t i o n a r e n a ."
"With a st r o n g s u p e r i n t e n d e n t a n d b o a r d r e p r e s e n ­
ta t i v e of all y o u r d i stricts, an ISD b o a r d can do
a g o o d job."
"A b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n is o n l y a p o l i c y m a k i n g
g r o u p e l e c t e d b y the p e o p l e of t h e i r d i s t r i c t ;
the y s h o u l d h i r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s to do the d a y to
d a y a n d if t h e y do n ’t perform,
r e p l a c e them,
r e g a r d l e s s of h o w m a n y d e g r e e s t h e y h a v e ."
"No s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s h o u l d h ave his 'yes m e n ’ that
he c o n t a c t s on c o n t r o v e r s i a l m a t t e r s so he k n o w s
he has a m a j o r i t y vote."
"The s u p e r i n t e n d e n t has
some of t hese area s . "

more

responsibility

in

127
"Hire a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h skills that k e e p a b r e a s t
of d i s t r i c t needs."
"Our b o a r d is all former local b o a r d members.
We
n e e d pe o p l e f r o m b u s i n e s s a n d i n d u s t r y t hat are
i n t e r e s t e d in spec i a l e d u c a t i o n a n d t e c h n o l o g y on
the b o a r d . "
"If
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’s
function
is
effective,
c e r t a i n b o a r d f u n c t i o n s are m i n i m i z e d — e m p l o y the
b e s t a d m i n i s t r a t o r availa b l e . "
"ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s e l e c t i o n is o f t e n in-house,
h a n d p i c k e d w i t h o u t w i d e - b a s e d ' s e a r c h ’ ."
"I w o u l d like to see s u p e r i n t e n d e n t a n d b o a r d
e v a l u a t e d b y t e a c h e r s a n d other p e r s o n n e l ."
"Need
for
evaluation
on
decision
based
on
community, are a schools and ISD i n v o l v e m e n t ."
"P roblems an d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . "
"Developing
threatening
"The PA C
b o a r d ."

skills takes m ore time
t han s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . "

approves

the

special

ed

bu t

is

p l a n , no t

less

the

"It is not the b o a r d ’s job to set a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
s a l a r i e s ."
" D e aling
job."

with

"Board m e m b e r s
table."

controversy

should

not

"The long t erm m e m b e r s h i p
b i g con c e r n . "

is

an

administrative

be

at

the

bargaining

of b o a r d m e m b e r s

" Need to get ' g o o d ’ p e o p l e to serve on
b e c a u s e of the p r e s s u r e s put on t h e m ."

is

a

boards

"Set a limit on h o w m a n y y e a r s / t e r m s b o a r d m e m b e r s
ca n s e r v e ."
"Why sh o u l d p o p u l a r l y e l e c t e d ISD b o a r d s r e q u i r e
such a h i g h n u m b e r of s i g n a t u r e s for n o m i n a t i n g
p e t i t i o n s ."
" C o u n t y school b o a r d a s s o c i a t i o n s
a c t i v e in m o s t c o u n t i e s . "

are

not

very

128
"Have s u g g e s t e d that M A S B s p o n s o r a c o n f e r e n c e for
I S D ’s a l o n e to dea l w i t h issues that are s p e c i f i c
to the ISD."
"Most c o n f e r e n c e s do not c a t e r to I S D ’s."
"Strengthening
is im p o r t a n t . "

county

school

board

associations

" M A S B ’s are too far away."
" D o n ’t feel s t a t e a s s o c i a t i o n
much for ISD b o a r d s . "

conferences

offer

"Many i n s e r v i c e s c u r r e n t l y b e i n g p r o v i d e d serve
to a l i e n a t e b o a r d / a d m i n i s t r a t o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . "

Summary
D ata c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the c o u r s e of this s t u d y h a v e been
p r e s e n t e d in this chapter.

All c o m p u t a t i o n s w e r e b a s e d on the

r es p o n s e s from the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e t u r n e d b y ISD school b o a r d
m e m b e r s an d ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s .
to

each

of

s p e cific

the

research

purpose.

The

The r e s u l t s w e r e p r e s e n t e d

questions
findings

which were

identified

generated by a

the h i e r a r c h y

b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s for ISD b o a r d members;
b o a r d m e m b e r s ’ use of d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s

of

i d e n t i f i e d the

to m e e t

t heir own

b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t needs; i d e n t i f i e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s of p e r c e i v e d
board development needs

to c e r t a i n v ariables,

n a m e l y gender,

t enure of b o a r d s e r v i c e an d g e o g r a p h i c location; a n d d e v e l o p e d
a

comprehensive

findings,
furt h e r

profile

conclusions

research

in C h a p t e r V.

an d

developed

of

the

ISD

di s c u s s i o n ,
from

t hese

board
and

member.

The

suggestions

for

results

are

discussed

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, C O N C L U S I O N S A N D D I S C U SSION,
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND
REFLECTIONS UPON THE STUDY

This c h a p t e r c o n t a i n s a s u m m a r y of the study,
conclusions and discussion,

suggestions

findings,

for f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h

a n d r e f l e c t i o n s u p o n the study.

Summary
T his

study

information

was

on w h i c h

initiated
sound

out

of

inservice

a

desire

education

to

provide

programs

for

school b o a r d s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r m e d i a t e sc h o o l d i s t r i c t (I S D )
boards,

in

the

c onducted.
analysis

S tate

ISD b o a r d s

the

ISD

educational
informed

and

role

has

be

designed

lit t l e

rarely been

an d

systematic
mentioned

d i s c u s s i o n s a n d d e b a t e s at the s t a t e level

board

system

could

received very

t heir

in the m a n y n a t i o n a l

Yet,

Michigan,

h ave

or a ttention;

in rec e n t actions,
or

of

is
in

skillful

reports

on e d u c a t i o n

a

vehicle

the

S tate

governing

used
of

body,

for

in the

1 9 8 0 ’s.

governing

M i c higan.

To

exercising

be

the
an

leadership

for the e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m of t h e i r c o m m u n i t y a n d c o n s t i t u e n t
d i stricts,
The

there is a n e e d for t h e i r own d e v e l o p m e n t .
purposes

of

this

study

were

(1)

to

determine

the

b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s of i n t e r m e d i a t e s c h o o l b o a r d m e m b e r s
for

future

board

development

129

p r o grams,

as

perceived

by

130
currently

serving

determine

the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t needs of i n t e r m e d i a t e school

board

members

perceived

for

by

by

future

(3)

to

intermediate

development
perceived

needs;

board

characteristics
geographic

school

board

presently

superintendents;
used

intermediate

development

employed

determine

school
(4)

b o a r d members;

boards

to

different

to

meet

determine

development

needs

programs,

intermediate

the

the

to

(2 ) to

school

approaches

their

own

board

relationships

certain

as

of

demographic

such as g e n d e r , te n u r e of b o a r d s e r v i c e , and

location;

an d

(5)

to

develop

a

p r o f i l e of i n t e r m e d i a t e school b o a r d m e m b e r s

comprehensive
ir. the State of

Michigan.
It

was intended

application

to e ach

that

of

the

the s t u d y

would

hav e

a

f o l l o w i n g : (1 ) p r o v i d e

direct
knowledge

an d c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n for p l a n n i n g future b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
programs;

(2 ) p r o v i d e

identification

of

specific

topics

as

p e r c e i v e d b y ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s an d ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s for use
in

planning

additional

board

development

information

m a k i n g ; and

(4)

toward

increase

the

p r o g r a m s ; (3)

improvement

of

interest

board

in

contribute

board

decision

development

for i n t e r m e d i a t e sch o o l b o a r d m e m b e r s at the l o c a l , state and
national association l e v e l s .
Research
was designed
development

questions

for

this

n eeds

of

were

study

generated
to

intermediate

an d

assess
school

a

questionnaire

the p e r c e i v e d
board

board

m e m b e r s , to

i n v e s t i g a t e the d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s u s e d b y ISD school boards
in t h e i r ow n b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t , to d e t e r m i n e the r e l a t i o n s h i p

131
of p e r c e i v e d b o a r d

development

needs

to c e r t a i n

demographic

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a n d to d e v e l o p a c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r o f i l e of ISD
board members

in the S t a t e of Michigan.

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t e d of f o r t y items r e l a t i n g to
board

development

relating

to

the

development

The

questionnaire

different

such

activities,
development

needs.

as

o r i e n tation,

required
policy.

approaches

gather

used

for

participation

inservice

To

included

education,

personal

items
board

in

and

MAS B
board

information used

to

d e v e l o p a c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r o f i l e of the ISD b o a r d m e m b e r , the
questionnaire

included

used annually by

items

the A m e r i c a n

of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ar e
The

similar

population

Sch o o l

to

the

Board

national
Journal.

survey
Copies

in A p p e n d i x B .

selected

for

the

s t u d y was

318

elected

or a p p o i n t e d b o a r d m e m b e r s c u r r e n t l y serv i n g on i n t e r m e d i a t e
bo a r d s of e d u c a t i o n in the S t a t e of M i c h i g a n a n d f i f t y - s e v e n
presently
dents .
an
the

ISD

employed

intermediate

school

district

superinten­

C u r r e n t ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s h i p or p r e s e n t e m p l o y m e n t in
superintendent

1988-89

position

in the

State

of M i c h i g a n

for

school y e a r w e r e the d e l i m i t i n g c r i t e r i a u s e d in

the s e l e c t i o n of p a r t i c i p a n t s .
The

mailing

introductory

of

the

le t t e r

with

questionnaire

was

endorsement

from

preceded
the

by

an

Michigan

A s s o c i a t i o n of Sc h o o l B o a r d s a n d the M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of
Intermediate

Sc h o o l

questionnaire

and

mailed during

the w e e k

an

Administrators
accompanying
of M a r c h

(Appendix

le t t e r

22,1989.

E ).

(A p p e n d i x

The

D ) were

A second mailing

132
to n o n - r e s p o n d e n t s o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the w e e k of A p r i l 17, 1989.
The overall p a r t i c i p a t i o n was 252 b o a r d m e m b e r r e s p o n s e s (79.2
percent)

and

percent).

fifty-six

In all,

superintendent

responses

(98.2

308 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e r e c e i v e d — an 82.3

p e r c e n t rate of return.
The a n a l y s i s of the o b t a i n e d d a t a for b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
needs

perceived

as

important

by

ISD

board

members

and

ISD

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s was d e t e r m i n e d b y a b s o l u t e frequency, r e l a t i v e
f r e q u e n c y , and the m e d i a n .
to

determine

frequencies

a

rank

wer e u s e d

T h e s e m e a s u r e s w e r e t hen c o m p a r e d

order.

to d e t e r m i n e

u s e d for b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t .
tau

b

analysis

perceived

board

wer e

central

used

absolute
the

to

measure

needs

and

Frequencies, with

tendency,

were

used

to

and

different

The C h i - s q u a r e

development

characteristics.

The

relative
approaches

test a n d K e n d a l l

the

relationship

certain

demographic

appropriate
analyze

of

measure

the

of

personal

i n f o r m a t i o n of b o a r d m e m b e r s .
The
as b e i n g
1.

fol l o w i n g

limitations

i n h erent in this

were

indicated

in

Chapter

I

study:

D a t a for this s t u d y w e r e c o l l e c t e d b y m a i l e d

question­

n a i r e s , t h e r e f o r e o n l y r e p o r t e d i n f o r m a t i o n is included.
2.

D a t a w ere c o l l e c t e d vi a m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , t h e r e f o r e
the r e s e a r c h e r h a d to a s s u m e that the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was
r ead an d a n s w e r e d honestly.

3.

The

s t u d y d ealt

with

the

perceptions

of b o a r d

members

a n d s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s in o f f i c e at the time of the study.

133
4.

The

study

weaknesses

was

descriptive

inherent

in

nature

and

subject

to

in d e s c r i p t i v e research.

Findings
In the f o l l o w i n g section,

s t u d y f i n d i n g s are presented.

Th e r e a d e r is r e m i n d e d t hat the f i n d i n g s are b a s e d s o l e l y u p o n
the

responses

of

ISD

boardmembers

fro m the S tate of M i c h i g a n .

and

ISD

superintendents

Any conclusions

d r a w n f rom this

s t u d y m u s t be w i t h i n this d e l i m i t a t i o n .
S p e c i f i c P u r p o s e # l - - T o d e t e r m i n e the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t
ne e d s

of

intermediate

development

programs

school b o a r d m e m b e r s
as

perceived

by

for

currently

future

board

serving

ISD

board m e m b e r s .
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 1.1.
needs
most

do

currently

serving

What specific board development
ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s

perceive

to be

important?
Findings:

ISD

board

members

perceived

seven

board

d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s to be " e x t r e m e l y impor t a n t " g oals for future
ISD b o a r d

inservice

education

programs

(Ta b l e s

1-7).

The

s e v e n n e e d s were:
1.
2.

"Building a permanent
"Improving

b a s e of c o m m u n i t y support."

communication

with

constituent

school

b o a r d s ."
3.

"Influencing State Legislature."

4.

" C o m p l y i n g w i t h s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l laws a n d r e g u l a t i o n s . "

5.

"Responding
d i s t r i c t s ."

to

the

needs

of

constituent

school

134
6.

"Selecting a superintendent."

7.

"Evaluating a superintendent."
S p e c i f i c P u r p o s e # 2 --To d e t e r m i n e the b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t

ne e d s

of

intermediate

d e v e l o p m e n t programs,

school

board members

for

future

board

as p e r c e i v e d b y p r e s e n t l y e m p l o y e d ISD

superintendents.
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 2.1.
needs

do

be mos t

presently

employed

What specific board development
ISD

superintendents

perceive

to

important?

Findings:

ISD

superintendents

perceived

eight

board

d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s to be " e x t r e m e l y important" g oals for future
ISD

board

inservice

education

programs

(Ta b l e s

1-7).

The

eight n e e d s were:
1.

"Bu i l d i n g a p e r m a n e n t bas e of c o m m u n i t y s u p p o r t ."

2.

"I m p r o v i n g

communication

with

constituent

school

b o a r d s ."

3.

"I n f l u e n c i n g S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e ."

4.

"Lobbying

with

other

school

boards

for

adequate

state

f u n d s ."
5.

"Responding

to

the

needs

of

constituent

school

d i s t r i c t s ."
6.

" S e l e c t i n g a s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ."

7.

" E v a l u a t i n g a s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ."

8.

"Understanding

administrative

r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s , and

p r o c e d u r e s vs p o l i c y f o r m u l a t i o n a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . "
Research Question
currently

serving

ISD

2.2.

Is

t here

a difference

board m e m b e r s ’ and presently

between
employed

135
ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s of b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t nee d s ?
Findings:
as

groups,

development

both

ISD b o a r d

members

perceived

thirty-three

needs

as b e i n g

and

important

i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n programs.

ISD

superintendents,

of

goals

the
for

forty

board

future

board

In a dua l c o m p a r i s o n ,

e i g h t of

the items w e r e r a n k e d in the top ten b y b o t h b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d
superintendents

(T a b l e 8 ),

The e i g h t a r e a s w e r e :

1.

" B u ilding a p e r m a n e n t bas e of c o m m u n i t y s u p p o r t ."

2.

"I m p r o v i n g

communication

with

constituent

school

b o a r d s ."
3.

"I n f l u e n c i n g S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e ."

4.

" L o bbying

with

other

school

boards

for

adequate

s tate

funds ."
5.

"R e s p o n d i n g

to

the

needs

of

constituent

school

d i s t r i c t s ."
6.

"Sele c t i n g a s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ."

7.

"Evaluating a superintendent."

8.

" U n d e r s t a n d i n g b o a r d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ."
Specific

approaches

Purpose

used by

#3--To

intermediate

determine
sc h o o l

the

boards

different

to m e e t

t heir

o wn b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s .
Research

Question

3.1.

Ho w

many

ISD

boards

have

an

established board development policy with budget resources?
Findings:
of the
ment

S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s r e p o r t e d t hat t h r e e - f o u r t h s

ISD b o a r d s d i d not hav e an e s t a b l i s h e d b o a r d d e v e l o p ­

policy

with

budget

resources.

Of

these

who

indicated

t h e y d i d hav e an e s t a b l i s h e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t policy,

close

136
to

half

did

not

include

budget

resources

with

the

policy

(Tables 9-10).
Research

Question

3.2.

How many

ISD

boards

have

a

formal o r i e n t a t i o n f o r n e w b o a r d m e m b e r s ?
Findings:
formal
those

O v e r hal f of the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s

orientation
wh o

hav e

is

no

provided

fo r m a l

new

for

new

member

board

reported a

members.

orientation,

ove r

Of
half

c i t e d an i n f ormal o r i e n t a t i o n was s u f f i c i e n t or a d e q u a t e for
new board members
Research
receive

(T a b l e

1 1 ).

Question

a formal

3.3.

orientation

How many

when

ISD

board

members

initially becoming

an

ISD

board member?
Findings:

O v e r h a l f of the ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s

reported

that t h e y d i d not r e c e i v e a formal o r i e n t a t i o n w h e n b e c o m i n g
a

new

ISD

orientation

board
as

available.

a

new

Fo r m a l

superintendents
orientation

member.

for

(Ta b l e s

They

board

did

member

orientation
those

not

wh o

receive

because

was

did

a

it

provided

receive

a

new

formal

was

not

by

the

member

12-13).

It s h o u l d be n o t e d that in c o n t r a s t i n g r e s p o n s e s b e t w e e n
Research
board

Questions

members

are

3.2

and

3.3,

perceiving

the

data

orientation

may

suggest

that

differently

than

superintendents perceive o r i entation.
Research

Question

p a r t i c i p a t e d in the
Findings:
the

1988

3.4.

How many

ISD

board

members

M A S B A c a d e m y of B o a r d s m a n s h i p ?

O v e r h a l f of the b o a r d m e m b e r s d i d no t a t t e n d

1988 M A S B A c a d e m y of B o a r d s m a n s h i p .

Of t h e s e , ove r hal f

137
cited

" s c hedule

conflict,"

"no

the reason for no t a t t e n d i n g
Research

Question

p a r t i c i p a t e d in the
Findings.
not

attend

the

Michigan.
t i m e ," an d
(T a b l e

3.5.

"work c o n f l i c t "

as

14).

How

many

board

members

O v e r t w o - t h i r d s of the ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s di d

these,

Annual

half

"work c o n f l i c t "

Conference

cited
as

in G r a n d R a p i d s ,

" s chedule

the

reasons

c o n f l i c t ,"

for not

"no

attending

15).
Research

Question

p a r t i c i p a t e d in the
Findings:
did

(Table

or

1988 M A S B A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e ?

1988 M A S B

Of

time,"

not

attend

3.6.

How

many

board

members

1989 M A S B M i d w i n t e r C o n f e r e n c e ?

Over three-fourths
the

ISD

1989

of the ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s

Midwinter

Conference.

They

cited

"s c h e d u l e c o n f l i c t ," "no t i m e ," a n d "vacation" as r e a s o n s for
not a t t e n d i n g

(T a b l e

Research

16) .

Question

p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e i r
Findings:

3.7.

How

many

board

members

local c o u n t y school b o a r d a s s o c i a t i o n ?

A large m a j o r i t y a t t e n d e d p r o g r a m s s p o n s o r e d

by the local c o u n t y sc h o o l b o a r d a s s o c i a t i o n in the last y e a r .
Of

the

few

board

members

wh o

did

not

p r o g r a m s , the r e a s o n was b e c a u s e

t here

a s s o c i a t i o n in t h e i r a r e a

17).

(T a b l e

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 3.8.

positively
indicated

to

Over
this

inservice

half

any

local

is not a c o u n t y b o a r d

H o w m a n y ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s think

ins e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n for b o a r d m e m b e r s
Findings:

attend

of

question
education

the

board

(T a b l e
for

s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d ?
members

18).

board

responded

Board

members

members

should

be

138
r e q u i r e d b e c a u s e b o a r d m e m b e r s w o u l d be m ore effective, b e t t e r
decision
reason

m a k e r s , and
why

according
this

understand

inservice

to

the

question,

e n c o u r a g e d , not

education

board
was

the

members

that

role

should

who

no t

be

responded

inservice

3.9.

ISD.

The

required,

negatively

education

should

How many superintendents

i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n for b o a r d m e m b e r s
Findings:

Over

responded

positively

tendents

indicated

be

the

to
be

" r e q u i r e d ."

Research Question

should

of

two-thirds

to

this

required

to

help

r o l e , r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , an d
responded

negatively

education

for

board

to

of

the

for

members

functions.
question

should

superintendents

(T able

education

board

this

members

s h o u l d be req u i r e d ?

question

inservice

not

18).

Superin­

board

members

understand

t heir

Superintendents
indicated
be

who

inservice

required

i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be e n c o u r a g e d , not
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 3.10.

think

because

" r e q u i r e d ."

Is there a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n

b o a r d m e m b e r s ’ a n d s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s as to w h e t h e r
inservice education
Findings:
members

was

not

for b o a r d m e m b e r s

Required

s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d ?

inservice

significantly

education

differently

ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s an d ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s
Specific Purpose
perceived

board

characteristics
geographic

for

perceived
(T a b l e

board
between

19).

#4--To d e t e r m i n e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s

development

n eeds

to

certain

of

demographic

such as g e n d e r , ten u r e of b o a r d s e r v i c e , a n d

location.

139
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s 4.1-4.6 w ere m e a s u r e d for s t a t i s t i c a l
s i g n i f i c a n c e an d p r a c t i c a l
note

the

following

significance.

f i n dings

report

It is im p o r t a n t to

ei t h e r

s i g n i f i c a n c e or p r a c t i c a l significance.

a

st a t i s t i c a l

The use of p r a c t i c a l

s i g n i f i c a n c e is a v a l u e j u d g m e n t of the researcher;
a s t a t i s t i c a l decision.
what

proportion

of

it is not

The p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e wil l show

the

variability

in

outcomes

can

be

a t t r i b u t e d to the h y p o t h e s i z e d relationship.
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4.1.

Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

p e r c e i v e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n eeds and gender?
Findings:
ship

between

(T a b l e

T h e r e was no p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n ­

perceived

board

development

n eeds

an d

gender

2 0 ).
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4.2.

p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the
Findings:
relationship

Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

1988 M A S B A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e a n d gend e r ?
There

between

Conference and gender

was

no

participation
(T a b l e

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4.3.

practical
in

the

1988

significant
MASB

Ann u a l

21).
Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

p e r c e i v e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n eeds a n d tenure of b o a r d service?
Findings:

T h e r e was no p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n ­

ship b e t w e e n p e r c e i v e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n eeds an d tenure of
board service

(Table 22).

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4.4.
participation

in the

of b o a r d service?

1988

Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

MASB Annual

Conference

an d

tenure

140
Findings:
relationship

There

between

was

no

statistically

participation

Conference and tenure

in

of b o a r d s e r v i c e

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4.5.

the

significant

1988

MASB

(Table 23).

Is t h e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

perceived board development needs and geographic
Findings:
relationship
geographic

There

between

location

was

in

the

practical

board

loc a t i o n ?
significant

development

needs

an d

24).

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4.6.
participation

no

perceived
(Table

An n u a l

1988

Is t h e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

Annual

Conference

and

geographic

location?
Findings:

T h e r e wa s no p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n ­

s hip b e t w e e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the 1988 M A S B A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e
an d g e o g r a p h i c

location

(Table

25).

S p e c i f i c p u r p o s e #5 - - T o d e v e l o p a c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r o f i l e
of ISD school b o a r d members.
Research Question
the

comprehensive

comprehensive

5.1.

profile

profile

of

Is
of

the

there

ISD

a similarity between

board

" t ypical"

members
U.S.

and

school

the

board

memb e r ?
Findings:
profile

The M i c h i g a n

is s i m i l a r

in terms of g e n d e r
percent

male);

to the

ISD b o a r d m e m b e r c o m p r e h e n s i v e

"typical"

U.S.

sc h o o l b o a r d m e m b e r

( M i c h i g a n I S D — 73 p e r c e n t male; U . S . - - 6 8 . 1

ethnicity

(Mi c h i g a n

ISD--96.4

U . S . --93.7 p e r c e n t w h i t e ); f a m i l y in c o m e

percent

white;

(Mi c h i g a n I S D - - 3 0 .6

p e r c e n t $60,000 or more; U . S . --36.5 p e r c e n t $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 or more);
m e t h o d of s e l e c t i o n ( M i c h i g a n I S D - - e l e c t i o n ; U .S .- - e l e c t i o n ) ;

141
n u m b e r of b o a r d m e m b e r s

(Michigan ISD--5 or 7 members;

U .S.-

-7 to 8 members).
Differences
t erms of age
-12.6

between

ISD

an d

U.S.

profiles

existed

in

( M i chigan I S D--34.5 p e r c e n t ove r 60 years; U . S . -

percent

over

60

y ears

o l d ) ; education

(Michigan

ISD--

g r a d / p r o f e s s i o n a l degree; U . S .- - c o l l e g e graduate); o c c u p a t i o n
(Michigan I S D - - r e t i r e d ; U . S . - - p r o f e s s i o n a l / m a n a g e r i a l ); years
on school b o a r d
-60.0

percent

I S D - - 7 4 .6

( M ichigan I S D - - 3 7 .7 p e r c e n t 0-5 y e a r s ; U . S .-

0-5

y e a r s );

percent

have

an d

no

children

children

in

in

school

school;

(Michigan
U .S . - - 3 9 .8

p e r c e n t hav e no c h i l d r e n in s c h o o l ) (T a b l e 26).
Research
the

comprehensive

comprehensive
from

Question

the

profile

profile

Central

5.2.

of

Region

Is there
of

the

ISD

a similarity

board

"typical"

members

school

between
and

board

the

member

(I l l i n o i s , I n d i a n a , I o w a , Kentucky,

M i c h i g a n , M i n n e s o t a , O h i o , W i s c o n s i n )?
Findings:
similar

to

the

The

Michigan

profile

f r o m the C e n t r a l R e g i o n

of

the

ISD

board

"typical"

member
school

in terms of g e n d e r

profile

is

board member

(Michigan ISD--73

p e r c e n t m a l e ; C e n t r a l - - 6 7 .2 p e r c e n t m a l e ); e t h n i c i t y (M i c h i g a n
I S D - - 9 6 .4
family

percent

income

C e n t r a l - - 3 3 .4
existed

w h i t e ; C e n t r a l - - 9 6 .4

(M i c h i g a n
percent

in terms

of ag e

I S D - - 3 0 .6
$ 60, 0 0 0

or

(Michigan

percent

w h i t e );

percent

$60,000

m o r e ).

The

or

and

more;

difference

I S D - - 3 4 .5 p e r c e n t

over

60

y e a r s is the p r e d o m i n a n t age g r o u p ; C e n t r a l - - 4 3 .4 p e r c e n t are
41-50 y ears old,

the p r e d o m i n a n t age g r o u p ) (T a b l e 26).

142
C o n c l u s i o n s an d D i s c u s s i o n
Major

conclusions

are r e p o r t e d
1.

in this

Conclusion:

drawn

from

the

study and discussion

section.

The

rate

of

returned

questionnaires

was

e x t r e m e l y favorable.
Discussion:

Evidence

development

was

questionnaire

of

shown

of

the

by

concern

the

current

for

response

perceptions

board
to

of

d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s an d by a c c o m p a n y i n g c o m m e n t s .

the
board

Of the

375 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n i t i a l l y m a i l e d to ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s
and

ISD

superintendents, a

total

of

278

(74

percent)

were c o m p l e t e d a n d r e t u r n e d w i t h o u t b e n e f i t of a s e c o n d
request.

Results

of

the

survey were

requested by

292

of the p a r t i c i p a n t s .
2.

Conclusion:
ISD

board

R e s u l t s from this s t u d y i n d i c a t e d that b o t h

members

and

ISD

superintendents

identified

c e r t a i n b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s as e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t
for

future

inservice

education

programs.

ISD

board

m e m b e r s a n d ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s do p e r c e i v e the m a j o r i t y
of

board

future

development

ISD b o a r d

Discussion:
was

as

alike--"important"--for

i n s ervice e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s .

On e of the s p e c i f i c p u r p o s e s of the s t u d y

to d e t e r m i n e

members

needs

board development

identified

superintendents.

The

by

both

deg r e e

of

ISD

n eeds

of

ISD b o a r d

board

members

and

agreement

between

ISD

b o a r d m e m b e r s ’ a n d ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s
board

development

n eeds

implies

t hey

are

in

of

harmony.

There w a s a d i f f e r e n c e of r a n k i n g "A s s u r i n g d e l i v e r y of
services" b y ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s .
This

difference

may

services

provided

provide

the
It

the

f un c t i o n s

by

same

districts.
govern

be

has

related

eac h

intermediate
of

constituent

the

ISD

is

and

noted

to

the

not

their

in

the

board

provide

The

widely

since
to

school

districts.

board members

ISD

services
been

to

varied

all

constituent

statutes
that

one

services

responses

I S D ’s

of

to

f rom

which
the

local

both

ISD

ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s c l e a r l y i n d icate

and i m p l y that t h e y are c o n c e r n e d w i t h t heir g o v e r n a n c e
function

as

a defined

area

of b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t

ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s

need.

identified board

d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s w h i c h c o n c u r w i t h the e f f e c t i v e b o a r d
indicators,
Leadership
implies
for

found
study,

t here

becoming

are
an

by

the

referred

Institute
to

in

appropriately

improved

and

of

Educational

Chapter

defined

effective

II.

areas

This

of n e e d

board.

Board

d e v e l o p m e n t s h o u l d be p l a n n e d to m e e t the s p e c i f i c needs
i d e n t i f i e d in the s t u d y .
Conclusion:
locally

Participating

was

regarding

the

the

in

preference

approaches

used

activities

of

ISD

to m e e t

board
their

sponsored
members
own board

development.
Discussion:

T h e r e are d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s a n d v a r i o u s

delivery methods
such

as

board

to m e e t

the board* s d e v e l o p m e n t needs

development

policy,

ori e n t a t i o n ,

state

144
board

association

programs.

The

c o n f e rences,

findi n g s

of

and

this

locally

study

do

sponsored

not

supp o r t

these a p p r o a c h e s ex c e p t for l o c a l l y s p o n s o r e d programs,
a n d this

is c o n s i s t e n t

Chapter I I .

with

other

stud i e s

reviewed

in

Thi s implies the v a r i o u s ins e r v i c e d e l i v e r y

m e t h o d s r e q u i r e some c o n s i d e r a t i o n :
a)

Board development policies

s h o u l d be e s t a b l i s h e d

wit h b u d g e t r e s o u r c e s .
b)

B o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t s h o u l d r e l a t e to the p l a c e a n d
time in w h i c h the d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i t y is c a r r i e d
out.

c)

B o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m s s h o u l d be s p o n s o r e d in
a p a r t n e r s h i p a m o n g local a n d s t a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

Conclusion:

B o t h ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d ISD s u p e r i n t e n ­

d ents a g r e e that

i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n for b o a r d m e m b e r s

s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d .
Discussion:
think

It s h o u l d be n o t e d that ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s

inservice

required.
previous

education

H o w e v e r , when

for b o a r d m e m b e r s
compared

research questions

to

the

s h o u l d be

f i n dings

of

r e l a t i n g to b o a r d m e m b e r s ’

p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the State school b o a r d c o n f e r e n c e , this
t h i n k i n g is i n c o n s i s t e n t . C o n s c i e n t i o u s a t t e n t i o n needs
to

be

drawn

" required"

to

the

conflicting

findings

an d

the

word

s h o u l d be d e f i n e d for c l a r i f i c a t i o n .

C o n c l u s i o n : D e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as g e n d e r ,
t enure

of b o a r d

s e r v i c e , and

geographic

location

tend

to hav e no r e l a t i o n s h i p to p e r c e i v e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t

needs

an d

no

relationship

to

attendance

at

the

State

school b o a r d a s s o c i a t i o n confer e n c e .
Discussion:
impact

There

of

various
has

It

"female"

leadership

current

areas

been

studies

tha n

as

a

level

of

responsibilities

of

to

and/or
mal e

a school

board

s e r v i c e ; women

levels

board member

tend

an d

schools

ma y

shed additional

impact

the w o r k i n g s

light
of

on

to

the

sc h o o l

y ears

of

result

in

rol e

are

various

specific

in c e r t a i n

members;

d i f f e r e n t l y than t h e i r u r b a n c o u n t e r p a r t s .
studies

school

bring

s kill

competency;

on

the

women

board

rural

concerning

variables

that

qualities

experience
higher

noted

knowledge

different

been

demographic

boards.

have

have

an d

perceived
W h i l e t hese

factors

tha t

b o a r d s , t h e y do not

imply any r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s
and

g e n d e r , tenure

of

board

service,

and

geographic

location.
Conclusion:
male,

The "typical" M i c h i g a n ISD b o a r d m e m b e r is

white,

average

o ver

income,

60

high

years
level

of

of

age,

retired,

educational

above

attainment,

e l e c t e d , 0-5 y ears of b o a r d s e r v i c e a n d has no c h i l d r e n
in school.
Discussion:

ISD

board

members

have

both

similar

an d

d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f r o m t h o s e of school
board

members

differences
( h i g h e r ),

in

across
age

occupation

the

(o l d e r ),

United

States.

educational

(r e t i r e d ),

and

no

These

attainment
children

in

146
school p o i n t out the u n i q u e n e s s of M i c h i g a n ISD school
board

members.

school

In

boards

c o mmunity.

1927,

reflect

George

the

Counts

social

observed

composition

that

of

the

The n a t i o n a l d a t a of school b o a r d s refl e c t

the fact that b o a r d m e m b e r s are m a l e , w h i t e a n d s o l i d l y
middle c l a s s .

T h e r e are c o n c e r n s a b o u t the c o n t i n u i n g

u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of w o m e n a n d m i n o r i t i e s on b o a r d s ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y as the m i n o r i t y sch o o l p o p u l a t i o n c o n t i n u e s
to

increase.

There

is

reason

for

legitimate

concern

that the s o c i o - e c o n o m i c c o m p o s i t i o n r e f l e c t s a m a j o r i t y
middle-

and

governance
of

the

upper-middle-class

of e d u c a t i o n .

"typical"

remarkably

for

local

The p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

Michigan

consistent

orientation

with

ISD

these

board

member

concerns

are

of m i n o r i t y

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , g e n d e r , and socio-economic o r i e n t a t i o n .

Suggestions
The

following

areas

for F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h
are

recommended

for

further

s tudy

a n d / o r c o u l d a n s w e r c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s that wer e g e n e r a t e d but
not a n s w e r e d :
1.

If

development

programs

that

address

the

needs

i d e n t i f i e d b y thi s s t u d y w e r e d e s i g n e d a n d c a r r i e d o u t ,
a

study

could

be

undertaken

l e a d e r s h i p p e r f o r m a n c e was
2.

to

determine

whether

improved.

B e c a u s e of the d i f f e r e n c e of ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s * an d ISD
superintendents’
the

role

of

the

ranking
media

for
and

the
its

item

"Understanding

influe n c e , "

furt h e r

r e s e a r c h s h o u l d be c o n d u c t e d to i d e n t i f y the p r o c e d u r e s
for m e d i a contact.
B e c a u s e a reas of skills a c k n o w l e d g e d to be n e c e s s a r y in
p e r f o r m i n g the d u t i e s of b o a r d m e m b e r s w ere also a s s u m e d
to be a reas of b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t needs, furt h e r r e s earch
may

be

valuable

to

determine

if

this

assumption

is

valid.
Additional

research

is

needed

on

board

development

p o l i c y a n d the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the policy.
policy

supported?

regularly

for all

assisting

with

Is

board

development

board members?

board

H o w is the

Who

development?

scheduled

are

the

Wha t

experts

additional

r e s o u r c e s are n e e d e d for b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t ?
Additional

research

is n e e d e d

in the a r e a

of

tion , s p e c i f i c a l l y for n e w ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s .
the

responsibility

d e v e l o p i n g , and

for

encouraging

conducting

the

orienta­
Who has

participation,

orientation?

Is

the

orientation effective?
An e x a m i n a t i o n s h o u l d be c o n d u c t e d of state school b o a r d
association
board

and

local

development

county

activities

school

board

an d h o w

these

association
activities

r e l a t e to the p e r c e i v e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t needs of ISD
board m e m b e r s .
A s t u d y s h o u l d b e c o n d u c t e d c o n c e r n i n g the b o a r d memb e r s
who

did

not

activities.

attend

s tate

school

board

association

L i n e s of i n q u i r y s h o u l d include w i t h whom,

148
from whom,

an d u n d e r w h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e s do t h e y d e v e l o p

as b o a r d m e m b e r s .
8.

Inservice

education

"required"

for

according

superintendents.

board

to

ISD

Further

members

board

study

of

should

members
their

be

and

ISD

perceptions

c o n c e r n i n g i m p l e m e n t i n g this r e q u i r e m e n t , h o w to b u d g e t
the

ins e r v i c e

education,

and

how

to

determine

the

c u r r i c u l u m w o u l d be v a l u a b l e .
9.

An

expanded

study

relationship
board

should

between

members

and

board

their

l e v e l , occ u p a t i o n , and
school.

For

be

conducted

concerning

development

age,

whether

e x a m p l e , is t here

needs

educational
they

have

the

of

ISD

attainment
children

a relationship

in

between

p e r c e i v e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s a n d b o a r d m e m b e r s who
hav e

children

in

school

hav e

children

in school?

and

board

members

Pertaining

wh o

do

not

to a g e , is there

a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p e r c e i v e d b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t needs
a n d older b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d y o u n g e r b o a r d m e m b e r s ?
10.

A s t u d y s h o u l d b e c o n d u c t e d c o n c e r n i n g the "uniqueness"
of

serv i n g as an

ISD a n d / o r

l ocal b o a r d m e m b e r .

are the s i m i l a r i t i e s a n d / o r d i f f e r e n c e s
e x p e r i e n c e s an d

Wha t

of local b o a r d

ISD b o a r d e x p e r i e n c e s ?

R e f l e c t i o n s U p o n the S t u d y
The
questions

findings
regarding

perceptions

and conclusions

of

this

ISD b o a r d m e m b e r s ’ a n d

of b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t needs.

study

raise

some

superintendents’

149
F e w b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s gave p r i o r i t y to
the

"Boardsmanship

in c l u d e d

the

human

effective b o a r d .
necessary
relate
t heir

Responsibilities"
elements

inher e n t

in

Thi s

cluster

functioning

as

an

The a s p e c t s of this c l u s t e r r e q u i r e skills

for b o a r d s ’ internal

to p r o c e s s e s
business

cluster.

and

an d

external

environment

i n s t e a d of

to m a k e s p e c i f i c d e c i s i o n s

relating

functioning

in w h i c h b o a r d s
to

and

conduct

information necessary

( e . g . , f i n a n c e , legal c a s e s ).

The

q u e s t i o n i s : are these p e r c e p t i o n s due to the fact that b o a r d s
are p e r f o r m i n g e f f e c t i v e l y in these a reas or are b o a r d m e m b e r s
not p e r c e i v i n g
Another

these a r e a s as a par t of b o a r d l e a d e r s h i p ?
question

perceptions

of

perceptions

influenced

themselves

such

board

as

pertaining
development
by

how

institutional

to

board

needs
board

is:
members

trustees, a

members’
are

t heir

consider

philosophical

o r i e n t a t i o n of f i f t y y ears a g o , or as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of some
(or a l l ) of the c o m m u n i t y or c o n s t i t u e n t d i s t r i c t s , a p r e s e n t
view?
R e f l e c t i n g on the p r o f i l e of the ISD b o a r d m e m b e r , wha t
difference
members’

ca n

personal

perceptions

an d

experience and knowledge?

characteristics
acti o n s

draw

m ake?

Do

board

heavily

fro m

their

Does age a n d len g t h of time on the

board influence board functioning?
in school i n f l u e n c e b o a r d d e c i s i o n s ?

Does not h a v i n g c h i l d r e n
The p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r ­

istics do not d e t e r m i n e g o o d or b a d b o a r d m e m b e r s but do give
an u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h e r e m e m b e r s are c o m i n g

from.

150
A n e f f e c t i v e b o a r d invests in its own deve l o p m e n t , uses
d i v e r s e a p p r o a c h e s w h i c h a d d r e s s the n e e d s of i n d i v i d u a l b o a r d
m e m b e r s a n d the b o a r d as a whole,

a n d as a b eginning,

boards

e s t a b l i s h b o a r d d e v e l o p m e n t as a p o l i c y w ith b u d g e t r e s o u r c e s ,
according

to

the

literature

review.

s t u d y do not s u p p o r t this c o n c e p t .
boards

committed

to

review,

The

f indings

of

this

T h e q u e s t i o n i s : are ISD

reaffirm,

appraise

an d p l a n

for

improved performance?
The f i n dings of this s t u d y r e l a t i n g to p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
state

school

board

association

sponsored

programs

indicate

suc h p a r t i c i p a t i o n is m i n i m a l , t h e r e f o r e one r e f l e c t s that the
activities

hav e

participate.

Taking

opportunities
or

may

planners

be

little

may

a

advantage

remain

group

must

positive

the

of

way s

on

t hese

to

of

however,
motivate

t hose

who

board

prerogative

decision;

f ind

effect

not

development

the

m ore

do

in d i v i d u a l s
importantly,

members

back

into

p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t as it is p r e s e n t l y k n o w n .
School
of

only

planning

boards

have

been

reacting, usually
and

effectively.

being
Continued

accused

in c r i s i s

and

accuse

themselves

s i t u a t i o n s , rather

prepared

rationally

existence

of

school

to
boards

than

function
has

bee n

c h a l l e n g e d a n d t h e y h a v e b e e n a c c u s e d of i m p e d i n g p r o g r e s s in
the

delivery

of

quality

e x p e c t e d to p o s s e s s

education.

School

boards

are

not

the p r o f e s s i o n a l k n o w l e d g e a n d skills of

an e d u c a t i o n a l f i e l d b u t t hey m u s t be an i n f o r m e d a n d skillful
body

exercising

leadership

of

the

c o m m u n i t y an d c o n s t i t u e n t d i s t r i c t s .

school

system

for

the

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
L I S T I N G O F THE M I C H I G A N I N T E R M E D I A T E
SCHOOL DISTRICTS

151
APPENDIX A
MICHIGAN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17 .
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

Allegan
Alpena Montmorency-Alcona
Barry
Bay-Arenac
Berrien
Branch
Calhoun
Charlevoix-Emmet
Clare-Gladwin
Clinton
Cooper County
COOR
C.O.P.
Delta-Schoolcraft
Dickinson-Iron
E a s t e r n U.P.
Eaton
Genesee
Gogebic-Ontonagon
Gratiot-Isabella
Hillsdale
Huron
Ingham
I onia
Iosco
Jackson
Kalamazoo
Kent

29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.

Lapeer
Lenawee
Lewis Cass
Livingston
Macomb
Manistee
Marquette-Alger
Mason-Lake
Mescota-Osceola
Menominee
Midland
Monroe
Montcalm
Muskegon
Newaygo
Oakland
Oceana
Ottawa
Saginaw
St. C l a i r
St. Jo s e p h
Sani l a c
Shiawassee
T r a v e r s e B a y Are a
Tuscola
Va n B u r e n
Washtenaw
W ayne
Wexford-Missaukee

APPENDIX B
BOARD MEMBER AND SUPERINTENDENT QUESTIONNAIRES

APPENDIX B

I

QUESTIONNAIRE

5 . W h a t is y o u r c u r r e n t o c c u p a t i o n ?
r e tir e d
b u s in e s s o w n e r _
c le ric a l

s a le s
s e m i-s k ille d

hom em aker

s e r v ic e
s k ille d t r a d e

la b o r e r
m a n a g e r ia l

13. D id y o u a t t e n d th e 1 9 8 9 M A S B M i d - W i n t e r
C o n f e r e n c e in L a n s in g ? ?
yes

i

[f n o t . p le a s e s t a t e w h y n o t

p ro f e s s io n a l

ISD Board Development
Needs as Perceived by
ISD Board Members

14. H a v e y o u a t t e n d e d p r o g r a m s s p o n s o r e d b y y o u r

o th e r

lo c a l c o u n t y s c h o o l b o a r d a s s o c ia t io n in th e la s t

(p le a s e s p e c if y ) _

y e a r?
yes

6. W h a t is y o u r fa m i l y in c o m e ?
5 3 0 .0 0 0 -3 9 ,9 9 9
5 4 0 .0 0 0 -4 9 .9 9 9

_______
_______

$ 5 0 ,0 0 0 -5 9 ,9 9 9

_______

If n o t , p le a s e s t a t e w h y n o t .

$ 6 0 ,0 0 0 o r m o r e _______

Karen S. D ubow
123 Green Bay Street
M arquette MI 49855
906/249-1320
M A R C H 22. 1989

7 . H o w m a n y c h i l d r e n d o y o u h a v e in th e p u b l i c s c h o o l
s y s te m (K -1 2 ) a t th is tim e ? ___________________________
8. H o w m a n y y e a rs h a v e y o u se rv e d o n a sc h o o l b o a rd ?
IS D b o a r d
lo c a l b o a r d _______
— _______ ( t o t a l y e a r s )

15. A s a n IS D b o a r d m e m b e r , d o y o u t h i n k in s e rv ic e
e d u c a t i o n t o r b o a r d m e m b e r s s h o u l d b e r e q u ir e d
o r n o t?
y es, r e q u i r e d _______

n o , n o t r e q u i r e d ________

If y e s , p le a s e s ta te w h y .

D o y o u p r e s e n tly s e r v e s im u l t a n e o u s l y o n b o t h a n
IS D a n d a lo c a l s c h o o l b o a r d ?
1 0 , H o w w e re y o u i n i ti a ll y s e le c te d t o y o u r IS D

If n o t . p le a s e s t a t e w h y n o t .

b o ard ?
a p p o i n t e d _______

1. A r e y o u m a le o r fe m a le ?
m a le

e l e c t e d __

_____________ i ___

_______

f e m a l e _______

if e le c te d , h o w w e r e y o u e le c te d ?

W h ite
B la ck

______
_______

H is p a n ic

_______

b y c o n s t i t u e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s _______
11. D id y o u a t t e n d a n y o f th e 1988 M A S B A c a d e m ie s
yes

.

If y e s , p r o v i d e d b y w h o m ?
s u p e r in t e n d e n t

no

(

___________ 4______

_______

^ ^

O th e r
(p le a s e s p e c ify )

y es

o f B o a r d s m a n s h ip ?

A m e r ic a n I n d ia n _______
A s ia n A m e r ic a n

16. D id y o u r e c e iv e a f o r m a l o r i e n t a ti o n w h e n y o u
b e c a m e a n e w IS D b o a r d m e m b e r ?

b y p o p u l a r v o t e _______

2 . W h a t is y o u r e th n ic o rig in ?

_________________

If n o t . p le a s e s t a t e w h y n o t .

_

b o a r d p r e s id e n t
b o a r d c o m m i t te e
o t h e r ________________

3 . W h a t is y o u r a g e ?
less t h a n 30

_

31-40 y e a r s
4 1 -5 0 y e a r s

_
_

5 1 -6 0 y e a r s _
o v e r 60 y e a rs_

C o n f e r e n c e in G r a n d R a p id s ?

W h a t is y o u r h ig h e s t e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t ?
less t h a n h ig h s c h o o l
_______
h ig h s c h o o l d i p l o m a
_______
p o s t- h ig h s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n

If n o t . p le a s e s t a t e w h y n o t .
12. D id y o u a t t e n d th e 1988 M A S B A n n u a l

_______

a s s o c ia te d e g r e e
( j u n i o r / c o m m u n i ty c o lle g e )

_______

c o lle g e d e g r e e

_______

g r a d u a t e / p r o f e s s i o n a l d e g r e e _______

yes
no
________________________

___
-iw- ______

If n o t , p le a s e s t a t e w h y n o t .

152

D I R E C T I O N S : For ite m s 1-16 please c h ec k
th e resp o n se th a t b e st a n sw e rs th e q u e stio n .

i

less t h a n 5 3 0 ,0 0 0 _______

D ire c tio n s : T h e f o llo w in g a r e a s , g r o u p e d u n d e r s e v e n
c lu s te r s , r e la t e to IS D b o a r d r e s p o n s ib ilitie s . U s in g th e
s c a le b e lo w , p le a s e c irc le th e n u m b e r w h i c h re p r e s e n ts

2 8 . A c h ie v in g

1 “ n o t im p o rta n t
2 s a a l i ttle i m p o r t a n t

e q u ity

d is tr ib u tio n

of

3

5

fin a n c ia l

4 4 . D e a lin g w i t h c o n t r o v e r s y
1

1

2

29. C o n d u c tin g a n n u a l
o p e r a tin g b u d g e t
1

3 a sim p o rta n t

in

re s o u rc e s

th e d e g r e e o f i m p o r t a n c e y o u a t t a c h t o e a c h a s g o a ls f o r
f u t u r e IS D b o a r d in -s e r v ic e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s .

B O A R D S M A N S H IP R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S

F IN A N C I A L R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S

4

h e a rin g

fo r

2

3

4

5

4 5 . D e v e lo p in g h u m a n r e la t io n s s k ills

g e n e ra l

fu n d

1

2

3

4

5

4 6 . D e v e lo p in g s e l f - e v a l u a ti o n s f o r b o a r d s o f e d u c a t i o n

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

4 7 . D e v e lo p in g s k ills f o r s t r a t e g ic p l a n n i n g

4 = v e ry im p o rta n t

3 0 . E n s u rin g a d e q u a t e t l o w o f f i n a n c i a l re s o u r c e s
1
2
3
4
5

5 s* e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t

3 1 . L o b b y in g w i t h o t h e r s c h o o l b o a r d s f o r a d e q u a t e

4 8 . D e v e lo p in g s t a t e m e n t s o f th e b o a r d 's e d u c a t i o n a l

F o r th e b l a n k s p a c e u n d e r e a c h c l u s t e r , a d d a n y to p ic
y o u b e lie v e t o b e o f s u ff ic ie n t i m p o r t a n c e t o m e rit a
f u t u r e b o a r d in s e rv ic e p r o g r a m .

s ta te f u n d s

1

2

3

2

1

4

5

18. D e fin in g th e r o l e Sc f u n c ti o n s o f a d v i s o r y c o m m i t ­

2

3

4

5

19. im p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a ti o n w i t h c o n s t i t u e n t s c h o o l
b o ard s
1

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

2 1 . I m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a ti o n w i t h p a r e n t s o f s tu d e n ts
in s c h o o l p r o g r a m s
1

2

3

4

5

2 2 . i n f lu e n c in g S ta t e L e g is la tu re
1

2

3

4

5

2 3 . U n d e r s t a n d i n g th e r o le o f th e m e d ia Sc its in flu e n c e s
1

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

2 5 . A p p r o v in g s p e c ia l e d u c a t i o n p l a n
1

2

3

4

5

26. P la n n in g f o r u s e o f t e c h n o lo g y
1

2

3

4

5

2 7 . U n d e r s t a n d i n g th e p u r p o s e s Sc p r o c e d u r e s u n d e r ly ­
in g r e g u la t io n s o f s p e c ia l e d u c a t i o n
1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

O t h e r ________________________________________________

5

2

3

4

1

5

2

2

2

4

5

3

4

5

1

s e r v ic e s

1

1
3

4

5

to

th e

3
needs

3

4

5

3

4

4

5
„ ___________

4

5

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

2

5 5 . U n d e r s ta n d in g M A S B - s ta te b o a r d a s s o c ia t io n

3 8 . R e s p o n d in g t o in c r e a s e d s t a t e m a n d a te s

3 9 . R e s p o n d in g

5

3

5 4 . U p g r a d in g f a c ilitie s

2

4

2

37 . F u r n is h in g m a n a g e m e n t , c o n s u l t a n t o r s u p e r v is o r y

1

3

5 2 . I m p r o v i n g b o a r d m e e tin g s

5 3 . I m p r o v i n g b u s in g

2

5

O T H E R IS S U E S

36 . C o n s o li d a ti n g , a n n e x in g , Sc r e o r g a n i z in g d is tr ic ts
1
2
3
4
5

1

4

O t h e r ___________________

3 5 . C o m p l y i n g w i t h s t a t e Sc fe d e ra l l a w s Sc r e g u la t io n s
2

3

5 0 . L e a rn in g t o a s k th e r i g h t q u e s t i o n
1

3 4 . A s s u r in g d e l i v e r y o f s e r v ic e s
1
2
3

1

2

5 1 . U n d e r s t a n d i n g b o a r d re s p o n s ib ilitie s

1

5

2

3

4

5

5 6 . U n d e r s ta n d in g c o u n t y s c h o o l b o a r d a s s o c ia t io n s

of c o n s titu e n t

school

d is tr ic ts

1

2

3

4

5

O t h e r ________________________________________________
1

2

3

4

5

A D M I N IS T R A T IV E R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S

24. A p p r o v in g c o o p e r a t i v e i n s tr u c t i o n a l p r o g r a m s
1

1

O t h e r ............. .................................................................... ..............

R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S

4

4 9 . Im p r o v in g b o a r d /s u p e r i n t e n d e n t r e la t io n s h i p

3 3 . A c ti n g o n p r o p e r t y t r a n s f e r

O t h e r ________________________________________________
I N S T R U C T IO N A L /C U R R IC U L A R

3

s u r v e y o r i n d iv id u a l ite m s a n d q u e s t i o n s .

4 0 . S e le c tin g s u p e r in t e n d e n t
1

2

P le a s e u s e th e s p a c e b e lo w t o p o s e a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s
o r to p r e s e n t c o m m e n t s a n d s u g g e s tio n s r e g a r d i n g th is

3

4

5

4 1 . E v a lu a tin g s u p e r in t e n d e n t
1
4 2 . S e ttin g

. 2

3

a d m in is tr a to rs '

4

s a la r ie s

5
Sc fr in g e

b e n e fit

p ro g ra m s
1
43. U n d e rs ta n d in g
a n d p ro c e d u re s
p le m e n t a ti o n
1

2

3

4

a d m i n i s tr a t i v e
v s.
2

p o lic y
3

5
ru le s ,

r e g u la t io n s

f o r m u l a ti o n
4

and

im ­

5

O t h e r ________________________________________________

T h a n k y o u f o r c o m p l e t i n g th is q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Y o u r p a r ­
t i c i p a t i o n in th is s u r v e y is g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a te d .

153

20. I m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a ti o n w i t h I S D p e r s o n n e l
1

5

L E G A L R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S

1
2

4

O t h e r ________________________________________________

tee
1

3

3 2 . P a r t i c i p a t i n g in c o lle c tiv e b a r g a i n i n g

a p e rm a n e n t b a se o f c o m m u n ity su p p o rt

2

p h il o s o p h y Sc m o r e s p e c if ic e d u c a t i o n a l o b je c tiv e s
1

C O M M U N I C A T I O N R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S
17. B u ild in g

1

QUESTIONNAIRE

5. H o w m a n y y e a rs h a v e * y o u b ee n e m p lo y e d as a

D i r e c tio n s : T h e f o llo w in g a r e a s , g r o u p e d u n d e r s e v e n

_______________

d u s t e r s , r e la t e t o I 5 D b o a r d re s p o n s ib ilitie s . U s in g th e

6. H o w m a n y m e m b e rs c u rre n tly se rv e o n y o u r sch o o l

s c a le b e lo w , p le a s e c irc le th e n u m b e r w h ic h r e p r e s e n ts

b o a r d ? ________________________________________________

th e d e g r e e o f i m p o r t a n c e y o u a t t a c h t o e a c h a s g o a l s f o r

s u p e r in t e n d e n t in y o u r p r e s e n t IS D ?

f u t u r e IS D b o a r d i n -s e r v ic e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s .
7. H o w m a n y c o n s t i t u e n t s c h o o l d i s tr i c t s a r e in y o u r
1 = n o t im p o r t a n t
2 = a little i m p o r t a n t

I S D ? __________________________________________________

ISD Board Development
Needs as Perceived by
ISD Superintendents

8. D o e s y o u r sch o o l b o a r d h a v e a n w n tte n sch o o l

3 “ im p o r t a n t
4=* v e r y im p o r t a n t

b o a r d in s e rv ic e e d u c a t i o n p o lic y ?
yes

t
If

n o ________
yes,

does

th is

p o lic y

5 — e x tre m e Iy im p o r t a n t
i n c lu d e

budget

re s o u rc e s ?

f u t u r e b o a r d in s e rv ic e p r o g r a m .

yes
9.

n o _______

D o y o u h a v e a f o r m a l o r i e n t a ti o n f o r n e w b o a r d
m em bers?

C O M M U N I C A T I O N R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S

y es

Karen S. D ubow
123 G reen Bay Street
M arquette MI 49855
906/249-1320

F o r th e b l a n k s p a c e u n d e r e a c h c lu s te r , a d d a n y t o p i c
y o u b e lie v e t o b e o f s u f t i d e n t i m p o r t a n c e t o m e r i t a

no

<

1 1 . B u ild in g

a p e rm a n e n t b ase o f c o m m u n ity su p p o rt
1

If n o , p le a s e i n d ic a te w h y n o t .

2

3

4

5

1 2 . D e fin in g th e r o le k f u n c ti o n s o f a d v i s o r y c o m m i t ­
te e
10.

M A R C H 22. 1989

t i o n f o r b o a r d m e m b e r s s h o u l d b e r e q u ir e d o r n o t?
y e s , r e q u ir e d _ _ _

For itents 1-10 please check
the response that best answers the question.

n o , n o t r e q u ir e d _

If y e s , p le a s e s t a t e w h y .

2

3

4

5

1 3 . I m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a ti o n w i t h c o n s t i t u e n t s c h o o l
b o ard s
1

2

3

4

5

1 4 . I m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a ti o n w i t h IS D p e r s o n n e l
1

2

3

4

5

. 1 5 . I m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a ti o n w i t h p a r e n t s o f s t u d e n t s
in s c h o o l p r o g r a m s

1 . A r e y o u m a le o r fe m a le ?
m a le

If n o , p le a s e s t a t e w h y n o t .

_______

f e m a l e _______

1

2

3

4

5

4

5

1 6 . I n f lu e n c in g S ta t e L e g is la tu re
1

2 . W h a t is y o u r e t h n i c o r ig in ?

2

3

1 7 . U n d e r s t a n d i n g th e ro le o f th e m e d ia k its in f lu e n c e s

W h ite ____________________

1

B la c k _____________ _______
H is p a n ic _________________

2

3

4

A m e r ic a n I n d i a n _______

IN S T R U C T IO N A L /C U R R IC U L A R

A s ia n A m e r ic a n

R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S

_______

O th e r
{ p le a se s p e c if y )

______________________

3. W h a t is y o u r a g e ?
le s s t h a n 3 0

________ 5 1 -6 0 y e a r s

3 1 -4 0 y e a r s

________

4 1 -5 0 y e a r s

_______

_______

18 . A p p r o v in g c o o p e r a t i v e i n s tr u c t i o n a l p r o g r a m s
1

2

3

4

5

1 9 . A p p r o v in g s p e d a l e d u c a t i o n p la n
4

5

20. P la n n i n g f o r u s e o f t e c h n o lo g y
1
2
3
4

1

2

3

5

o v e r 6 0 y e a r s _______

4 . W h a t is y o u r h i g h e s t e d u c a t i o n a l a t ta in m e n t?
b a c h e l o r 's d e g r e e

_______

m a s t e r 's d e g r e e

_______

e d s p e c ia lis t d e g r e e _______
d o c to ra l d e g re e

5

O t h e r __________________________________________ _____

_______

2 1 . U n d e r s ta n d in g th e p u r p o s e s k p r o c e d u r e s u n d e r l y ­
in g r e g u la tio n s o f s p e c ia l e d u c a t i o n
1

2

3

4

5

O t h e r ________________________________________________

154

TX~

DIRECTIONS:

1

A s a s u p e r in t e n d e n t , d o y o u t h i n k in s e rv ic e e d u c a ­

F IN A N C I A L R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S
2 2 . A c h ie v in g
r e s o u rc e s

e q u ity
1

in
2

23. C o n d u c tin g a n n u a l
o p e ra tin g b u d g et
1

B O A R D S M A N S H IP R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S

d is tr ib u tio n

of

3

5

4

h e a rin g

fo r

fin a n c ia l

g e n e ra l

fu n d

2

3

2

4

3

4

2

1

5

1

5

3

4

2

3

4

1

5

2

3

5

5

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

5

46 . I m p r o v i n g b o a r d m e e tin g s
2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

4 7 . I m p r o v i n g b u s in g
1

3 1 . F u rn is h in g m a n a g e m e n t , c o n s u l t a n t o r s u p e r v is o r y
s e rv ic e s
1

2

1

3 0 . C o n s o lid a tin g , a n n e x in g . Sc r e o r g a n i z in g d i s tr i c t s
1

5

O T H E R IS S U E S

2 9 . C o m p ly in g w ith s t a t e St f e d e r a l l a w s & r e g u la t io n s
1

4

_________________________________— --------- -

O th e r
4

5

4 4 . L e a rn in g t o a s k th e r i g h t q u e s t i o n
1

4

3

4 5 . U n d e r s t a n d i n g b o a r d r e s p o n s ib ilitie s
1
2
3
4

2 8 . A s s u rin g d e liv e r y o f s e r v ic e s
1

2

1

27 . A c tin g o n p r o p e r t y t r a n s f e r
3

4

4 2 . D e v e lo p in g s t a t e m e n t s o f th e b o a r d 's e d u c a t i o n a l
p h i l o s o p h y Sc m o r e s p e c if ic e d u c a t i o n a l o b je c tiv e s

L E G A L R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S

2

3

43. I m p r o v i n g b o a r d / s u p e r i n t e n d e n t r e la t io n s h i p

_______________________________________________

1

2

4 1 . D e v e lo p in g s k ills f o r s t r a t e g ic p l a n n i n g
1
2
3
4
5

5

2 6 . P a r t i c i p a t i n g in c o lle c tiv e b a r g a i n i n g

O th e r

5

5

2 5 . L o b b y in g w ith o t h e r s c h o o l b o a r d s f o r a d e q u a t e
s ta te fu n d s
1

4

3 9 . D e v e lo p in g h u m a n r e la t io n s s k ills
1
2
3
4

4 0 . D e v e lo p in g s e l f - e v a l u a ti o n s f o r b o a r d s o f e d u c a t i o n

2 4 . E n s u rin g a d e q u a te flo w o f f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s
1

3 8 . D e a lin g w i t h c o n t r o v e r s y
1
2
3

4 8 . U p g r a d in g f a c ilitie s
1

2

5
4 9 . U n d e r s t a n d i n g M A S B - s ta te b o a r d a s s o c ia t io n

3 2 . R e s p o n d in g t o i n c r e a s e d s t a t e m a n d a te s
1
3 3 . R e s p o n d in g
d is tr ic ts

2
to

1

th e

3
needs

2

3

4

1

4

A D M IN IS T R A T IV E R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S

4

5

P le a s e u s e th e s p a c e b e lo w t o p o s e a d d i t i o n a l q u e s tio n s
o r t o p r e s e n t c o m m e n t s a n d s u g g e s tio n s r e g a r d i n g th is
s u r v e y o r i n d i v id u a l ite m s a n d q u e s t i o n s .

3 4 . S e le c tin g s u p e r in te n d e n t
2

3

5 0 . U n d e r s t a n d i n g c o u n t y s c h o o l b o a r d a s s o c ia t io n s
4
5
1
2
3
O t h e r ________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _

5

O t h e r ________________________________________________

1

2

5

o f c o n s titu e n t sc h o o l

3

4

5

35 . E v a lu a tin g s u p e r in t e n d e n t
1

2

3

4

3 6 . S e ttin g a d m i n i s tr a t o r s ' s a la r ie s

5
St fr in g e

b e n e fit

p ro g ram s
1

2

3

4

5

3 7 . U n d e r s ta n d in g a d m i n i s tr a t i v e ru le s , r e g u la t io n s
a n d p r o c e d u r e s v s . p o l i c y f o r m u l a ti o n a n d im ­
p le m e n ta tio n
1

2

3

4

5

O t h e r ________________________________________________

T h a n k y o u f o r c o m p l e t i n g th is q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Y o u r p a r ­
ti c i p a t i o n in th is s u r v e y is g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a te d .

APPENDIX C
ISD D I S T R I C T S B Y R E G I O N S AN D
ISD G E O G R A P H I C L O C A T I O N S

156
APPENDIX C
ISD D I S T R I C T S B Y R E G I O N S

REGION 1
C o p p e r C o u n t r y ISD
D e l t a - S c h o o l c r a f t ISD
D i c k i n s o n - I r o n ISD
E a s t e r n U.P. ISD
G o g e b i c - O n t o n a g o n ISD
M a r q u e t t e - A l g e r ISD
M e n o m i n e e ISD
REGION 2
A l p e n a M o n t m o r e n c y - A l c o n a ISD
C h a r l e v o i x - E m m e t ISD
C O O R ISD
C.O.P. ISD
Isoco ISD
M a n i s t e e ISD
T r a v e r s e B a y A r e a ISD
W e x f o r d - M i s s a u k e e ISD
REGION 3
A l l e g a n C o u n t y ISD
B a r r y ISD
I onia ISD
K ent ISD
M a s o n Lake ISD
M e s c o t a - O s c e o l a ISD
M o n t c a l m A r e a ISD
M u s k e g o n A r e a ISD
N e w a y g o ISD
O c e a n a ISD
O t t a w a Are a ISD
REGION 4
B a y - A r e n a c ISD
C l a r e - G l a d w i n ISD
G r a t i o t - I s a b e l l a ISD
M i d l a n d ISD
S a g i n a w ISD

REGION 5
G e n e s s e e ISD
H u r o n ISD
L a p e e r ISD
S a n i l a c ISD
St. C l a i r ISD
T u s c o l a ISD
REGION 6
C l i n t o n ISD
E a t o n ISD
I n g h a m ISD
L i v i n g s t o n ISD
S h i a w a s s e e ISD
REGION 7
B e r r i e n C o u n t y ISD
B r a n c h ISD
C a l h o u n ISD
K a l a m a z o o ISD
L e w i s C ass ISD
V a n B u r e n ISD
St. J o s e p h ISD
REGION 8
H i l l s d a l e ISD
J a c k s o n ISD
L e n a w e e ISD
M o n r o e ISD
W a s h t e n a w ISD
REGION 9
M a C o m b ISD
O a k l a n d ISD
W a y n e ISD

157
FIGURE 1

ISD
Geographic Locations

APPENDIX D
I N I T I A L L E T T E R TO B O A R D M E M B E R S
AND SUPERINTENDENTS

APPENDIX D

Karen S. Dubow
123 Green Bay Street
Marquette, Michigan 49855
906/249-1320
March 22, 1989

Dear:
As a former local school board member and presently an ISD board member,
I have always had an interest in continuing education and development
activities for school boards and board members. N o w as a doctoral student
at Michigan State University, I have the opportunity to study this interest.
The primary objectives of the study will be to:
1.

determine the board development needs of ISD board
members in Michigan, as perceived by currently serving
ISD board members and as perceived by presently
employed ISD superintendents;

2.

determine the different approaches used by ISD boards
in their o w n development;

3.

determine
the
relationships
of
perceived
board
development needs to certain demographic characteristics
such as gender, tenure of board service, and geographic
location; and

4.

develop a comprehensive profile of ISD board members and
to contrast this Michigan profile with the national data
collected by the American School Board Journal.

Hopefully, this study will provide vital information to those w h o will plan
future board development programs as well as to help us learn more about
the people w h o are serving as ISD board members.
Your assistance is needed. Your response to the enclosed questionnaire is
very important, although your participation is voluntary. The questionnaire
is self-explanatory and can be completed in a relatively short time. Your
responses will be treated with strict confidence. The information received
will be used for overall analysis only, and you will not be identified
individually. You ma y participate by completing and returning the attached
survey.
A self-addressed stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Also
enclosed is a post card to be mailed w h e n you return the questionnaire.
This will enable me to follow up on those from w h o m I have not yet heard.
Please return by April 7, 1989. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Karen S. D u b o w

158

APPENDIX 1

421 W Kalamazoo street
Lansing, Michifian 48933-2088
"(517) 371-5700

DATE*

March 16, 1989

TO:

Michigan Intermediate School District
Superintendents and Board Members

RE:

Board Development Needs of ISD Board Members

Board development needs of Intermediate School District board members in
Michigan is of vital concern to both the Michigan Association of School Boards and
the Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators. Recently, Karen
S. DuBow, a doctoral student at Michigan State University, h as. asked for our
assistance in completing a study to determine the board development needs of ISD
board members. On behalf of our respective organizations, we are pleased to
endorse her study.
Each Michigan ISD superintendent and board member will receive a questionnaire
from Mrs. DuBow during the week of March 20. You will be asked to identify
some of the board development needs of ISD board members as you see them, as
well as to identify different approaches used by ISD boards in their own
development currently. In addition, Mrs. Du Bow's study will attempt to identify
relationships of perceived board development needs to certain demographic
characteristics and to develop a comprehensive profile of ISD board members to be
contrasted with national data collected by the American School Board Journal.
When you receive the questionnaire from Mrs. DuBow, on behalf of MASB and
MAISA we urge you to taka a few moments and complete and return it to her so
that her study can be as comprehensive as possible. The results of this study will
be shared with both of our organizations and we intend to use if as a basis to
design board member development programs that address particular needs of ISD
boards as you define them.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,

Ju/tin King- executive Director
MICHIGAN A S S O C I A T I O N
OF SCHOOL BOARDS
JK/WJF:jh

Warren J. Fudge, Executive Secretary
MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF
INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS

APPENDIX E
L E T T E R OF E N D O R S E M E N T

APPENDIX F
R E Q U E S T FOR S T U D Y R E S U L T S

160
APPENDIX F
R E Q U E S T F O R S T U D Y R E S U L T S — P O S T C ARD

America the Beautiful

Karen S. Dubow
123 Green Bay Street
Marquette MI 49855

P lease indicate w heth er you w o u ld like a co p y of
the results in the future.

Yes, I would like a copy of the results
No, I would not like a copy of the results

N am e______________________________________
Street Address ______________________________
City/State/Zip ______________________________

USAl PI

APPENDIX G
S E C O N D L E T T E R TO B O A R D M E M B E R S
AND SUPERINTENDENTS

APPENDIX G

Karen S. Dubow
123 Green Bay Street
Marquette, Michigan 49855
906/249-1320
April 14, 1989

Dear
I a m very m u c h in need of your help!
During the week of March 20, 1989, I mailed a questionnaire to all ISD
board members and ISD superintendents in the State of Michigan. As of this
date, your reply has not been received.
Your response is vital to this project. Although I realize you are
busy and that the first mailing m a y have been misplaced, I a m enclosing
another questionnaire— identical to the first one. I urge you to complete the
questionnaire and return it in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope
at your earliest convenience. Your response will be treated confidentially.
Thank you for your time, interest and consideration.

Sincerely

Karen S. D u b o w

161

APPENDIX H
C O M P A R I S O N OF B O A R D MEMBERS' AND
S U P E R I N T E N D E N T S ’ R A T I N G S OF
B O A R D D E V E L O P M E N T NEEDS

162
APPENDIX H
FIGURE 2
BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
BOARD DEVELOPMENT
NEEDS

RATING OF IMPORTANCE
NOT
IMPORTANT
0

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT
1

VERY
IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT
2

3

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
4
5

1. Building a permanent base
of community support
cn
UJ

H

2. Defining the role and
functions of advisory
committee

2
00
2 3. Improving communication
with constituent school
O
G

board

h

on

a

UJ

ei 4. Improving communication
2
with ISD personnel
O

S

5. Improving communication
with parents of students
2
in school programs
D

O
U

6. Influencing State
Legislature
7. Understanding the role of
the media & its influence

FIGURE 3
BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
BOARD DEVELOPMENT
NEEDS

RATING OF IMPORTANCE
NOT
IMPORTANT
0

Approving cooperative

3

8-instructional programs

OS w

9 Approving special

OZ C

education plan

2D C
U td
j S l O . Planning for use
of technology

2
G.
H ^ 11
ug
oz

H
CO
2

Understanding the
purposes & procedures
underlying regulation
of special education

K ey: □

Board M em bers

■

S u p e rin te n d e n t

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT
1

VERY
IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT
2

3

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
4
5

FIGURE 4
BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
BOARD DEVELOPMENT
NEEDS

RATING OF IMPORTANCE
N OT
IMPORTANT
3

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT
1

VERY
IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT
2

3

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
4

5

12. Achieving equity in
distribution of
financial resources
H
13. Conducting annual
hearings for general fund
es
to
operating budget
Z
O 14. Ensuring adequate flow
CL.
to
of financial resources
UJ
CD
UJ

es

< 15. Lobbying with other
tj
school boards for
Z
adequate state funds
—: 16. Participating in
collective bargaining

FIGURE 5

BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
BOARD DEVELOPMENT
NEEDS

RATING OF IMPORTANCE
NOT
IMPORTANT
0

17. Acting on
property transfers
18. Assuring delivery
of services
tn
UJ

£9
cH

19. Complying with state
and federal laws
& regulations

Z 20. Consolidation, annexation
O
& reorganizing districts

cu
to
UJ

eS 21. Furnishing management,
—i
consultant or
<
supervisory services

UJ

22. Responding to increased
state mandates
23. Responding to the
needs of constituent
school districts
K ey: □

Board M em bers

H S u p e rin te n d e n t

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT
1

VERY
IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT
2

3

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
4

5

164
FIGURE 6
BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
BOARD DEVELOPMENT
NEEDS

R A T IN G O F IM P O R T A N C E

NO T
IMPORTANT
0

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT
1

VERY
IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT
2

3

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
4
5

ADMINISTRATIVE
RESPONSIBILITIES

24. Selecting superintendent

25. Evaluating superintendent

26. Setting adm inistrators'
salaries & fringe
benefit program s
27. Understanding
adm inistrative rules,
regulations & procedures
vs policy form ulation
& implementation

FIGURE 7

BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
BOARD DEVELOPMENT
NEEDS

RATING OF IMPORTANCE
NO T
IMPORTANT

,

0
28. Dealing w ith controversy

BOARDSMANSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES

29. Develop hum an
relations skills
30. Develop self-evaluations
for boards of education
31. Developing skills for
strategic planning
32. Developing statements of
the board's educational
philosophy & more specific
educational objectives
33. Im proving b oard/
superintendent relationship
34. Learning to ask
the right question
35. U nderstanding board
responsibilities

K ey: □

B oard M em bers

IB

S u p e rin te n d e n t

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT
1

VERY
IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT
2

3

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
4
5

FIGURE 8
BOARD MEMBERS/SUPERINTENDENTS' RATING OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
BOARD DEVELOPMENT
NEEDS

RATING OF IMPORTANCE
NOT
IMPORTANT
0

36. Improving board meetings

37. Improving busing

C/5
w
C/5

c/5 38. Upgrading facilities

es
UJ

X
H
K 39. Understanding MASB-state
board associations
40. Understanding county
school board associations

Key: □ Board Members

Superintendent

A LITTLE
IMPORTANT
1

VERY
IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT
2

3

EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT
4
5

APPENDIX I
R E L A T I O N S H I P S OF D E M O G R A P H I C C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S
AN D B O A R D D E V E L O P M E N T N EEDS

APPENDIX I
TABLE 27

RELATIONSHIPS OF DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS A N D BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS

1. Building a permanent base of com munity support ...........................

REGION

TENURE OF BOARD SERVICE

GENDER

BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
X2

sign
.05

gamma
.25

Kendall
Taub

sign
.05

gamma
.25

X2

sign
.05

|;amm:
.25

4.54

.033

.187

.031

.295

—

17.99

.021

.034

.275

—

10.51

.230

—

2. Defining the role & functions of advisory c o m m ittee.......................

1.04

.300

—

.035

3. Improving com munication with constituent school b o a r d s .............

1.06

.301

—

.008

.425

—

8.36

.396

—

4. Improving com munication with ISD p erso n n el..................................

.52

.470

—

.086

.072

—

6.76

.561

—

5. Improving com munication with parents
of students in school p ro g ram s...............................................................

.00

1.000

—

.038

.255

—

15.65

.047

.009

6. Influencing State Legislature...................................................................

3.98

.045

.187

.035

.274

—

4.23

.835

—

.141

—

.051

.192

—

2.33

.969

—

.033

.288

—

3.77

.877

—

7. Understanding the role of the media & its influences.........................

2.16

8. Approving cooperative instructional p ro g ram s..................................

.10

.75

—

9. A pproving special education p l a n .........................................................

.90

.340

—

.095

.053

4.71

.078

—

.388

—

16.22

0.39

.000

10. Planning for use of technology...............................................................

3.58

.058

—

.016

11. Understanding the purposes & procedures underlying
regulations of special ed u c a tio n .............................................................

.01

.892

—.

.049

.202

—

10.21

.250

—

12. Achieving equity in distribution of financial resources.....................

.14

.704

—

.020

.367

—

2.96

.936

—

3.40

.065

—

.061

.150

—

15.13

.056

—

.14

.706

—

.026

.329

—

6.84

.055

—
—

13. Conducting annual hearing for general fund operating budget
14. Ensuring adequate flow of financial reso u rce s....................................
15. Lobbying with other school boards for adequate state fu n d s...........

2.22

.135

—

.027

.323

—

3.67

.885

16. Participating in collective b a rg a in in g ..................................................

.27

.598

—

.142

.008

.057

15.52

.049

.004

17. Acting on property tr a n s f e r ...................................................................

.77

.380

—

.092

.059

—

9.76

.282

—

18. Assuring delivery of s e rv ic e s .................................................................

2.88

.089

—

.034

.281

—

6.19

.625

—

19. Complying with state & federal laws & regulations...........................

.18

.699

—

.01,4

.406

—

4.84

.774

—

20. Consolidating, annexing, & reorganizing districts.............................

.00

.994

—

.030

.303

—

6.77

.561

—

TABLE 27, Continued

BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS________________________________________ GENDER_________ TENURE OF BOARD SERVICE__________REGION

21. Furnishing management, consultant or supervisory serv ices......................25

sign
.05

gamma
.25

.615

—

Kendall
T aub
.006

sign
.05
.454

gamma
.25

X'

sign
.05

—

8.23

.410

gamma
.25

_

3.45

.063

—

.018

.379

—

14.35

.073

—

23. Responding to the needs of constituent school d is tr ic ts .............................. 70

.400

—

.008

.445

—

8.00

.432

—

24. Selecting superintendent.................................................................................... 19

.656

—

.035

.275

—

2.28

.971

—

—

5.56

.695

—

—

7.54

.078

—

22. Responding to increased state m a n d ate s................................................

25. Evaluating su p e rin te n d e n t................................................................................ 26

.607

—

.024

.337

26. Setting adm inistrators'salaries & fringe benefit p ro g ra m s ......................... 48

.486

—

.037

.260

2.17

.140

—

.030

.301

—

4.60

.798

—

28. Dealing w ith co n tro v e rsy .........................................................................

1.65

.198

—

.004

.471

—

5.62

.689

—

29. Developing human relations sk ills...........................................................

5.08

.024

.140

.003

.477

—

5.10

.746

—

30. Developing self-evaluations for boards of education .........................

5.68

.017

.138

.000

.496

—

7.57

.476

—

.032

.123

.040

.252

—

9.63

.291

—

31. Developing skills for strategic planning ................................................

4.55

32. Developing statements of the board's educational philosophy
& more specific educational o b je ctiv es..................................................

1.67

.196

—

.016

.390

—

19.39

.012

.014

33. Improving board/superintendent relationship.............................................. 45

.500

—

.223

.000

.148

9.17

.327

—

34. Learning to ask the right q u e s tio n ..........................................................

.124

—

.022

.357

—

7.55

.478

—

6.418

.600

—

2.36

35. Understanding board responsibilities.............................................................53

.464

—

.093

.060

—

36. Improving board m e etin g s.......................................................................

4.73

.029

.108

.108

.036

.035

7.87

.445

—

37. Improving b using .......................................................................................

2.32

.126

—

.159

.004

—

9.25

.321

—

38. Ungrading facilities............................................................................................ 92

.336

—

.036

.273

—

6.32

.610

—

39. Understanding MASB-state board association.....................................

2.65

.103

—

.083

.083

—

16.95

.030

.024

40. Understanding county school board asso cia tio n s..............................

1.17

.277

—

.078

.099

.088

14.41

.071

_

167

27. Understanding adm inistrative rules, regulations and procedures
vs. policy form ulation and im plem entation..........................................

APPENDIX J
P E R S O N A L D A T A O F TH E M I C H I G A N
ISD B O A R D M E M B E R S

168
APPENDIX J
TABLE 28

MICHIGAN ISD SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS-PERSONAL DATA
f

1. GENDER

%

M a le ............................ 184
Female ....................... 68
2. ETHNIC
ORIGIN

73.0
27.0

f

%

24.3
8
—
1
—

96.4
3.2
—
.4
—

—

—

f

%

—

—

13
76
76
87

5.2
30.2
30.2
34.5

4. EDUCATION

f

%

Less than high school
High school diplom a
Post high school . . .
Associate degree . . .
College d e g re e .........
G r a d /P r o f ...............
N o resp o n se.............

3
45
44
24
48
86

1.2
17.9
17.5
9.5
19.0
34.1
.8

5. OCCUPATION

f

%

Business ow ner . . . .
C lerical.....................
H om em aker.............
L aborer.....................
M anagerial...............
P rofessional.............
R e tire d .....................
S a le s .........................
S em i-skilled.............
S e rv ic e .....................
Skilled tra d e .............
O t h e r .......................
N o resp o n se.............

37
9
23
1
22
59
72
6
1
9
6
12
2

14.7
.8
9.1
.4
8.7
23.4
28.6
2.4
.4
3.6
2.4
4.8
.8

6. INCOME

f

%

Less than $30,000 . . .
$30,000-39,999 . . . . .
$40,000-49,999
.
$50,000-59,999
.
$60,000-69,999
.
No resp o n se............. .

54
38
38
35
77
10

21.4
51.1
51.1
13.9
30.6
4.0

W h ite .........................
B lack............................
H isp an ic.....................
American Indian
Asian American
O t h e r ..........................
3. AGE
less than 3 0 ...............
31-40..........................
41-50.........................
51-60.........................
over 6 0 .....................

->

7. CHILDREN
IN SCHOOL
0 ..........
1 ..........
2 .............................
3 .............................
4 .............................
No response..........

f

%

. . 188
. . 24
. . 22
9
3
.. 6

8. YEARS ON
ISD BOARD
Less than 1 year . . . . .
1 ........................... . .
9
..
3 ........................... . .
4 ........................... . .
5 ........................... . .
6 ........................... . .
7 ........................... . .
8 ........................... . .
9 ........................... . .
10 ........................... . .
11 ...........................
12 ........................... ..
13 ........................... . .
14 ...........................
15 ...........................
16 ........................... . .
17 ...........................
18 ........................... . .
19 ........................... . .
20 ........................... . .
21 ........................... . .
22 ........................... . .
23 ........................... . .
24 ............................ . .
25 ...........................
26 ........................... . . .
30 ......................... . . .
31 ......................... .. .
32 ......................... . . .
36 ......................... . . .
42 ......................... . . .
45 ......................... . . .

74.6
9.5
8.7
3.6
1.2
2.4

%

f

6
17
27
15
21
9
24
9
15
12
14
2
16
2
7
2
4
2
10
2
10
1
3
4
4
9

5
2
1
1
1
1
1

2.4
6.7
10.7
6.0
8.3
3.6
9.5
3.6
6.0
4.8
5.6
.8
6.3
.8
2.8
.8
1.6
.8
4.0
.8
4.0
.4
1.2
1.6
1.6
.8
2.0
.8
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4

YEARS ON
A LOCAL BOARD

f

%

0 .................................

94

1

2

.8

4
7
14
2
11
8
26
7
9

1.6
2.8
5.6
.8
4.4
3.2
10.3
2.8
3.6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 ...............................
11 ..............

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
30
33
38
39

...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
............... ’...............
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................

9. SERVING
SIMULT. ON
BOTH LOCAL
AND ISD

6

_2^4

10
5
2
6
8
2
7
3
7
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
1

4.0

f

%

Yes ............................... 39
N o ................................ 212

10. INITIALLY
SELECTED TO
THE ISD
BOARD

37.3

f

A p p o in te d ................... 98
E le c te d ........................ 154
If elected, how:
Popular v o t e
22
Const r e p .................... 132

2.0
.8
2.4
3.2
.8
2.8
1.2
2.8
1.2
.4
.8
.4
.8
.4
.4
.4

15.9
84.1

%
38.9
61.1
14.3
85.7

APPENDIX K
UCRIHS APPROVAL

M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

169
APPENDIX K

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING

EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824-1111

HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS)
206 BERKEY HALL
(517) 353-9738

February 17,1989

IRB# 89-050

Karen S. Dubow
123 Green Bay Ave.
Marquette, MI 49855
Dear Ms. Dubow:
Re:

"AN ASSESSMENT OF PERCEIVED BOARD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF
MICHIGAN ISD BOARD MEMBERS AND THE DIFFERENT
APPROACHES USED FOR BOARD DEVELOPMENT IRB# 89-050"

The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. I have reviewed the proposed
research protocol and find that the rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be
protected. You have approval to conduct the research.
You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to
continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate
UCRIHS approval one month prior to February 17. 1990.
Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS
prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any
problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the
course of the work.
Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any future help,
please do not hesitate to let us know.
Sincerely,

J®hn K. Hudzik, Ph.D.
Ghair, UCRIHS
JKH/sar
cc: C. Blackman

M SU is an A ffirm a tiv e A c tio n /E q u a l O p p o rtu n ity In stitu tio n

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson,
R o b e r t H. a n d Snyder,
K a r o l y n J.
"Leadership
Training
for
School
B o a r d M e m bers:
One A p p r o a c h . "
E d u c a t i o n . S p r i n g 1980, p. 11.
Andr e w , J a m e s . "A S t u d y of the P e r c e p t i o n s H e l d by N e w School
B o a r d M e m b e r s T o w a r d s T h e i r T r a i n i n g for B o a r d M e m b e r s ."
Dissertation
Abstracts
International,
University
M i c r o f i l m N o . 72-1533, 1971.
A s h b y , L l o y d . The E f f e c t i v e Sc h o o l B o a r d M e m b e r s ♦ D a n v i l l e ,
I l l i n o i s : The I n t e r s t a t e P r i n t e r s & P u b l i s h e r s , 1968.
Bendiner, Robert.
Government.

T h e P o l i t i c s of S c h o o l s : A Cr i s i s
N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r & Row, 1969.

in Self

B e n j a m i n , James M .
"The Sch o o l B o a r d Member* s M a n t l e ."
B o a r d . M a y 1986.
Brodinsky,
Benjamin.
How
a
School
B l o o m i n g t o n , I n d i a n a : The Phi D e l t a
F o u n d a t i o n , 1977.

The

Board
Operates.
Kappa Educational

C a m p b e l l , R o n a l d ; C u n n i n g h a m , L u v e r n ; N y s t r a n d , R a p h a e l ; and
Usdam, Michael.
The Organization
and Content
of
A m e r i c a n S c h o o l s . 4th e d . C o l u m b u s , O h i o : C h a r l e s E.
M e r r i l l P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1980.
C h a p m a n , Crosby J . and C o u n t s , George C .
Principles
E d u c a t i o n . B o s t o n : H o u g h t o n - M i f f i n C o m p a n y , 1924.

of

Comstock, Ted.
"Give B o a r d T r a i n i n g H i g h P r i o r i t y . "
The
A m e r i c a n S c h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l . N o v e m b e r 1984, p. 67.
Counts, George.
Education.

The
Social
Compositions
of B o a r d s
C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o , 1927.

of

C u n n i n g h a m , L u v e r n J . a n d H e n t g e s , J o s e p h T . A m e r i c a n School
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s , A Full R e p o r t .
Rosslyn, Virginia:
A A S A , 1982.
D a v i s , D a n i e l R . a n d H o s i e r , F r e d W.
The C h a l l e n g e of School
Board Membership.
New Y o r k : Chartwell H o u s e , I n c . ,
1949.

170

171
Doyle,

Wayne W .
"A M o d e l O r i e n t a t i o n P r o g r a m for N e w l y
E l e c t e d or A p p o i n t e d School B o a r d M e m b e r s as V i e w e d b y
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s an d B o a r d s of E d u c a t i o n . " D i s s e r t a t i o n
A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m N o . 7622433, 1976.

Drury,

R o b e r t L . an d Ray, K e n n e t h C .
Principles
L a w . N e w Y o r k : M e r e d i t h C o ., 1965.

Emerson, William J .
"On I n t e r m e d i a t e D i s t r i c t s ."
E d u c a t i o n J o u r n a l . M a y 1, 1967, pp. 11-14.

of

School

Michigan

E v e r e t t , R . E. a n d S l o a n , C . A.
Are We P a y i n g Lip Serv i c e to
T r a i n i n g N e w Sc h o o l B o a r d M e m b e r s ?
E RIC D o c u m e n t
R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , ED 248 587, 1984.
Ficklen, Ellen.
"Board M e m b e r s Go B ack to S c h o o l ."
A m e r i c a n School B o a r d J o u r n a l ; June 1985, p. 35.
F o s t e r , Budi G.
Orientation and Training
Members.
ERIC Document Reproduction
930, 1975.

The

of School B o a r d
S e r v i c e , ED 114

F r a n c o i s , J o h n . " B e t t e r - - L o t s B e t t e r - - T r a i n i n g is N e e d e d for
Ne w B o a r d M e m b e r s ." The A m e r i c a n Sc h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l ,
J u l y 1970, pp. 9-10.
G o i n s , M a n u e l W i n s t o n . " P e r c e p t i o n on I n - S e r v i c e T r a i n i n g for
Il l inois Sc h o o l B o a r d M e m b e r s ."
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
S o u t h e r n I l l i n o i s U niversity, 1985.
Goldhammer, Keith.
Issues a n d
Educational Administration.
Service, ED 014 787, 1967.

Problems
in C o n t e m p o r a r y
ERIC Document Reproduction

G o l d h a m m e r , K e i t h . T h e School B o a r d . N e w Y o r k : The C e n t e r
for A p p l i e d R e s e a r c h in E d u c a t i o n , I n c ., 1964.
H a t r i c k , E d g a r B. I l l ; U n d e r w o o d , K e n n e t h E . ; F o r t u n e , J i m C . ;
and K r o u g h , K a t h e r i n e .
"The ' T y p i c a l ’ School B o a r d
M e m b e r : Still W h i t e , M a l e , F o r t y i s h & Well O f f ."
The
A m e r i c a n S c h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l . J a n u a r y 1989, p. 21.
H u r w i t z , M a r k . "How to T r a i n a N e w School B o a r d M e m b e r ." The
A m e r i c a n Sc h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l . April 1972, pp. 21-22.
J o n e s , P h i l l i p G . "How to T r a i n a N e w School B o a r d M e m b e r &
W ays to H e l p S e a s o n e d V e t e r a n s B r u s h Up, T o o ."
The
A m e r i c a n Sch o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l . S e p t e m b e r 1974, pp. 2128.
J o r d e n , F o r b i s K.
"The D ’s of
Membership."
The
American
December, 1969, pp. 7-8.

E f f e c t i v e Sc h o o l B o a r d
School
Board
Journal.

172
K e r r i n s , J u d i t h A.
"I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g N eeds of School B o a r d
M e m b e r s as P e r c e i v e d b y School B o a r d M e m b e r s a n d School
Superintendents
in the S t a t e of C o l o r a d o ."
Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of C o l o r a d o , 1984 .
Kleinstiver, Louise.
" I nservice T r a i n i n g Needs of School
B o a r d M e m b e r s as P e r c e i v e d b y School B o a r d M e m b e r s an d
Sch o o l S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , N o r t h e r n
A r i z o n a U n i v e r s i t y , 1986.
K l o s t e r , A l e x a n d e r J . A S t u d y of I n t e r m e d i a t e School D i s t r i c t
Functions and Organizational S t r u c t u r e .
Marquette,
M i c h i g a n , 1978.
L u c k e t t , R e b e c c a ; U n d e r w o o d , K e n n e t h E .; and F o r t u n e , J i m m y
C . "Board S u r v e y : Who Y o u A r e , R e g i o n b y R e g i o n ." The
A m e r i c a n Sc h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l . J a n u a r y 1987, p. 24.
Measick, Joh n D . The D i s c r e t i o n a r y P o w e r s of School B o a r d s .
D u r h a m , N o r t h C a r o l i n a : Duk e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1949.
M i c h i g a n G e n e r a l S c h o o l Laws an d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R u l e s .
Sc h o o l Cod e of 1976 (1977).
M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of School B o a r d s .
B r i e f - - K e y s to S c h o o l I m p r o v e m e n t .
1987.

The

B o a r d s m a n s h i p in
L a n s i n g , Michigan,

N a t i o n a l Sc h o o l B o a r d A s s o c i a t i o n .
Becoming a Better Board
Member.
A
Guide
to
Effective
School
Service.
A l e x a n d r i a , V i r g i n i a : NSBA, 1982 .
N a t i o n a l Sc h o o l B o a r d s A s s o c i a t i o n .
School B o a r d N e w s .
W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: N S B A P u b l i c a t i o n , Au g u s t 31, 1988.
Newbauer, Antonia.
" E d u c a t i n g the B o a r d s of E d u c a t i o n : D o ’s
& D o n ’t s ." P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at the A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e of
the A m e r i c a n
Association
of
School
Administrators,
C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s , J u l y 6-9, 1980.
O s b o r n , Joh n R o b e r t .
"A M o d e l
for the D e v e l o p m e n t
of
I n s t r u c t i o n a l I m p r o v e m e n t S e r v i c e s at the I n t e r m e d i a t e
School D i s t r i c t L evel in M i c h i g a n ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1969.
R e e d e r , W a r d G.
School Board and S u p erintendents: A Manual
on T h e i r P o w e r s a n d D u t i e s . N e w Y o r k : The M a c M i I l i a n
C o m p a n y , 1946.
R e e v e s , C h a r l e s S.
School B o a r d s . Their S t a t u s , Function &
Activities.
E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N e w Jersey: P r e n t i c e H a l l , I n c . , 1954.

173
R h o d e s , Alvin
E.
Better
Education
Through
Intermediate
Units.
Washington,
D.C.:
E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , 1963, pp. 3-4.

Effective
National

S a l e n , Fred.
"A S u r v e y of the O r i e n t a t i o n of N e w School B o a r d
M e m b e r s P r a c t i c e d b y S e l e c t e d L o c a l S c h o o l D i s t r i c t s ."
Dissertation
Abstracts
International,
University
M i c r o f i l m No. 7-12835, 1970.
Schuster, Jon N e i l .
"An A s s e s s m e n t of P e r c e i v e d Needs a n d
P a r t i c i p a t i o n of S o u t h w e s t e r n M i c h i g a n P u b l i c School
B o a r d M e m b e r s in L o c a l , R e g i o n a l a n d S t a t e w i d e P r o g r a m s
of I n s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n ."
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n
S tate Univer s i t y , 1980.
Selby,

James O t i s .
P e r c e p t i o n s of
B o a r d s ."
Ph.D.
1984.

"Superintendent and Board President
Ins e r v i c e T r a i n i n g for K a n s a s Sc h o o l
d i s s e r t a t i o n , K a n s a s S t a t e U niversity,

Shannon, Thomas.
"NSBA C r e a t e s
New Leadership Training
C e n t e r ." School B o a r d N e w s . A l e x a n d r i a , V i r g i n i a : N S B A
Publication, O c t o b e r 26, 1988, p. 3.
S t . J o h n , Walter D .
"Why B o a r d m e n N e e d T r a i n i n g - - a n d W hat
T h e y N e e d to K n o w ." The A m e r i c a n S c h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l ,
F e b r u a r y 1971, pp. 27-28.
S t e e r e , Robert F .
"School B o a r d T r a i n i n g ."
C o m m u n i t y . M a r c h 1975, pp. 20-31.

School

and

S t e e r e , Robert F .
" S c h o o l i n g of S c h o o l B o a r d C a n d i d a t e s ."
School and C o m m u n i t y , M a r c h 1975, pp. 20-31, 39.
St e p h e n s A s s o c i a t e s . E d u c a t i o n S e r v i c e A g e n c i e s : Sta t u s a n d
Trends.
Yorktown H e i g h t s , New J e r s e y : Center
for
E d u c a t i o n a l S e r v i c e s & R e s e a r c h , 1980.
St e p h e n s A s s o c i a t e s . R e g i o n a l E d u c a t i o n a l S e r v i c e s A g e n c i e s .
Arlington, V i rginia: Educational
Research Services,
I n c ., 1975.
The

I n s t i t u t e for E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p .
Sc h o o l Bo a r d s
S t r e n g t h e n i n g G r a s s R o o t s L e a d e r s h i p . W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.:
IEL P u b l i c a t i o n , 1986.

Tuttle, Edward M .
School
Board Leadership
in A m e r i c a .
D a n v i l l e , Ill i n o i s : Interstate Printers & P u b l i s h e r s ,
1963.
U.S.

Department
of
Education.
Experiences
in
School
I m p r o v e m e n t . Th e
Story
of
16
American
Districts.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g Office, 1988.

174
Under w o o d , K e n n e t h E.
" P ortrait of A m e r i c a n Sc h o o l B o a r d
M e m b e r s ."
Th e A m e r i c a n School B o a r d J o u r n a l . J a n u a r y
1980, p. 12.
Van

Voorhees, Curtis.
" T o d a y ’s E d u c a t i o n a l P r o b l e m s D e m a n d
Well P r e p a r e d B o a r d s of E d u c a t i o n . "
The N ews & V iews
of M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n . N o v e m b e r 1988, pp. 6-11.

W e s t e r n M i c h i g a n U n i v e r s i t y R E D E Center.
" I n t e r m e d i a t e School
D i s t r i c t O r g a n i z a t i o n s of Michigan: A n E x a m i n a t i o n of
F u n c t i o n an d S t r u c t u r e , " 1981.
Wiles,

D a v i d K. a n d Conley, Houston.
Policy Making R e l e v a n c e .
ERIC
Service, ED 110 022, 1974.

Sc h o o l Boards: T h e i r
Document Reproduction

Wirst,

F r e d e r i c k M. a n d Kirst, M i c h a e l W.
The P o l i t i c a l We b
of A m e r i c a n S c h o o l s . Boston: Little, B r o w n & Company,
1972.

GENERAL REFERENCES

GENERAL REFERENCES

Alvey,

Donald; U n d e r w o o d , K e n n e t h E . ; a n d Fortune, Ji m C.
"Board M e m b e r Profile: M e e t the 'Typical* B o a r d M e m b e r . "
The A m e r i c a n Sc h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l . J a n u a r y 1986, p. 26.

A w e n d e r , M. A.
"The C a n a d i a n Sc h o o l B o a r d M e m b e r (A C o m p a r i ­
son W ith the A m e r i c a n C o u n t e r p a r t )." E d u c a t i o n . Sp r i n g
1983, pp. 281-286.
B e n j a m i n , James M.
"The M a n y Hats
B o a r d , June 1986 .
Best,

of a B o a r d M e m b e r ."

The

John W. a n d K a h n , James V .
R e s e a r c h In E d u c a t i o n .
E n g l e w o o d Cliffs, N e w Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c ., 1986.

Birch, Cynthia.
" P e r c e i v e d School B o a r d T r a i n i n g N e e d s ."
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , 1981.
B o r g , Walter R .
Applying
Longman, I n c ., 1981.

Educational

Research.

New

York:

C a m e r o n , B e a t r i c e H . ; Under w o o d , K e n n e t h E . ; a n d Fortune,
J ames C .
"B o a r d P r o f i l e : Who Y o u A r e ."
Th e A m e r i c a n
S c h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l . J a n u a r y 1988, p. 20.
C a r p e n t e r , J ack L . a n d S t u b e r , S u s a n E .
" M i c h i g a n ’s I S D ’s
S i l v e r A n n i v e r s a r y C e l e b r a t i o n ."
Michigan Association
of School B o a r d s J o u r n a l . S e p t e m b e r 1987, p. 22.
Cistone, Peter.
U n d e r s t a n d i n g School B o a r d s .
Lexington,
M a s s a c h u s e t t s . : D . C . H e a t h a n d Company, 1975.
C i s t o n e , Peter J .
"School B o a r d M e m b e r s L e a r n T h e i r Skills
B e f o r e T h e y B e c o m e B o a r d M e m b e r s ." The A m e r i c a n School
B o a r d J o u r n a l . J a n u a r y 1978, pp. 32-33.
Dickinson, William E ., e d .
N e w D i m e n s i o n s in S c h o o l B o a r d
L eadership: A S e m i n a r R e p o r t a n d W o r k b o o k .
Evanston,
Illinois: NSBA, 1969.
D u n b a r , W i l l i s F . M i c h i g a n A H i s t o r y of the W o l v e r i n e S t a t e .
G r a n d R a p i d s , M i c h i g a n : W i l l i a m B. Erdnaans P u b l i s h i n g
Company, 1965.

175

176
Dykes,

Archie R .
Sc h o o l B o a r d & S u e r p i n t e n d e n t s : T heir
E f f e c t i v e W o r k i n g R e l a t i o n s h i p . D a n v i l l e , I l l i n o i s : The
I n t e r s t a t e P r i n t e r & P u b l i s h e r s , Inc., 1965.

Gross,

Neal.
Wh o R u n s O u r
S o n s , I n c ., 1958.

School?

N e w Y o r k : John W i l e y

&

H e r m a n , J e r r y E . "How to T r a i n N e w B o a r d M e m b e r s T a c t f u l l y . "
The A m e r i c a n S c h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l . J u l y 1980, pp. 3739.
H o u l e , C y r i l 0.
The E f f e c t i v e B o a r d .
P r e s s , 1960.

Ne w Y o r k : A s s o c i a t i o n

H u r w i t z , M a r k W . "What W o r k s B e s t : An E l e c t e d or an A p p o i n t e d
Sc h o o l B o a r d ." The A m e r i c a n S c h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l , J u l y
1972, pp. 21-23.
K e r r , N o r m a n . "The S c h o o l B o a r d as an A g e n c y of L e g i t i m i z a ­
tion ."
S o c i o l o g y of E d u c a t i o n , Fall 1964, pp. 34-52.
King, Justin.
"The C h a l l e n g e of B o a r d M e m b e r E d u c a t i o n . "
M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of School B o a r d s J o u r n a l , N o v e m b e r
1988, pp. 3-4.
Martin, David.
"If B o a r d s Vanished, We *d H a v e to R e i n v e n t
T h e m ."
The A m e r i c a n School B o a r d J o u r n a l , A p r i l 1987,
pp. 29-32.
M a r t i s k o , Les a n d S h a w , G l e n . "Co-Ops Let Y o u Put M o r e Eggs
(a n d E v e r y t h i n g E l s e ) in One B a s k e t ."
The A m e r i c a n
Sc h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l . F e b r u a r y 1986, pp. 33-35.
M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of I n t e r m e d i a t e S c h o o l A d m i n i s t a t o r s .
The
I n t e r m e d i a t e S c h o o l - D i s t r i c t - - M i d d l e E c h e l o n of
M i c h i g a n *s T h r e e - E c h e l o n S tate S y s t e m s of E d u c a t i o n .
J a n u a r y 1967.
Michigan Territorial

Laws,

II.

pp.

472-477.

N a t i o n a l Sc h o o l B o a r d s A s s o c i a t i o n . A m e r i c a n School B o a r d s ;
The P o s i t i v e P o w e r . Alexandria, V i r g i n i a , 1987.
P a r e n t , J o a n M.
"Roles & R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of Local School
D i s t r i c t s ." A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n . M a r c h 1984, pp. 28-29.
R e b o r e , R o n a l d W.
A H a n d b o o k for Sc h o o l B o a r d M e m b e r s .
E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N e w Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1984.
R u s s e l l , P a t . "Why B o a r d m e n Q u i t ." The A m e r i c a n School B o a r d
J o u r n a l , N o v e m b e r 1971, pp. 23-26.

177
Shannon, Th o m a s A.
"Look H e r e for the
S u r v i v e as a S c h o o l B o a r d M e m b e r ."
B o a r d J o u r n a l , A p r i l 1882, p. 35.

Skills Yo u N e e d to
The A m e r i c a n Sch o o l

S m i t h , M a r y Lee a n d G l a s s , G e n e V . R e s e a r c h a n d E v a l u a t i o n
in E d u c a t i o n a n d the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s ,
N e w Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c ., 1987.
S t a p l e y , Maurice E .
School Board S t u d i e s .
U n i v e r s i t y of
C h i c a g o : The M i d w e s t e r n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n C e n t e r , 1957.
Underwood, K e n n e t h E . ; F o r t u n e , J ames C . ; an d D o d g e , H a r o l d
W.
"Your P o r t r a i t : Sch o o l B o a r d s Hav e a B r a n d N e w
L o o k ." The A m e r i c a n Sch o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l , J a n u a r y 1982 ,
p p . 17-22.
Underwood, K e n n e t h E . ; F o r t u n e , J i m C .; a n d P o o l e » N a n c y A .
"Fill Y o u r s e l f I n : B o a r d W o m e n G a i n G r o u n d . "
The
A m e r i c a n Sch o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l . J a n u a r y 1984 , pp. 25, 40.
Underwood, K e n n e t h E .; F o r t u n e , J i m C .; a n d Cleary, F r a n k J .
"Heads Up: B o a r d M e m b e r s are B e t t e r T h a n E v e r ."
The
A m e r i c a n S c h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l . J a n u a r y 1985, p. 29.
Underwood, K e n n e t h E . ; M c C l u s k e y , L a w r e n c e ; a n d U m b e r g e r ,
George.
"A P r o f i l e of the Sch o o l B o a r d M e m b e r . "
The
A m e r i c a n S c h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l . O c t o b e r 1978, pp. 25-26.
Un derwood, K e n n e t h E .; F o r t u n e , J i m C .; a n d M e y e r , James A.
"Readout B o a r d W o m e n Los e G r o u n d ." The A m e r i c a n School
B o a r d J o u r n a l . J a n u a r y 1983, p. 23.
Unde r w o o d , K e n n e t h E . ; Thomas, W . P.; a n d P a c e , M.
"Your
P o r t r a i t : B o a r d C o n c e r n s vs The P u b l i c ’s ." The A m e r i c a n
School B o a r d J o u r n a l , J a n u a r y 1981, pp. 20-25.
Webb,

Harold V .
W h a t Do We K n o w A b o u t
R e s e a r c h R e p o r t , 1975 .

School

B o a r d s , NSBA

White, Eileen.
"How to T r a i n N e w B o a r d M e m b e r s ."
E x e c u t i v e E d u c a t o r . N o v e m b e r 1979, pp. 20-21.

The

Z e i g l e r , L . H. a n d J e n n i n g s , K. M .
Governing American
S c h o o l s . N o r t h S c i t u a t e , M a s s a c h u s e t t e s : D u x b u r y Press,
1974.