Measuring Perceived School Board Effectiveness in Tennessee: The Latest Survey Results

Abstract

Local school board effectiveness is an overlooked social phenomenon in educational leadership, according to much of the academic literature. The lack of effectiveness often found in these governing institutions may be one reason why school achievement is stagnant in Tennessee. As school boards are responsible for the direct operations of local school districts. The purpose of this study is to uncover the amount of perceived effectiveness that local school boards in Tennessee possess. The following research question is the basis of this research: are local school boards in Tennessee effective? The data for this study was gathered from a mailed survey to 815 school board members in Tennessee. The findings suggest that school board members perceive themselves as an effective governing body. Policymakers need to caution the generalizability of this study because it only represents those local school districts in Tennessee. Future studies should incorporate all school districts in the south to see if other states are witnessing the same levels of effectiveness as Tennessee.

Keywords:

• effectiveness
• per pupil spending
• school boards
• student achievement

Notes

3. See J. P. Danzberger, “School Boards: A Troubled American Institution” In Facing the Challenge: The Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on School Governance, (p. 19), New York: Twentieth Century, 1992; J. P. Danzberger “Governing the Nations Schools: The Case for Restructuring Local School Boards” Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 367–373, 1994.; also see L. N. Carol, L. L. Cunningham, J. P. Danzberger, M. W. Krist, B. A. McCloud and D. C. Washington, the Institute of Educational Leadership, 1986.

7. See M. W. Krist, “A Changing Context Means School Board Reform” in Phi Delta Kapan, 75, 1994, pp. 378–381 and M. W. Krist, “The Future of the Local School Board,” in Journal of Texas Public Education, Winter, 1, 1994, pp. 9–28. Also see J.C. Wilson “Urban Education: A Board Member's Perspective”, in Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 1994, pp. 38–39.

8. Ibid, Wilson, 1994.

10. T. A. Shannon, “The Changing Local Community School Board,” in Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 1994, pp. 38–39 and M. A. Resnick, “Effective School Governance: A Look at Today's Practice and Tomorrow's Promise,” the Education Commission of the States Denver, CO, 1999.

12. T. L. Speer, “Reaching for Excellence: What Local School Districts are Doing to Raise Student Achievement,” the National School Board Association, Alexandria, VA: 1998. Also see, “Education Vital Signs 1997” from the American School Board Journal, 12: A13–A15, 1997.

13. G. W. Bracey and M. A. Resnick, “Raising the Bar: A School Board Primer on Student Achievement,” the National School Board Association, Alexandria, VA. 1998 and R.H. Goodman, L. Fulbright, and W. C. Zimmerman, “Getting There From Here: School Board Superintendent Collaboration: Creating a School Governance Team Capable of Raising Student Achievement,” from The Educational Research Service and New England School Development Council, 1997.

14. Ibid, Goodman et al., 1997.

15. Ibid, Goodman et al., 1997.

18. Ibid, Speer, 1998.

21. In addition to the MANCOVA Test, independent sample t-tests were conducted as a means of preliminary analysis to assist in understanding a financial and achievement perspective in Tennessee School districts. Two dependent variables, student achievement scores and spending on education, were generated and incorporated with the survey data for measuring effectiveness from a financial and achievement perspective. However, the primary analysis of this study is the MANCOVA test, which is given considerable discussion in this section.

23. Ibid, Beck and Katz, 1995.