School of Education 8-2017 School Boards and Team Learning: A Phenomenological Study of the Beliefs of School Board Presidents in Central New York Mary K.. School Boards and Team Lear
Introduction
A school board is a local authority charged with providing and maintaining schools and setting the policies that govern their operation (NSBA) The American system traces back to 1647, when the Massachusetts Bay Colony required towns to establish and sustain public schools Initially, towns ran schools through citizen participation in town meetings; as educational issues grew more complex, control shifted to elected representatives (selectmen) and then to town committees In 1826, Massachusetts formalized the approach by mandating that each town elect a dedicated school committee to oversee all public schools, a model that spread across the United States and became the standard school board structure in use today.
School boards of education establish the policies that govern how local public schools operate Board members are elected local officials who typically volunteer their time In New York State, these boards oversee a statewide system with a $58 billion budget, more than 520,000 employees, and roughly 2.7 million students, according to the New York State School Boards Association.
[NYSSBA], n.d.) Except for Yonkers and New York City, board members in New York State are elected
School board size varies by district, with boards typically made up of five, seven, or nine members, and voters have the power under the law to change the board size Members usually serve three-, four-, or five-year terms, and these terms are staggered so that not all seats are up for election at the same time Each year, the board elects its president and vice-president to serve as officers.
Public school boards govern and represent the community in educational matters while overseeing district resources, serving as the conduit between residents and schools (NSBA, n.d.) In recent years, boards have faced increasing pressure to clarify their role and exercise their authority (Mizell, 2010) Across New York and the United States, rising student achievement expectations and demands for curricular reform require decisive leadership, and navigating these challenges is a demanding yet essential function of school boards (Alsbury, 2008).
Navigating state and federal education mandates requires savvy, experienced school board leadership, and the school board president’s role is distinctive, blending clearly defined duties with subtler, informal tasks Although president responsibilities vary by district, the core duties typically include leading board meetings and maintaining order, collaborating with the superintendent to set agendas, serving as the liaison between the board and the superintendent, representing the board’s voice, and promoting teamwork and mediation (NYSSBA, n.d.) Beyond these formal duties, informal pressures and the unpredictable nature of the role can create significant stress (Hurley, 2006) Resources from state organizations underscore that the position is inherently challenging and complex beyond its stated responsibilities In today’s accountability-driven environment, strong leadership from the school board president is essential (Hess & Meeks, 2010).
School board members often lack formal experience in education, which can leave governance gaps, while they are called to understand district-wide operations to govern effectively (Hess, 2010) Although not educational experts, board members must grasp district priorities, policies, and performance issues to make informed decisions (Delagardelle, 2008) Managing major district functions—budgets, personnel, curriculum, facilities, and instruction—alongside rapid reforms and mandates, can overwhelm newcomers and extend into increasingly complex governance responsibilities (Maeroff, 2010) In short, the evolving role of school boards in an era of unprecedented educational change creates a persistent knowledge demand, making continual learning essential for effective oversight in public school systems (Kirst).
Under-qualified school boards can produce devastating outcomes for districts, potentially affecting millions of students Ineffective governance leads to poor decisions, a loss of focus, and actions that do not support the district’s mission and objectives When board operations clash with district operations and philosophies, time and money are wasted, undermining efficiency and resource use This inconsistency and confusion harms morale and erodes confidence among staff, parents, and the broader community, with potential negative effects on student outcomes.
In a report written for the Center for Public Education, Devarics and O’Brien
A 2011 study identified indicators of school board effectiveness and the characteristics of effective school boards, with participation in learning activities and collaborative teamwork highlighted as central features; the findings, supported by Hess’s research, emphasize ongoing learning and teamwork as core characteristics of effective boards.
In 2010, leadership, teamwork, and training were identified as essential for successful school board performance Since then, school board professional preparation and ongoing learning have evolved as districts are held more accountable for school improvement and academic performance, with expectations for boards increasingly heightened.
School board training requirements differ by state, with a 2012 survey by the National School Boards Association showing that 23 states mandated such training Some states require training for all board members, while others limit it to new members Research indicates participation in statewide training is inconsistent and there is no consensus on content, time, or format (Hess & Meeks, 2010) Typically, training is provided by the state, or board members participate in programs offered by approved third-party providers The required time and topics vary, but common subjects include governance roles and responsibilities, school finance, and the evaluation of the superintendent.
In New York State, school board members must complete 12 hours of mandated individual training, with additional opportunities available through national and state associations and other professional organizations Local districts may develop their own in-house learning opportunities based on board needs However, this mandated training focuses on individual skills and growth and does not address team learning and functioning, creating a potential gap between board member preparation and the literature on successful teams and organizational performance.
Communities rely on their school boards to make decisions and operate as a single entity, and therefore boards must have the ability to do so (Alsbury, 2008; New York Education Law § 1804) Senge (1990) asserted that organizations capable of long-term success practice five fundamental disciplines—systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning—defining the core attributes of learning organizations as first described by Senge (1990).
Team learning is the process of aligning and developing a team’s capabilities to create the results its members truly desire As teams align and grow together, they build collective knowledge and produce outcomes that no individual could achieve alone This collaborative development turns personal effort into shared performance, enabling organizations to reach higher levels of effectiveness through coordinated action, mutual learning, and a clear, common purpose.
Boards of education in New York State face accelerated, complex change that tests their ability to govern effectively Although members from diverse backgrounds usually intend well, many are unprepared for these challenges The situation demands that New York State school boards develop team intelligence—capacity greater than any single member—so the board must function as a cohesive unit to deliver results Although state mandates emphasize individual, skills-based training, such programs often fail to build the collaborative, team-based capacity needed for real outcomes Understanding how school boards develop this collaborative capacity offers valuable insights for board learning and preparation.
Systems thinking theory, together with the framework of team learning, provides the theoretical foundation for this study It traces back to general systems theory, with Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968) arguing that the fundamental character of a living thing is its relationship to the whole and that studying isolated parts cannot yield a complete explanation of phenomena He stressed the interconnectedness of components and warned against examining parts in isolation from the larger system.
Review of the Literature
Using a phenomenological approach, this study examines the beliefs of school board presidents about how boards develop the capacity to collaborate effectively to produce meaningful results The findings aim to enrich the literature on educational governance and to inform ongoing learning, professional development, and preparation for school boards.
This literature review begins by outlining the roles and governance practices of school boards to set the context, emphasizing how board structure, authority, and accountability shape educational leadership It then analyzes the effectiveness of school boards and the extent to which research demonstrates a link between board actions and student achievement, synthesizing evidence on governance impact The review proceeds to discuss school board member preparation and the formation of high-performing teams, clarifying their relevance to the study and the mechanisms through which prepared boards can influence outcomes Finally, the chapter surveys team learning and identifies the major contributors to this body of knowledge, framing implications for practice and directions for future research.
School Board Governance and Roles
The role of a public school board of education is to govern and represent the community in matters of education while overseeing district resources (NSBA, n.d.) The
According to the Key Work of School Boards guidebook (NSBA, 2015), effective school boards rely on a core set of skills that drive student achievement, including vision, accountability, policy development, and community leadership, as well as strong board–superintendent relationships The guide emphasizes clear strategic direction, rigorous accountability measures, thoughtful policy work, and proactive community engagement as essential capabilities for governing boards to improve student outcomes.
In recent years, school boards have faced growing pressure to define their roles and exercise clear authority within their districts The environment surrounding board members and the school board president—who bears primary responsibility for board governance—intensifies this pressure Reforms in K-12 education governance have shifted accountability and blurred lines of responsibility, contributing to persistent uncertainty about who is responsible for what within the board.
School board members are elected to 2- to 5-year terms, and shifts in board composition and leadership create challenges for board operations and clarity about each member’s role Ongoing turnover and role confusion further affect the leadership effectiveness of the superintendent and the elected school board president (Kirst, 2007).
Hess (2002) published the first national survey of school board member demographics and governance roles, providing insights into the nature of school boards and their governance responsibilities Conducted with the National School Boards Association, the study mailed an eight-page questionnaire to a national sample of school board members, and 827 responses were received, yielding a 41% response rate (Hess, 2002).
Hess (2002) reported findings across four domains—school boards and policy; school board preparation; profile of school boards; and school board elections On school boards and policy, respondents consistently identified student achievement and budget as the most urgent issues In the area of board service and preparation, the majority indicated a desire for more training to better understand their role and to distinguish their responsibilities from those of the superintendent.
According to Land (2002), school boards in the United States have rarely been the focus of empirical research, with most reports remaining anecdotal and narrative rather than data-driven He reviewed and synthesized the history, current state, and reforms of school boards, and identified the key characteristics of an effective board, offering a comprehensive analysis of how governance relates to academic achievement The study highlighted substantial gaps in the scholarly literature, showing that in the prior two decades numerous school board and educational governance reforms were proposed and implemented, yet the literature remained limited in scope and generalizability and often consisted of anecdotes and lists of unsupported best practices for board members Land called for additional, more rigorous research on board member relationships and the connections between school board governance and student outcomes.
Federal and state accountability pressures have expanded the role of school boards, challenging them to examine issues in depth (Kirst, 1994) With board performance assessed by a broad range of constituents, the emphasis for school boards should shift toward policy leadership and governance (Kirst, 2007) In response, several states have revised or are rethinking statutes defining the roles of school boards (NSBA, n.d.).
Alsbury (2003) conducted a survey of 176 Washington State school superintendents to identify why school board members resign or retire and to examine how turnover relates to board roles Using descriptive quantitative methods, the study ranked turnover reasons, distinguished political from apolitical turnover, and compared turnover by district size and superintendent turnover rates (Alsbury, 2004) The findings indicate that numerous factors—primarily political—and issues related to role confusion influenced school board turnover The study suggests further research to understand the consequences of turnover for school board and superintendent roles and governance.
Across New York and the United States, rising student achievement expectations and demands for curricular reform—driven by economic and global forces—challenge school districts (Carnevale, 1992) Meeting the complexities of state and federal education mandates requires savvy, experienced school board leadership and clearly defined roles (Hess & Meeks, 2010).
According to the New York State School Boards Association, New York State school board members are responsible for guiding the district’s vision and setting its direction to drive the highest student performance, providing rigorous accountability for student achievement results, developing a budget and aligning district resources, establishing a healthy district culture for learning, creating partnerships with community stakeholders, advancing the district’s progress through continuous improvement, adopting and maintaining policies, hiring and evaluating the superintendent, ratifying collective bargaining agreements, and upholding strong ethical standards.
Across New York and other states, the school board president oversees the organization and functioning of the board, provides leadership, and works closely with the superintendent to ensure effective governance and educational outcomes In addition to these formal duties, the role carries informal responsibilities that can be demanding and unpredictable, a dynamic noted by Hurley (2006) In an era of high accountability, role ambiguity among school board presidents can create problems that distract from educating students, a challenge highlighted by Daugbjerg (2014).
State education workshop descriptions and the resources available to school board presidents illustrate how demanding and intricate the role can be For example, Texas offers six state-produced publications plus three online courses tailored for presidents, including How to Work with the Errant Board Member and Focused and Productive Board Discussions, which guide leaders on negotiating tough board dynamics and running conversations that zero in on issues that advance the district New York State provides GOV 201: Board Officers Academy, a course that acknowledges that school board leadership is more challenging than ever A NYSSBA 2015 presentation, The Role of the Board President: What They Never Tell You, characterizes the presidency as volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, with a section titled “Keeping Your Head, While Others May Be Losing Theirs.” Together, these examples from Texas and New York highlight the persistent challenges faced by school board presidents.
The evolving role of school boards and member inexperience in an era of unprecedented educational change remains a challenge for public school systems (Kirst,
School boards in the United States operate in a continually changing educational landscape, requiring them to adjust roles and adapt to 21st‑century education reforms, mandates, and globalization (Boyd, 2007) The capacity of school boards and their leadership to navigate these obstacles is a challenging but essential function for boards of education (Alsbury, 2008).
Research Design Methodology
Public school boards of education govern school districts and represent the community in educational matters while overseeing district resources In recent years, boards have faced increasing pressure to understand their role and executing authority Across New York State and the United States, new standards and tests of student performance reflect dissatisfaction with the level of student achievement, with rising expectations driven by economic and global considerations posing ongoing challenges for districts Compliance with state and federal education mandates is complex and requires savvy, experienced board leadership as districts navigate accelerated and complex change The ability to transcend these obstacles is a challenging, yet necessary, function of boards of education.
Board members from diverse backgrounds are often well-intentioned yet unprepared for the challenges they face, and this new context requires school boards to function effectively and cultivate team intelligence that surpasses the capabilities of any individual member (Hess & Meeks, 2010; Fillion et al., 2014) While New York board member training tends to be individual and skill-based, it lacks content that shows how school boards can develop the capacity to work together and generate meaningful results, thereby informing and enriching board learning experiences.
This qualitative phenomenological study examines school board presidents' beliefs about how boards build the capacity to collaborate and deliver meaningful results Grounded in the idea that qualitative research seeks to understand how people construct meaning from their experiences, the study uses a phenomenological framework to explore the lived experiences of school board presidents and interpret what team learning means to them and how boards work together to produce outcomes By focusing on participants' perspectives, the research aims to reveal the essential structures of collaboration and decision-making in school governance.
The primary data collection method was individual interviews, used to explore the experiences and beliefs of school board presidents The study was guided by a systems-thinking framework, specifically the discipline of team learning, to interpret how leadership teams function Team learning is defined as “the process of aligning and developing the capacities of a team to create the results its members truly desire” (Senge, 1990, p 236).
The research questions that guided this qualitative study are:
1 How do school board presidents believe school boards develop the capacity to work together to create results?
2 What skills and knowledge do school board presidents identify as necessary for school boards to work together to create results?
3 What learning and preparation do school board presidents identify that help school boards acquire skills and knowledge to work together to create results?
4 To what degree do school board presidents believe existing school board learning and preparation supports or impedes the ability of boards to work together to create results?
The study took place in the Central New York region and focused on school boards located within the Onondaga-Cortland-Madison Board of Cooperative
Educational Services at OCM BOCES serves 23 school districts across Onondaga, Cortland, and Madison counties in New York State These districts include rural, urban, and suburban communities, and together they support a diverse student population with enrollments ranging from about 500 to 9,000 students per district.
Onondaga County sits in the Central New York region and had a 2015 census population of 468,301, including residents of the City of Syracuse In May 2017, the New York State Department of Labor reported an unemployment rate of 4.3% for Onondaga County, aligning with the 4.3% rates for New York State and the U.S Overall, major local employers span hospitals, colleges and universities, insurance companies, power and telecommunications providers, and public school districts After years of manufacturing job losses and the departure of two large corporations, the county’s economy is gradually rebounding.
Cortland County is a small rural county located south of Syracuse in Central New York The loss of many local businesses has contributed to an economic decline in the region According to the 2015 census data from New York Demographics, the population was 49,043.
Data, n.d.) The May 2017 unemployment rate as reported by the NYS Department of Labor was 4.8% (Department of Labor, n.d.)
Madison County, NY, is a rural county with a 2015 population of 72,427, according to New York Demographics Data In May 2017, the New York State Department of Labor reported an unemployment rate of 4.7%, and the county’s economy remained heavily reliant on agriculture and small businesses.
The majority of students in all three counties—Onondaga, Cortland, and
Madison residents attend public schools in their own communities, while the OCM BOCES region includes fewer than 15 private and charter schools in addition to 12 Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse schools (Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse, n.d.) The region's districts show a wide range of academic achievement and graduation rates, from high-performing schools to those identified as needing improvement by the NYSED Office of Accountability (NYSED Office of Accountability, n.d.).
Amid a depressed economy and rising unemployment, New York State's school districts are categorized by a need/resource capacity index that measures each district’s ability to meet student needs with local resources The index is calculated as the ratio of the estimated poverty percentage to the Combined Wealth Ratio (CWR) A district whose estimated poverty and CWR align with the NYS average would have a need/resource capacity index of 1.0, reflecting average need relative to local resources, according to the NYSED Office of Accountability.
In the OCM BOCES region, sixteen districts are categorized as average needs/resource capacity districts, falling between the 20th and 70th percentile on the index Four districts are classified as high needs/resource capacity rural districts, defined as districts at or above the 70th percentile and characterized by low student density, with fewer than 50 students per square mile.
OCM BOCES comprises districts with varying student density and enrollment, including two high/resource-capacity Urban-Suburban Districts defined as districts at or above the 70th percentile with at least 100 students per square mile or enrollment over 2,500 and more than 50 students per square mile, and one district categorized as a Low Needs/Resource Capacity District defined as scoring below the 20th percentile on the index The range of district categories, along with graduation rates and student academic performance, underscores the region's demographic and economic diversity This regional diversity will enrich the study by ensuring a broader range of lived experiences is represented, yielding significant insights from school board presidents.
12 OCM BOCES school districts based on eligibility and availability of school board presidents in the participating districts
The research participants included existing school board members who, at the time of this study, were school board presidents for no less than 1 year, between July 1,
To capture authentic reflections of school board presidents, this study selected a 10-year window spanning 2006 to January 31, 2017, to maximize participants' ability to recall their experiences in that leadership role As explicit (long-term) memory fades over time, the chosen period increases the likelihood that respondents can accurately recount facts and events from their presidencies In addition, developments in technology and evolving learning designs over the past decade have reshaped how learning occurs, informing the study's focus on contemporary educational contexts The goal was to interview school board presidents who had been exposed to modern learning environments to ensure insights reflect current educational dynamics.
District superintendents at OCM BOCES were contacted in advance to explain the research study and respond to questions This communication took place at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting of superintendents at OCM BOCES, and a follow-up email (Appendix A) was sent to all superintendents.
Participants were identified with the assistance of district superintendents who provided contact information, and were reached by email along with a letter of introduction (Appendix B) that offered a detailed explanation of the study While a response deadline was established, extensions were allowed to ensure broad representation, a sufficient sample of participants, and consideration of busy schedules.