Swimming in the Deep End: School Board Members Making Sense of Their Roles and Responsibilities

Abstract

Little has been dedicated to the experience and potential support for local educational policy actors, school board members, that were at the heart of unprecedented decision and sensemaking during the Covid-19 pandemic. Employing sensemaking theory and an interpretivist case study design, this study conducts interviews with four school board members in a Missouri school district. The study explores their motivations for candidacy and perceptions of the role’s responsibilities, especially as individuals elected during the pandemic. The findings highlight that candidates’ decisions to run are influenced by personal and professional experiences, shaping their initial understanding of the position. However, post-election, a transformative process unfolds in the actual enactment of the role, signifying an evolution in their sensemaking journey. This study contributes to the limited but growing literature on school board members who play critical roles in education and whose roles and responsibilities have often been overlooked in the scholarship.

Keywords

Case studies Covid-19 governance leadership pandemic politics qualitative research responsibilities roles school board members school boards sensemaking

School board members and public school board meetings were catapulted into the national spotlight as the Covid-19 pandemic health crisis upended lives and challenged routine ways of doing schooling. Both appointed and democratically elected school board members were suddenly tasked with making sense of often incomplete and complicated public health information as they sought to protect the lives and health of public school children, heightening the visibility and public engagement with school boards (Mervosh & Hubler, 2020). School boards were simultaneously becoming flashpoints for broader U.S. social and political polarization around issues ranging from book banning in school libraries to whether Critical Race Theory concepts were present in K–12 curriculum to transgender students’ rights in sports (Carrillo et al., 2023). The pandemic placed school boards and their members under intense scrutiny, and board meetings evolved into a place where community tensions converged and clashed. These gatherings have become platforms for discussions about the role and future of public education in the United States.

School boards, once regarded as “sleepy backwaters of local government” (Nierenberg, 2021), have evolved into significant arenas for political and cultural discourse. It is not surprising that three-fourths of current school board members have expressed their decision not to seek re-election (Jimenez, 2022), while newly elected members find themselves rapidly grappling with the intricacies of their roles and responsibilities. Although candidates may have advocated for specific issues or agendas during their board campaigns, their roles predominantly entail reviewing policies, procedures, and budgets—essential, yet often less recognized and politically charged. As EdWeek journalist Sawchuk (2021) aptly described, “Newly elected board members running on single-issue campaigns may be in for a rude awakening.”

With the evolving political and cultural landscape, interest in and research on school boards has been growing. However, as emphasized by Sampson (2019a), there still exists a notable gap in knowledge and scholarship concerning school boards. This gap includes understanding what motivates individuals to seek board membership, their preconceived expectations of the role, and the development of their understanding of the roles and responsibilities. While previous research has explored school board members’ roles and responsibilities (Ford & Ihrke, 2015a; Hendricks, 2013; Iowa Association of School Boards [IASB], n.d.; Johnson, 2012; LaMonte & Delagardelle, 2009), the primary focus has historically centered on delineating the duties of superintendents (G. E. Carter & Cunningham, 1997; Flood & Angelle, 2022; Ford & Ihrke, 2018; Ray, 2003; Vickers et al., 2014). To gain deeper insights into and provide support for newly elected school board members, this study delves into members’ motivations for seeking board positions, their preconceptions about these roles prior to running, and whether their perceptions of the roles and responsibilities evolved as they served in the position Using sensemaking theory as our theoretical framework, we explored the following research questions: (1) What motivates school board members to run for board membership?; (2) Prior to being elected, what did board members expect or perceive would be their roles and responsibilities as school board members?, and (3) How did school board members make sense of their roles and responsibilities after being elected?

We followed an interpretivist case study design (Yin, 2017) and conducted interviews with four school board members within a suburban district in Missouri. Data analysis revealed that all four participants shared concerns about equity issues within the district and believed they could instigate change by securing a board seat. Their conviction that addressing inequities was imperative coincided with external influences that motivated their decision to run. Furthermore, we observed shifts in their perspectives after assuming their official positions. Initially, many had not deeply contemplated the roles and responsibilities of a board member before entering the electoral race. However, following their election, each participant had to embark on a journey of developing, redefining, or gaining a nuanced understanding of school board membership. Notably, the pandemic had no discernible influence on their motivations or their perceptions of these roles, both pre- and post-election. The research offers insights into the motivations of school board members and changes in their perceptions regarding their roles and responsibilities upon assuming their newly elected positions. The findings delineate discrepancies between members’ initial expectations and the actual realities encountered, elucidating the challenges they face. In doing so, the study identifies areas when and how such assistance can augment school board members’ comprehension of their duties.

Literature Review

Research on school boards has examined various aspects of their functionality, with a primary focus on governance (Alsbury, 2008; Alsbury & Gore, 2015; Kogan et al., 2021), public discourse in school board meetings as governance is occurring (Dorner, 2011; Kenney, 2019; Sampson & Bertrand, 2023), relationships and tensions with superintendents (G. E. Carter & Cunningham, 1997; Flood & Angelle, 2022), interpretation of policy and reform (Fuhrman & Elmore, 1990; Spillane, 1998; Sutherland, 2022), and decision-making (Diem et al., 2015; Sampson, 2019a, 2019b; Turner, 2015). Historically, these studies often revolved around delineating the roles and responsibilities of school board members, particularly concerning their interactions with superintendents. As Land (2002) observed, “A variety of studies have documented that . . . some board members are not clear about the distinction between their and the superintendent’s roles and, relatedly, between policy and administration” (p. 251).

There has been a slight increase in research exploring their roles and responsibilities specifically to their influence on student achievement (Ford & Ihrke, 2015b, 2020a) in the past decade. However, there remains a dearth of empirical work that has explored the initial stages of becoming and being a board member, including what drives people to seek the position, their expectations of the role, and how they develop a sense of their responsibilities.

What Are School Boards?

Local school boards are a unique political subdivision in the United States, and got their beginning with the creation of universal public education within the colony of Massachusetts. The first legal act conducted towards education in the colony by the Puritan settlers was the Massachusetts School Law of 1642. The law mandated that citizens must know how to read the English language and comprehend the colony’s laws (New England Historical Society, 2020). It was an attempt by the colonial government to respond to parents who were not training their children to read in order to ensure that the children were prepared in a trade or craft that they could conduct once they became adults. The law did not go as far into forcing communities to establish spaces for public education like schools; therefore, the government then enacted the Massachusetts General School Law of 1647 or the better-known name due to the first lines of the law—the Old Deluder Act of 1647 (Crofton, 2020; Shurtleff, 1853). The Old Deluder Act of 1647 established a stronger public educational mandate to be followed by communities within the colony, and it led to the creation of committees to help manage these newly formed schools. These committees eventually developed into the system of local school boards as we now know them in the United States.

Currently, these local governing boards are viewed as microcosms of democracy-in-action, and being a member is similar to holding a local city government position like that of a councilperson or an alderperson (Campbell & Fullan, 2019). Beyond the belief that they serve as microcosms of democracy at the local level providing better access to citizens compared to larger national governance structures, there are still questions about their usefulness and potentially the need to move away from locally elected representative school boards to provide quality education in the United States (Collins, 2023; Kogan, 2022).

What Is School Board Governance?

Though influences external to the community can inform how board members think about their role, there are a variety of organizations (e.g., National School Boards Association [NSBA], Iowa Association of School Boards [IASB], Missouri School Boards’ Association [MSBA]) that guide and train board members on the roles and responsibilities that are a part of the job. The guidance provided by these large national and state-level bodies is informed by research studies or state laws. The most prevalent research cited by multiple entities comes from Iowa’s longitudinal project, also known as the Lighthouse Project (IASB, n.d.; LaMonte & Delagardelle, 2009). IASB highlighted six standards and competencies school boards need to be effective: Visionary Team, Student Learning, District Culture, Policy & Legal, Fiscal Responsibility, and Advocacy (IASB, n.d.).

In Missouri, the Missouri School Boards’ Association (MSBA) is the state-level entity that provides guidance and training to school boards across the state. MSBA (2021) outlines the roles and responsibilities for board members as: (1) Goals: board establishes goals and vision for the district; (2) Policy: board develops and approves rules that help operate the district; (3) Superintendent: as the board’s only employee, they are supervised and evaluate the individual; (4) Budget: the board approves the budget proposed by the superintendent and ensures funding supports the district’s goals; (5) Advocacy: the board shares district information with the community and legislature to secure resources for student success.

Many studies that analyze school board governance broadly investigate levels of internal (among the board) and external (board and community) conflict (Grissom, 2010, 2014). Internal conflict arises when there are tensions between board members or the entire board with the district staff. These conflicts can be personal (Mountford & Brunner, 2010), based on ideological differences (Heisler & Hanlin, 2019), or specific agendas that board members have in relation to their service (Weiler, 2015). When this conflict finally begins to occur in the public display, it may indicate negative student academic achievement outcomes (Ford & Irhke, 2017, 2020a). Perceived internal conflict also has a relation to negative student academic scores but can be less noticeable to the community when it is not being displayed in the public eye (Grissom, 2010, 2014). While similar in highlighting the detriment personal conflict has on school boards, Heemskerk (2020, 2023) has found that task conflict, “conflicts focused on the content of the task to be performed” (2023, p. 317), can have a positive impact on their overall work.

One example of external conflict that can negatively impact the board and student achievement is when special interest groups pressure boards or a communal power struggle occurs on specific issues (Ford & Ihrke, 2020b, 2021; Grissom, 2010, 2014). When these items begin to impact the discussions held by the board, it can take away from the focus on student academic achievement, which usually correlates to district’s having lower student academic scores. While other articles looked broadly at internal and external conflict, Ford and Ihrke (2020b, 2021) found that there tends to be a higher rate of conflict present in urban school districts and usually this conflict is more external due to a variety of competing needs in a highly diverse district. This conflict can be present in the superintendent-board relationship too.

School Board Relationship With the Superintendent

Research that relates to the training of school board governance has primarily focused on the superintendent-board relationship. This research has analyzed the perceived division of responsibilities between a board and superintendent (Ford & Ihrke, 2018; Vickers et al., 2014; Webner et al., 2017) and the perceptions on the necessary qualities and evaluation of superintendents (Davidson et al., 2019; Hendricks, 2013; Jarrett et al., 2018; Person et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2021). The division of responsibilities between the elected school board and superintendent can be difficult to discern. The superintendent managing the district while the board focuses on governance can conflict with an individual’s perception of their role (Flood & Angelle, 2022; Ford & Ihrke, 2018). Ford and Ihrke (2018) find this division to be well balanced in charter schools where the most effective districts were the ones that divided issues in two categories: operations (superintendent) and advocacy (board). Vickers et al. (2014) surveyed superintendents and board presidents on their perception of local board governance, finding that both groups were not satisfied with their board’s level of ethics nor adherence to governance.

If board members operate with this lack of clarity it can lead to unclear expectations for superintendents, which then appears in the superintendent’s evaluation by the board. Williams et al. (2021) share how almost 90% of boards are not required to do training on superintendent evaluations. Any unclear or unrealistic expectation creates conflict, which can cause exceptional superintendents to leave the profession (G. E. Carter & Cunningham, 1997; Ray, 2003). To combat this conflict from evaluations, Hendricks (2013) found that Texas school districts utilizing a common evaluation tool experienced higher clarity of each party’s roles and meaningful evaluation feedback. Additionally, various researchers have recommended training boards (Davidson et al., 2019; Hendricks, 2013; Jarrett et al., 2018) and the need is not solely for new members (Webner et al., 2017).

It is the need for training on governance practices, division of roles, and how to effectively evaluate the superintendent that underscores board members’ lack of clarity on their roles and responsibilities.

Recent Governance Questions in the Age of Accountability

In the age of academic accountability measures from the federal and state governments, recent research concerning school board governance has focused on comparing districts in relation to the impact their governance practices have on student performance. The research generally analyzes the components of specific governance characteristics that lead to increased academics (Johnson, 2012), research supporting a positive correlation between consistent adherence to governance norms and student academics (Ford & Ihrke, 2015b; Plough, 2014), research revealing poor governance leads to lower performance (Lee & Eadens, 2014) and increased conflict (Grissom, 2014). Additionally, Ford and Ihrke (2015a, 2017) have investigated the differences in governance and academics between public urban to non-urban and public to charter districts.

Research on training for school boards has focused on the need for continual professional development, the impact it can have on student achievement, and governance models. There is a broad research consensus that school boards, especially in the 21st century, lack the knowledge base to be effective and would benefit from engaging in continuous professional development (Campbell & Fullan, 2019; Campbell & Green, 1994; Eadie, 2009; Kask, 1990; Zorn, 2008). Roberts and Sampson (2011) show how boards engaging in rigorous training tend to experience the district’s students performing better on standardized tests. The connection of training and consistent practice of governance with student achievement speaks to accountability policies and the continued, heightened focus on academic progress post-Covid-19’s impact.

Contextualizing Missouri Politics, Policy, and School Boards

As Covid-19 disrupted schooling, districts in Missouri were tasked with deciding mitigation strategies. In April 2020, the governor removed the requirements of statewide testing and making up lost hours during the 2019–2020 academic year (Office of Governor Mike Parson, 2020). This relief was celebrated, but the lack of uniform mitigation guidance led to districts implementing various strategies. As mitigation strategies continued into the 2021–2022 year, the then-state attorney general sued school districts with masking requirements (Grumke, 2022; Shorman, 2021). Additionally, the newly elected state auditor claimed he would audit school curriculums and withhold funds if he found the curriculum to contain divisive content (Erickson, 2023).

As these state-wide officials were attacking districts, various bills were introduced and signed to increase the surveillance of educators’ actions in the classroom to ban specific items being discussed and the participation of transgender students in athletics (Ballentine, 2023a, 2023b). Similarly, the state’s educational environment is hyper-partisan with the state’s politicization of issues having to be managed by the local unpaid, publicly elected board. This hyper-partisanship has helped increase national political discourses filtering into local school districts in Missouri, as Halpern (2023) shares, but these national issues do not all present themselves in the same way in local school board discourse for each community.

Guiding Framework: Sensemaking Theory

Sensemaking theory provides both the theoretical and analytical frame to provide insights into why school board members in one Missouri community chose to run for board membership and how they perceived their roles and responsibilities as board members before and after their election. Sensemaking theory, associated with organizational theorist Weick (1995), seeks to explain how people come to understand their environment and how they interpret a new event or information (Coburn & Talbert, 2006; Weick et al., 2005). Stimuli, like a surprise or disruption to the environment, can initiate the sensemaking process. The theory proposes that people are not blank slates as they formulate interpretations of their environments. Rather, their beliefs, preexisting knowledge, experiences, and social interactions with others filter how they experience the world (Spillane et al., 2002). In essence, they draw on frames of reference already in place to ground their interpretations of events or information and make subsequent decisions about whether they need to take action (Coburn, 2005). Sensemaking is not a linear process; it is active, continuous, and interactive (Spillane et al., 2002). Over time, an individual can reformulate a new understanding or interpretation of an issue. The events of an outcome can shape interpretations of an event; therefore, the sensemaking can also happen retroactively. For example, Saultz et al. (2017) highlights how support for stronger federal educational policy in the U.S. lost support from various key constituencies across the political and social spectrum as the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act went into motion.

Social context and cultural norms can also function as boundaries to sensemaking, influencing an individual’s perception of their agency to act on information or an event. Decisions to act, for example, may be based on perceptions of what is “socially appropriate.” Humans are social beings who tend to work collectively and collaboratively. This enters the sensemaking process as people engage in collective sensemaking, negotiating their understandings and interpretations with others via formal and informal interactions (Castro et al., 2022; Coburn, 2005; Sutherland, 2020). Individuals may try to achieve a shared understanding around an event, which may be done intentionally. Notably, an individual’s position within an organization can confer or limit access to information and the ability to mediate others’ sensemaking (Dorner et al., 2022; Duncheon et al., 2023; Hemmer et al., 2018; Spillane & Anderson, 2014). Coburn’s (2005) study centered on teacher sensemaking of instructional policy, and she found that the work environment, interactions with others, and the relative position of a person within schools are dynamics that mattered. For example, school leaders in the study mediated teachers’ sensemaking of policy through their decisions around the kind of information and how they shared it with teachers. Leaders therefore influenced the conditions under which teachers were able to interpret policy messages. Notably, in a recent study by Ching (2023), collective meaning-making of equity was examined using a sensemaking framework. Sensemaking begins when individuals identify “triggers” that underscore the gap between current and desired states (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Weick, 1995). Ching (2023) highlighted the power of equity sensemaking, as it aids practitioners in recognizing existing conditions to better serve students. The research emphasized the importance of fostering shared sensemaking of equity to address the tensions practitioners face.

In the context of school board policy sense/decision-making, studies have shown how local educational policy actors can impact the interpretation and implementation of mandates from federal and state governments. Fuhrman and Elmore (1990) highlight the larger influence local actors have on how state-exerted policies affect the classroom. Spillane (1998) emphasizes the impact local policy actors and district administrators have in implementing state mandates because those areas of the law remain open to interpretation, which allows for adaptations to the law influenced by local leaders’ sensemaking. The constant space for various interpretations by school board members leads to a diverse application of policies and responses to similar changing environments (Spillane, 1996, 1999; Sutherland, 2020, 2022; Torres, 2023). School board members’ interpretations are also situated within a larger scope of issue discourse as well. Noah Epstein (2006) writes that as more institutions and actors have sought to influence education policy and governance over education since the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, conflict can ensue as a growing variety of actors from state authorities to community-based organizations to educational management companies and courts seek to shape the direction of education. In result, there is confusion over how to address educational issues as well as who is held accountable when there is no improvement. It is beyond the scope and purpose of this study to examine how school boards, state agencies, courts, and other important policy actors perceive their role—and control—in educational decision-making. However, it remains a gap in research that warrants further exploration as power shifts among policy actors in response to changing political contexts and policy pressures.

Our study applied sensemaking theory to understand why individuals choose to run for school board and their perceptions of the roles and responsibilities as board members after their election—again, recognizing that school boards have especially operated under more scrutiny in the past few years. We applied the theoretical frame to data analysis by focusing on participants’ intersectional personal and professional identities, values and beliefs, actions, and interactions with others, which are the key frames of reference people use as they process and adapt to environmental changes and seek to understand them.

Research Design and Methods

This study follows an case study design (Yin, 2017) of the motivations of four school board members on one Missouri school board to seek a board seat and how they made sense of their roles and responsibilities before and after being elected. This paper comes from a larger study of school boards in four Missouri school districts that explored a range of topics, from members’ perspectives of and experiences with governance to their processes of making decisions during the pandemic and whether they felt equipped to do so.

We selected an interpretivist case study design for this particular examination of four individuals in one district. Interpretivist case study design has its roots grounded in a social constructivist epistemology, which aligns with our theoretical framework to understand how participants are making meaning of their role and their actions (Stake, 1995). It also enables us to consider the context, culture, and power relations embedded in social structures (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017) that situate school board members’ work. To note, the pandemic was a backdrop for all four board members, but two participants were just beginning their service as the pandemic was ramping up.

District Context, Data Collection, and Analytic Procedures

The city where this study is situated is a college town with various types of living zones (urban, suburban, and rural). Politically, the voters inside the city limits frequently “vote blue,” compared to the school district’s attendance areas in the county. The community, and its school district, is predominantly white like the overall Missouri population. The school district serves approximately 18,000 students, with students identifying as White (58%), Black (20%), Multi-racial (9%), Hispanic (7%), Asian (5%), and Indian/Pacific Islander (>1%). Nearly 40% of the students receive free/reduced lunch. Throughout the pandemic, the community grappled with issues of racial equity, racial and socioeconomic divides, and, following George Floyd’s death in 2020, questions about racially disparate policing practices. As mitigation strategies were voted on, some highly vocal community members petitioned the school board in person at meetings, through email, and on phone calls to keep on with “traditional” school.

There were four major special interest groups within the community leading to and during the pandemic. The three groups present leading into the pandemic were two teachers’ unions, the local Republican delegation of representatives from the area, and a special interest group organized on Facebook called, “[City Name] for Progress”. In the district, there are two unions, and a third of the staff members belong to one of the two unions and another third are not members of either union. The two unions are the local chapters of the Missouri National Education Association (MNEA) and the Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA). The district’s local MNEA chapter was voted on by the teachers to be their exclusive bargaining representative union in contract negotiations back in the earlier 2010s. That local MNEA also had an active political action committee, which had all their endorsed school board candidates win in recent past elections. At the time of this research all seven members of the local board had been endorsed by the MNEA chapter.

As an additional backdrop for how political leanings and tensions play out in the district, the Republican members of the local house delegation accounted for three of the five house seats for the county the district resided in. Two of those three Republicans prior to the pandemic were adamant antagonists to the school district, and that antagonism ramped up even more during the pandemic. Their antagonism against the district ranged from questioning district equity trainings, making claims that there were litter boxes in bathrooms, that there were “furries” biting and barking at other students, and that the district was anti-American.

For years a private Facebook group also brought like-minded progressives from the area and across the state of Missouri together in organizing for events, petitions, pressuring local governments, and supporting specific issues. This private group is managed by three individuals but is primarily an open forum for “progressive” issues and political organizing. Though a private Facebook group and though one must be vetted by one of the three group managers before being accepted in, it has thousands of members. This group would organize to pressure the school district against using school resource officers and advocate for more equitable practices across the district for students of color and students in vulnerable populations like those with individual education or 504 plans.

During the pandemic, another Facebook group was formed that was public and named “Citizens for Accountability and Transparency in [District Name]”. This is moderated by a married couple with three children in the district, and the group opposed virtual education and masking. This group has continued to operate as a page attacking the district on equity, discipline, behavior, academics, and board members for their comments made at board meetings. The members of the local Republican delegation to the Missouri House also engage in discourse on this group. The husband of the couple that found this group has also run twice to become a school board member but lost in 2023 and 2024. He is currently running for a state house seat as a Republican in the November 2024 election against a first term incumbent Democrat.

Together, these four special interest groups were some of the main agents involved in making public comments and arguing over various key issues impacting the district during the pandemic, including equity, resource allocation, student behavior, masking, and in-person versus virtual education. These groups were the most visible presence in school board meetings, reflecting the hyper-politicization surrounding educational issues at the local level, which coincided with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Notably, one participant is a former member of the local Missouri National Education Association (MNEA) union, and the local MNEA endorsed all four participants during their respective elections. Interestingly, none of the participants mentioned their MNEA endorsement in their interviews, even though it was publicly known. However, this aligns with our findings. In particular, participants did not indicate in their interviews that any special interest groups were motivating factors in their decision to run for the school board or influenced their views during the elections.

Though various viewpoints exist in the district that reflect discourses circulating nationally through the news and social media, there is not a significant presence of national issues appearing in the stratosphere of the school board meetings. We believe this is largely due to three unique aspects of the district. First, the fact that the elected board members in this community have always been endorsed by the teachers’ union suggests a degree of shared values and perspectives among board members. Second, since this is a college town and multicultural city, contentious issues such as book banning, or curriculum stripping have rarely surfaced or simply cannot survive in this community. The diverse and educated population likely supports a more inclusive and progressive approach to education, which further diminishes the prevalence of such debates. Lastly, while disagreements over certain issues do exist, as illustrated in our findings, the board members’ equity-minded approach, which advocates for equal opportunities for all students, results in fewer controversial debates in this setting. Consequently, groups like Moms for Liberty or other right-wing organizations have not been present in this district.

Instead, the district experiences different types of turmoil. Due to its characteristics as a college town with a Democratic-leaning perspective, it is constantly on the radar of state representatives in a state government with a Republican trifecta (Missouri Republicans control the governor’s seat and majority in both legislative chambers). As a result, while the district is neither the largest nor the wealthiest in the state, its board members have been scrutinized by state officials. For instance, the Attorney General has filed lawsuits against the district’s board members, and a state representative has called for the resignation of the superintendent. In essence, though disagreements do surface in board meetings, they ultimately do not escalate to the level of conflict seen at the national level. Readers should consider these circumstances while interpreting the results.

Data Collection

Data collection began in Fall 2022 and concluded in Spring 2023. Data collection involved using grounded theory methods, such as participant interviews and gathering documents such as board agendas, meeting minutes, district school board policy, Sunshine Law information, and materials from the Missouri School Board Association. The research team also collected newspaper articles to capture district and community context to better situate the timeline for school board actions and decision-making during the pandemic. The research team also reviewed newspaper articles to capture the district and community context and better situate the timeline for school board activities. However, we intentionally chose not to use newspaper articles directly, as local news coverage could inadvertently reveal the district and, by extension, the identities of our participants. The manuals, policies, and training materials provided sufficient insight into participants’ sense-making, which made the use of newspaper articles less necessary.

Participants were recruited using a purposive and convenience sampling procedures as the research team sought to learn if and how school boards across different geographies (e.g., rural and suburban) respond similarly or differently within their context. Our case study includes four participants, which represents more than half of the total board members in the district, which consists of seven members. This sampling provides a robust foundation for our analysis, particularly because these four members were newly elected within the past two years. Their recent election status offers a unique opportunity to examine how they make sense of their new roles and responsibilities. In addition, board member experiences can vary significantly based on the characteristics of the community one serves, and this focus on a single district enhances the internal validity of our study. While our sample size is slightly smaller than that of Carrie Sampson’s (2019a) work on Latinx school board members where six board members were interviewed, we believe our study still makes a significant contribution to the scholarship. Stake (1995) asserts that case studies can be effectively conducted with a small number of participants, as the goal is to delve into the “particular and the unique” and not to generalize. Small sample sizes can also offer an opportunity to understand in more depth how participants construct their interpretations of “reality,” the meanings they attach to it, and how and why they engage in certain behaviors (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017, p. 33).

All participants for this paper and those included in the larger study of four districts were interviewed twice using a semi-structured interview protocol. Each interview lasted approximately an hour to an hour and a half on Zoom. Data for this paper comes predominantly from the first interview, which concentrated primarily on board members’ stated reasons for pursuing board members and how they understand the roles and responsibilities of being a board member. For example, participants were asked to reflect on what they expected a school board members’ duties would be while campaigning for a seat and how they now view their role and responsibilities as a sitting board member. They were also asked their perceptions of the professional training that MSBA provided and other training opportunities and whether the perceived training contributed to their preparedness for the board.

The school district examined in this paper was purposefully selected to effectively address and explore our research questions. Unlike other districts, where the majority are long-standing members or there may only be one newly elected board member in a given year, the district in this study has more than half of its board members elected for the first time within the past three years (2019–2021).¹ This situation provides an ideal opportunity to capture their initial perceptions and any subsequent changes in their roles and responsibilities. Additionally, the board members represent a diverse group, consisting of two males and two females, as well as two individuals identifying as Black and two as White. This diversity facilitates the examination of a broad range of perspectives and experiences in relation to the school board’s position. Lastly, unlike other districts, this district spans rural, suburban, and urban areas, with community members holding varying political ideologies, although the community tends toward progressive values. This unique geographical and ideological composition provides a rich context for exploring the research questions of this study. Each participant constitutes an individual case. Please see Table 1 and the Appendix for detailed information of the participant board members.

Table 1

Information on School Board Member Participants

Name	Year Elected	Race/Ethnicity	Gender	Age	Professional Experience
Jordan	2020	Black	Cis-Male	30s	Insurance & Security
Sam	2020	Black	Cis-Male	30s	Military & Management
Elliot	2021	White	Cis-Female	30s	K12 Educator
Cindy	2021	White/Jewish	Cis-Female	40s	Higher Ed Student Support

The research team also collected documents like board meeting agendas and minutes, as well as board-related newspaper articles that discussed board meetings and member’s positions on issues. The non-interview data that the research team gathered was integrated in text to support and triangulate the interview comments, providing valuable context and nuance to the district context; however, they are not cited to protect the anonymity of the school district and participants. As this study focuses on the sense-making of the board members, the findings are primarily analyzed and developed based on the interview data and in many instances are cross-checked with the stance of interest groups and their endorsements. When interviewees discussed the influence of Covid-19, we highlight local news sources to provide additional context to the interview findings. The non-interview data are not presented as standalone information, except in discussions about interest groups; instead, they are integrated into the findings.

During data collection, the then-Missouri attorney general initiated lawsuits against several Missouri districts related to mask mandates, as earlier noted, including the district in this study. This reflected and magnified intense public debate, locally and nationally, at school board meetings over masking and other Covid-mitigation strategies. Given the tension in the sociopolitical environment, all names in this study are pseudonyms to protect participants’ privacy and security.

Data Analysis

The research team engaged in structural coding for the initial stage of data analysis. This organizational strategy is recommended for studies with multiple participants to facilitate researchers’ ability to examine comparable segments’ commonalities, differences, and relationships (Saldaña, 2016, p. 98). Data was grouped under the relevant research question in an Excel spreadsheet. Researchers 1 and 2 then used affective coding, informed by sensemaking theory, to refine the data. Affective coding relates to “human action, reaction, and interaction” and interpersonal experiences (Saldaña, 2016, p. 124), which intersects with this paper’s use of sensemaking theory. The researchers drew from sensemaking theory concepts to then categorize participant responses according to their experiences, personal and professional identities, values/beliefs, and actions. They also engaged in open coding to document additional thoughts on participants’ responses. Researchers 2 and 3 first coded data separately on one participant’s transcript. They then discussed their codes to find consensus in their interpretation. In team meetings, Researcher 1 then reviewed the codes to provide feedback. Researcher 1 wrote interview summaries for each participant, coding data on participants’ identities (e.g., former teacher), actions (e.g., visited district schools), values (e.g., equity, relationship-building) and beliefs (e.g., certain populations of students are underserved in the school district) as they are concepts associated with sensemaking. The full team then reviewed the codes and the individual interview summaries. The team then developed cross-case summaries for analysis of the commonalities, differences, and interrelationships among the data as a path to reveal emerging themes (Saldaña, 2016).

Research Positionality

Our research team comprises diverse experiences, expertise, and identities that enhance our understanding of the issue at hand. By reflecting on our individual identities, experiences, and expertise as board members, parents, teachers, and scholars in educational leadership, we were able to examine and consider the topic from various perspectives, angles, and contexts.

Dr. Blake Willoughby is a white male who has lived in Missouri for seven years and a recent doctoral graduate. He is serving his second term as a school board member. Bringing in his real-world experience and state recognized board certifications (Advanced, Master, & Distinguished) he provides a crucial lens to the findings. Dr. Se Woong Lee is an Asian male faculty member in the field of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, who brings professional expertise in organizational and leadership theory. Additionally, as a father of two children who have personally experienced and navigated school closures, masking policies, and remote learning, he brings insights and perspectives from the parents and communities that inform this study. Dr. Emily R. Crawford is a white female who has lived in Missouri for nearly a decade and who works at a research-intensive university. She has experience teaching education policy and history and has also conducted research to understand how educational leaders are prepared to ethically engage with their school communities.

Limitations

The research study has constraints that future research can work to strengthen. This study’s results are specific to the school board members and community where the research was conducted, as well as the context (e.g., pandemic) that shaped and provided nuance to how participants view their roles. The study results are not generalizable and are focused on one school board in the Midwest; however, the national climate around changing pandemic conditions made school board members across the country highly visible as they made decisions, so participants’ reflections and experiences may mirror other communities’ contexts. The findings are also from a very specific time period, ranging from fall 2021 to spring 2022; therefore, participants may have had their perspectives focused on the largest event impacting their districts: the pandemic and its after-effects. This factor may have influenced the information shared by participants on other issues that were similar to issues given focus nationally, even though the researchers asked for examples throughout the semi-structured interviews to elicit as many potential topics to analyze on their sensemaking of school board members’ roles and responsibilities. This research provides insights into a local-level educational decision-making body at a unique time. Additionally, research should explore the perspectives of educators, students, community members and superintendents on the role and responsibilities that board members play across geographical and political contexts to provide a more complete picture of the challenges, constraints, and affordances board members experience at this point in time.

Findings

In this paper, we asked: (1) What motivates school board members to run for board membership? (2) Prior to being elected, what did board members expect or perceive would be their roles and responsibilities as school board members, and (3) How did school board members make sense of their roles and responsibilities after being elected? The data showed that, initially, participants did not give much forethought to the roles and responsibilities before they ran. Consequently, after being elected, each participant had to understand or redefine their perceptions on the roles and responsibilities. Participants’ values, identities, and personal and professional experiences shaped their sensemaking. Going through training also appeared to influence some participants’ views that their primary responsibility is to govern.

Motivation: Pursuing Equity in School and Social Change

Common to all four participants was the expressed desire to run for a school board seat based in large part by their belief that district students were not being equitably served. Participants also wanted to serve the community. Further, data analysis showed that a decision to run for a position on the school board did not necessarily generate with the candidate alone: to some extent, all four participants received encouragement to run for the position. Though they shared a belief in wanting to address equity,² each had different reasons and pathways that led them to running. For example, Elliot’s identities as a teaching professional and mother to a LGBTQ+ child and Sam’s identities as a Black male graduate of the district and a father to a biracial child influenced their decisions. In comparison, Cindy’s professional experience with a Title I program and Jordan’s experience of his social circles sharing their views of district equity issues led them to want better support for all students.

Elliot’s application of her professional identity as a teacher to support marginalized students combined with her personal experiences as a parent of a LGBTQ+ child motivated her to run. She considered running in the past after a 25-year old got elected a few years earlier, but when she saw a post from Sam stating that individuals should run if they think things should be different and the comments from others on the post pushed her to run. Her goal was to have a more equitable educational environment. Elliot expressed frustration and observed a lack of conversations on issues surrounding equity. In her previous teaching role in the district, she perceived a lack of spaces for students to discuss their identities in a systematic manner, saying, ”I don’t think that we talk explicitly enough about race and how systemic racism impacts our students’ experience in schools.” She attempted to organize a school-community event to showcase inclusive books, though the district stopped partnering, deeming it too controversial. Reflecting on the difficulty of garnering support for the event, she said, “It gave me a deeper insight into how hard it is for students with marginalized experiences to have representation in literature.” She then expressed a desire to “disrupt the status quo because I don’t believe the status quo is neutral,” and decided to run for a board seat.

Sam, who had previously run for a county-wide elected position, also expressed a willingness to serve. However, the idea of running for school board gained traction after he recognized the equity issues within the district and had one of the teacher union’s leaders encourage him to run. He explained, “as you grow older, and you now have two children in [the district], you start to realize some of the schools are treated differently, and it’s typically schools that have a demographic that is a little more diverse.”

Sam’s particular equity concern arose from the stark realization that, despite serving a diverse student body, the district had only two Black male teachers. He also indicated there was clustering of students of color in particular schools—segregation—and these schools were not treated equally. His racial identity meant he felt that he better understood the importance of teacher racial/ethnic representation. His personal identity and long-term connection to the district fueled his desire to run for a board position to actively serve historically underserved and marginalized students.

Jordan shared that his motivation to run and serve the community developed through his interactions with a former board member and superintendent. He got to have this interaction through a leadership program with the local chamber of commerce that his employer paid for him to attend and learn about the importance of education and the obstacles students encounter. Reflecting on those conversations and their intersection with issues of equity, Jordan remarked,

It was that day, when it became obvious to me that I just thought that schools in the Southside of town were better than those on the Northside for no other reason than that was told to me. But having those conversations with them passionately talking about the district, as a whole. It was different than ever told to me before, so my paradigm shifted.

This paradigm shift not only opened his eyes to the community’s issues, but motivated him to run. Even though he, a Black man, was aware of the inequities people of color experience, how it manifested in the community was unknown to him in part due to his access to a higher socio-economic strata. After that conversation, he became more interested in running for a board seat to help marginalized students and grow awareness of the challenges faced within the social groups he had membership in. He hoped that these friends would have a similar paradigm shift to what he experienced.

Lastly, the fourth participant, Cindy, had long thought about running for school board. Her motivation to serve the community was rooted in her professional experiences working closely with non-traditional students. However, it was the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic that ultimately drove her decision to run. Cindy explained, “With everything that happened in Covid, it seemed like this was a time when there would be numerous challenges to address and potential for significant change. Moreover, I wanted to ensure that decisions aligned with my own and community’s beliefs”. Aware of the prolonged journey that the district would be undergoing to address the impact of the pandemic and how it was creating significant challenges for the district’s most vulnerable students, Cindy decided to run for the school board. This was driven by the belief that she could contribute significantly to the betterment of the community. The three other participants’ motivation to run echoed Cindy’s belief that she could foment change and greater equity in the community through board service.

Regarding their reasons for running, all four aligned in part with the first and fifth primary roles and responsibilities outlined by MSBA (2021), goals and advocacy. Though aligned, there were some misconnections. Each had a vision of equity for the district but had no set goals. Each desired to champion equity, but this advocacy was not directly coordinated towards dialogue between the various stakeholders.

Off the Cuff and on the Job

Our findings revealed that participants did not strongly consider the responsibilities and roles of the school board before or during the election. They were going “off the cuff” and expected they would learn on the job. In this sense, little conceptualization of the role occurred before running. Candidates were motivated to serve based on a desire for more equitable district practices. However, their motivation and desires were not situated within knowledge of school board procedures and processes.

Cindy appeared to filter her understanding of the process of making decisions through her work as an executive director of a non-profit. Despite the flurry of school board actions during the 2020–2021 school year, she had not thought much about the roles before filing, “That’s a good question. Um, honestly, I’m not sure I thought about it. In that type of detail”. She had a basic understanding, given her directorship role, that boards have a right to approve or negate ideas. She may have assumed prior to running that school boards—though members were elected to the position—would operate the same way; therefore, did not seek out how board membership across the two organizations could differ.

Elliot also knew that board members were critical actors; however, like Cindy, she admitted to having limited knowledge. Elliot stated,

I had very little knowledge of the, like, living, how you live . . . these roles and responsibilities out? I think the general understanding I had is that board members informed policy and approved a lot of things on board agendas.

She recognized that board members have a say in creating and interpreting policy but did not have in-depth knowledge of the board’s roles, influences on it, or other board responsibilities. Elliot, too, expected to learn what board membership would entail once elected. Cindy’s work as an executive director may have provided insight into how (some) boards operate and Elliot may have viewed her previous work as a teacher to give her extensive insight into the board’s work, but they both recognized that there would be new elements to learn on the job.

In contrast to Elliot and Cindy, both Sam and Jordan’s perception of their roles and responsibilities was largely shaped by their engagement with the community during their campaigns. In this sense, community members had an opportunity to shape their sensemaking. Both were elected in the June 2020 election, which had been postponed from occurring in April due to Covid-19. During the extra months of campaigning, they held various live chats online. This allowed them to interact personally with constituents rather than in the community’s traditional formats, like rigidly structured forums held by organizations. The online interactions with constituents influenced how they understood their role as board members.

Sam learned that many community members believe the board makes every decision for the district. He said, “So when I was running, you would hear people talk about, you know, ‘the board is the final arbitrator of everything.’” This caught him by surprise as, while he did not know all the specifics around board decision-making and policy creation, he had not assumed the board ultimately decided everything.

Jordan also gained a sense of board responsibilities as filtered through his interactions with the community. He shared his initial perception of the role, stating,

Oh man, before I joined the board, a lot of the information that I received came on behalf of community members and mostly advocates. And so I’ll be honest, before I joined the board, I thought, “well, I guess my responsibility is to get our superintendent in line and to make sure our teachers do what they’re supposed to do and, and to reflect the community’s voice in the decision-making process.”

Jordan entered his role believing he needed to represent community values; and, to do this from the top of the organizational hierarchy, he would closely monitor the superintendent. In this way, he brought his understanding of organizational hierarchies common in the business world and applied it to make sense of school board structure. Sam also reflected on his understanding of the superintendent relationship as he explained, “I think it gets skewed into believing that if you don’t agree with the superintendent, you can just fire him and pick somebody else.” Similar to Jordan, Sam also implied that school board processes (i.e., hiring and firing people) operated similar to businesses, likely a reflection of their professional experiences. They did not expect their positions as elected leaders would look different and constrain their decision-making. Notably, both participants thought that if they perceived that administration was not meeting their ideals, they could quickly change school administrators, which aligns with the issues highlighted by researchers on board members’ lack of clarity on the superintendent relationship and evaluation processes (Davidson et al., 2019; Flood & Angelle, 2022; Ford & Ihrke, 2018; Vicker et al., 2014; Webner et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2021).

Setting Boundaries to Provide Oversight and Create Working Relationships

Study results revealed a notable shift in participants’ perceptions after being elected. All four, regardless of their expertise, embarked on a sensemaking journey. Participants refined their roles and responsibilities to develop clearer understandings on the role’s boundaries, and interestingly, Jordan and Sam shifted in their view on board members’ responsibilities to seeing it as more about governing and providing community oversight.

Elliot, who highly values equity and her deep connectedness to teachers, described the need for board members’ responsibilities to have boundaries. She articulated this idea, stating, “I feel like I understand that there’s a place where we leave it [our board role responsibilities], right? We’re not going into schools and changing the initiative. But we’re communicating the impact of these decisions on our stakeholders.” Though dedicated to her position on a personal level, she reflected that over time she recognized that, “we all need to set our own boundaries around this volunteer position.” She still held closely to her professional identity as a teacher and utilized her professional experience and personal values in how she viewed issues in the district.

However, she eventually bound the scope of her work and the time she put in—though still significant—by noting that it was a “volunteer” role. Though it remains unclear, she may have been stating this to contrast it to a professional, paying obligation. Elliot appeared to start drawing boundaries around how she would participate in the role, though she was actively engaged.

After being elected, both Jordan and Sam’s pre-misconceptions about school board involvement and the extent of school board decision-making quickly changed as they underwent the MSBA training; and, as additional influences shaped their sensemaking. The MSBA training meets the 18½ hours state requirement for new school board members and it covers a range of topics from applicable laws, board members as mandatory reporters, analyzing district academic data from the state’s Annual Performance Reports for each district, and best practices in board governance (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 162.203, 2019; MSBA, 2024). At the local level onboarding training traditionally consisted of getting an overview of the board’s meetings and committees, how to handle constituent communication, and scheduling monthly meetings with the superintendent. This is interestingly unique for the men because both did not get the traditional onboarding from the local board and superintendent due to the pandemic delaying their election and them having to immediately jump into decision-making related to schooling and Covid-19. They came to view the role as being a moderator among constituents. They came to see—and appreciate at times—that there were boundaries and constraints around the actions the board could take and processes they had to follow. Sam said, “Once you make it to the board, you actually begin to learn you don’t get to make every decision.” Sam and Jordan also experienced a shift in moving from proactive roles to more reactive ones.

Initially, both actively engaged with stakeholders, such as going to bus stops in the morning to discuss district issues. They actively sought input from people regarding topics under discussion. However, they soon realized that their good intentions might not always result in the best outcomes. As Jordan stated,

I had to not only listen to what everybody around me was telling me, but I also had to stumble and trip a little bit. For example, you may have good intent by meeting with staff or community members. But you may cause a rift between admin and staff or the community. To make sure I don’t have any of those unintended consequences, like undermining a superintendent. I stay within my roles and responsibilities.

They learned to rezone their boundaries around the role, moving to a belief that the aim of the board is to govern and provide oversight. Over time, they played a less proactive role. Showing a clear shift from his preconceptions before elected and early in his experience, Jordan reflected, “It’s not my responsibility to do the work of, say, a superintendent, or a teacher, or a principal. It’s my responsibility to work in concert with fellow board members, to advance the district.”

Sam also gained clarity around the scope of his perceived responsibilities, distinguishing what was within the board’s versus superintendent’s purview. He noted,

So I think a lot of advocacy groups will say, “you are going to be involved in everything.” Every decision that comes through will fall on you. But that’s not quite how it is. It’s like I said, the superintendents running the show; for the most part, we are there as kind of guardrails to make sure that we don’t go too far left or right on the path forward.

For Jordan and Sam, both of whom had limited professional experience in the education system, the mandatory MSBA training and district policies on the superintendent-board member relationship shaped their ideas about how to perform their role. Jordan shared,

One of the first things that started to shift was, [a school board member] gave me a book on governance. And if I’m being honest, when I got it, I was like, “I don’t need this, everybody’s already told me what I’m supposed to do.” And so I quickly learned from that book, some MSBA training, and the former superintendent, I was like, “Oh, wait, these are the things that you’re supposed to be doing.”

Across the four participants, once in their positions, there came to be a demarcation between what was the board’s and superintendent’s responsibilities, whom they referred to as the board’s “only employee.” This approach resulted in them focusing on their role of proactively working with the superintendent compared to reactively, in tandem with community members, engaging the superintendent. However, while participants agreed with drawing a boundary of the position to a governing role, Elliot emphasized the importance of the board’s role in bridging the gap between the community and superintendent. She continued to express her belief that board members should reactively represent the community and serve as a voice for those not adequately heard. In her own words, she said, “I think that we, as a board, should be a bridge between the community and the superintendent. And so, I really think that what I should bring into my space is [to be] a space holder for community input.” This variation between board members could also be due to when they take the state mandatory training. Newly elected board members must complete all of the 18½ hours before they reach the end of their first year on their respective boards. MSBA provides the total training divided into two formats: 10½ hours virtually and 8 hours in-person (MSBA, 2024). All four participants had to undergo all 18 virtually due to the pandemic.

Lastly, Cindy did not believe her perception of what a board member’s role entails shifted after being elected. Instead, post-election, she shared the challenge of trying to figure out how her processes of how a non-profit board functioned could be utilized as a school board member. She said, “Not so much about what is or isn’t the role of the school board, but definitely about the mechanisms, by which the school board or a school board member has the ability to actually make those changes.” She vividly described the feeling that she and Elliot, who were elected in the same cycle, were thrown into board meetings with insufficient time to truly understand their role and responsibilities. Cindy stated, “You still jumped into this piece of, like, you’re sworn in, and then immediately it’s like, ‘okay, a motion, okay, a vote.’ And I was like, wait, what? Like, what’s happening? Like, literally, I just sat down, and you’re asking me to, like, say yes or no on this list of things.” Cindy expressed feeling unprepared to immediately vote on items without having more prior preparation to joining the board. Overall, she perceived little was done after the election and prior to the first meeting, six days after the election, for them to properly understand and carry out their position as a board member.

Laws and Pandemic Setting Barriers and Boundaries

Board members also spoke of having to draw boundaries around their relationships, both based on law and in light of the pandemic. For example, one significant challenge that all board members encountered in fulfilling their roles after their election, which they had not previously anticipated, was navigating the application of Missouri’s “Sunshine Law.” The Sunshine Law is intended to promote transparency in government by ensuring public access to meetings and records of public governmental bodies. While transparency is crucial for a modern democracy, the board members soon realized that strict adherence to the Sunshine Law resulted in limited communication and sometimes authentic discussion. Elliot explained,

I had really imagined, as I do with most kinds of collaborative work, that there would be more space for meaningful dialogue between board members. I think my understanding of how that operates is very different from what I had hoped or expected. So for example, I did not know that if there are four or more board members at a given place, that it’s a public meeting. And we have to put the agenda up within a reasonable time.

Due to the constraints of the Sunshine Law, participants observed a shift in the level of openness with which they perceived they could engage in discussion, gather information, and have authentic conversations among themselves. This led to perceived fragmentation, with individual board members feeling a need to be intentional and cautious when reaching out to discuss matters with co-board members, rather than being able to engage as a collective. To make sense of the issue, Sam shared, “I called another board member on a Saturday afternoon, to just kind of talk about it. Talk about it in a way that is not ‘this is where I’m going to vote,’ because we don’t. I just kind of want to get their feelings on the topic.” As a means to comply with the law, Sam found a way to still engage privately and learn other’s sensemaking on an issue.

As both Elliot and Cindy expressed, though these laws are instrumental to the public, for board members the laws created a sense of being in silos with no ability to dialogue and exchange ideas prior to making decisions. This limitation ensuring the public can hear their elected officials’ thoughts also creates a silencing effect that minimizes the public dialogue. Even the closed executive session dialogue is minimized due to the stringent requirements of what can be discussed in those meetings. Sam shared how the state law made it difficult to execute their roles and discuss upcoming complex decisions like the mode of schooling in response to Covid-19 during the 2020–2021 academic year. This leaves individuals serving as board members having to engage with each other in individual ways and not as a group, which does may impede true co-collaboration and co-creation as expressed by Elliot.

Consequently, board members frequently gravitated toward working in what they sometimes perceived as silos, establishing their own boundaries around the position. This tendency restricted, for some like Elliot, opportunity for collective and open discussion. In essence, some perceived that the legal boundaries hampered their ability to effectively carry out their designated roles, rendering them less equipped to cast votes on issues based on a stronger comprehension of an issue. Consequently, there was the possibility that members’ capacity to assume responsibility for the outcomes and align their decisions with the values of the community were ultimately thwarted.

Discussion

The conversations with the board members resulted in three core findings in relation to the research questions and sensemaking theory. The first research question uncovered that equity was a main motivating factor in participants’ decisions to run for the school board. Their valuing of equity appeared to be influenced by their identities, experiences, and social groups. The second and third research questions found two main themes. First, there was a vague understanding of a board member’s role, and initial conceptualizations of the position were built on their own and other’s beliefs on what the roles should be/how the roles should be implemented. Second, post-election, board members experienced a shift in their perspective on the roles and responsibilities of being a board member, and these influences stemmed from learning about board policies and procedures and training and laws, and the extent of board members’ ability to communicate about board matters. The central focus of our first research question revolves around how equity—as influenced by candidates’ lived experiences and interactions within the community—informed their decision to run for school board positions. This approach integrates Weick’s (1995) notion of individuals as “sensemakers,” who interpret their environments through the lens of their personal and professional experiences, particularly when faced with uncertain, perplexing, or unreasonable situations. Despite the diversity in their backgrounds, identities, and experiences, equity emerged as a unifying principle among the participants. Each one identified specific “triggers” of inequity that spurred deep reflection on the current state versus the ideal state of equity, which aligns with Sampson’s (2019a) findings on how Latinx board members utilized their own lived experiences to address inequities in school districts. For instance, Elliot was moved by the inequitable educational environments she saw affecting students of all genders and sexual orientations, while Sam was concerned about the underrepresentation of teachers of color and its impact on students of color. Similarly, Jordan became increasingly aware of issues related to segregation, and Cindy, drawing on her professional experiences in education, was troubled by the insufficient resources available to the most vulnerable students during the pandemic. They described their encounters with inequitable access to resources and opportunities, noting how their own marginalized identities—whether racial, sexual, or other—shaped their views on the inequities in the school district that demanded attention. Furthermore, their description of equity, similar to an opportunity framework, highlights a significant lack of awareness, resources, and opportunities—factors often shaped by policies and institutional practices that can either exacerbate or ameliorate students’ opportunities (P. L. Carter & Welner, 2013; Cooper, 2009; Horsford & Sampson, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 2013; Valenzuela, 2010). They recognized that these disparities could be addressed through policies and institutional practices. As they grappled with the discrepancies between ideal equitable access and the actual conditions, equity served as a strong motivator for their candidacy.

An equity-focused mindset is critical as it shapes and determines how individuals perceive, develop, and respond to existing and new policies. As demonstrated in the work of Turner (2015) and Diem et al. (2015), an equity-driven approach continues to influence and challenge traditional practices, contributing to greater equity within school districts. This mindset is particularly important in diverse communities, where board members’ varied histories and experiences require nuanced and thoughtful approaches to fostering inclusivity and fairness. Despite the complexities and challenges these communities face, an equity-focused perspective remains essential in advancing meaningful and lasting change. This challenge is particularly acute for board members from marginalized communities, as Sampson (2019a) notes that advocating for or against equity can jeopardize their chances of re-election. As they stated, “speaking out against inequities might evoke a non-reelection,” but their study also found that remaining silent on these issues could similarly lead to non-re-election. As noted by scholars such as Coburn (2005), Hemmer et al. (2018), and Spillane and Anderson (2014), serving on the school board was seen not only as a means to address these inequities but also as an opportunity to represent and “give back” to the community by advocating for the values and perspectives of other community members.

Notably, while this research inquired about the pandemic’s influence on their decision to run for office and their evolving perceptions of their roles and responsibilities, all participants uniformly expressed that it had little to no direct impact on how they viewed their responsibilities. Yet, this period marked a unique juncture in history when heightened attention was directed toward their every decision, and it led to increased community engagement and, at times, contentious debates. The pandemic ushered in a new era of transparency, with district meetings being broadcast live on YouTube rather than in person, and students and parents watching these meetings live. This technological shift facilitated heightened communication and involvement from parents and interest groups, both with prospective candidates and the incumbent board members. Such elevated attention and engagement were unprecedented for school board members, which could explain why they did not feel a sense of the pandemic altering their perception of the roles and responsibilities. They were sensemaking who a board member was for the first time in a more complex composite in the environment of a pandemic with elevated community engagement, which gave them no comparison to alter their perceptions.

Second, all four participants indicated that they had not contemplated the roles and responsibilities of a board member prior to election. Participants appeared to have only a vague understanding of what this position would entail prior to gaining a seat. Much of the participants’ understandings either came from their personal beliefs about being a board member or were influenced by other entities. All four expressed an understanding that the board made decisions, which was an understanding created by the system. Additionally, interest groups had some influence on their perspectives. One interest group’s perspective made Jordan and Sam initially believe that they need to micromanage the superintendent, which is an example of Mills’ (2003) understanding of projective sensemaking. This process occurs when one group tries to impose their understanding on others, which means that new candidates that have never been on a school board have a larger chance to be swayed because they potentially have no other inputs to perceive their future role. Such shifts in influence are evident in school board elections, where they are becoming increasingly contentious. During elections, advocacy groups and politicians seek not only to sway election outcomes but simultaneously shape the direction of education. With issues related to race, identity, and curriculum at the forefront of contentious national discussions, school board races have become battlegrounds to mobilize voters. These heightened political influences and conditions, combined with a lack of understanding regarding the roles and responsibilities of board members and the boundaries of their roles, may disrupt not only the functioning of schools but also impede our students’ learning and educational opportunities.

Lastly, however, once elected, the data showed that there were multiple sources and influences on the sensemaking process to induct participants into their new positions. Participants took the state statute and district policy required school board member MSBA training; they also gleaned information from longer-serving board colleagues, read district policies, and were exposed to input from community members. This connects back to the literature base that states sensemaking involves formal and informal interactions that filter the sensemaking process (Spillane et al., 2002). These elements situated their early sensemaking of the job, and participants continued to clarify their understanding of their roles over time as they also applied preexisting knowledge, experiences, and frameworks to gain that clarity (Spillane et al., 2002).

Of the four participants, Sam and Jordan more closely echoed the approach MSBA uses in their training. MSBA training stresses that board members take a governing style of leadership (S. Goldammer, personal communication, March 26, 2022). It appears this message actively shaped the boundaries Sam and Jordan set around their role. Their comments pointed to the potential influence MSBA has in creating shared understandings of board membership. This reflects Coburn’s (2005) and Ganon-Shilon and Schecter’s (2017) assertion that sensemaking involves social interactions that can result in creating shared understandings of an event or information. It additionally reveals the influence that systems (Weick, 1995) have on shifting one’s sensemaking because newly elected board members are required by the state to undergo training, while also uncovering the projective power (Mills, 2003). MSBA is the main provider of the training. Future research should explore further the influence of how private non-profit organizations like MSBA, which trains board members for hundreds of districts across the state, shape board members behaviors and actions.

For Elliot and Cindy, they both had professional experience in education, which might explain their ability to hold stronger to their beliefs compared to the men, because they had other training on how to perceive the overall goals of education. These more firmly held frameworks reveals a tension that can occur for board member sensemaking when these frameworks do not align with the sensemaking influences coming from the educational systems, non-profit entities providing guidance, and the individuals a board member must collaborate with in their work (board members, superintendent, and other district administrators). This does lead to a potential area of future research to analyze the effectiveness of training provided by state associations, which can be influential. In an area of practice, it means that local boards need to establish and continually engage with their own on-boarding processes and professional development work that aligns with their local community’s context and values compared to just following a state-wide model of being a board member. The importance of representing the community is an aspect of board service that should not be lost and can be best contextualized in training for local boards to understand and evaluate their professional development needs.

In the practical enactment of their roles, three of the participants found that their plans to establish meaningful relationships with other board members, like they do with those they collaborate with in the community, after being elected were inhibited by barriers created by the state’s Sunshine Laws. These laws are to aid constituents in knowing what their governmental entities are doing, but these same laws create barriers to school board members in the ways they operate. For example, no more than three can meet in a group to discuss items related to the school district even when there is no pending decision upcoming on the topic. As both Elliot and Cindy expressed, though these laws are instrumental to the public, for board members the laws created a sense of being in silos with no ability to dialogue and exchange ideas prior to making decisions. This limitation ensuring the public can hear their elected officials’ thoughts also creates a silencing effect that minimizes the public dialogue. Even the closed executive session dialogue is minimized due to the stringent requirements of what can be discussed in those meetings. Jordan shared how the state law made it difficult to execute their roles and discuss upcoming complex decisions like the mode of schooling in response to Covid-19 during the 2020–2021 academic year. This leaves individuals serving as board members having to engage with each other in individual ways and not as a group, which may impede true co-collaboration and co-creation as expressed by Elliot. This lack of collaboration seems counter to what is asked of educators currently to work together to support students and families. These examples show how the transparency laws may counter the social and reflective aspects of sensemaking (Weick, 1995).

While specific research on Sunshine Laws is scarce, Collins (2021a, 2021b) observed that board meetings which actively engage parents and community members are not only preferred but also lead to increased willingness to attend future public meetings. Such deliberative processes disrupt the status quo by valuing and incorporating constituents’ opinions, assisting school board members in understanding issues and their broader ramifications, which might be overlooked in isolated decision-making. Conversely, without such intentional engagement, Farley et al. (2021) also emphasize the risk of “policy distraction,” where board members may lose sight of the underlying causes of issues without such intentional engagement. Asen (2015) even highlights the importance of democratic practices in education by asserting, “Dictating to people the terms by which they may make meaningful their relationships with one another, which education ostensibly develops, contravenes the practice of democracy” (p. 183).

As board members seek to follow government transparency laws, states can provide further guidance for school board members about their role working within a governmental system. For example, as directed by Missouri’s Outstanding Schools Act in 1993, newly elected board members must go through 18-hours of governance training (Missouri Governor’s Office, 1993). In 2019, an additional one hour of annual refresher training was required with the topic of the refresher focusing on school board mandated reporter requirements and at least one aspect of school board governance (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 162.203, 2019). If the body that is elected by the community to have public oversight of education cannot engage meaningfully, it highlights a concern that potentially there are missed opportunities for school boards to make even more positive decisions for their districts. Future research might consider investigating how much these laws actually increase constituent knowledge and sense of transparency by the board as a means to potentially provide guidance to state legislatures on ways to maintain quality open government, while still removing stringent barriers to collaborative sensemaking and decision-making on issues.

The state emphasizes the oversight role of our board members, a crucial function that enables professional educators to focus on their daily work within schools. However, despite its best intentions, this emphasis should not deter board members from actively engaging and advocating for the voices of their communities, particularly those that have been historically underrepresented. Striking the right balance is challenging, as board members must avoid pursuing personal agendas throughout their tenure. A notable observation from this study is that, due to board training, interactions with current members, and/or adherence to the Sunshine Law, each participant not only developed their individual understanding of their roles and responsibilities but also adapted their approaches to fulfilling these roles. While these approaches varied among the board members, two individuals without prior experience or expertise in education tended to adopt a less proactive and more reactive stance in voting, discussions, and interactions with their constituents.

The intent of this study is not to prescribe a specific set of roles and responsibilities for board members. Nonetheless, it underscores the importance of ongoing conversations regarding the evolving roles and responsibilities of school board members, especially in the context of a globalized world where technology has transformed communication and interaction. Ensuring that elected school board members genuinely represent their community’s values through their roles requires thoughtful consideration. Furthermore, recognizing that these roles may vary based on the characteristics of schools and students is essential. For instance, how rural school boards perform their roles differs from their large metropolitan counterparts, each facing unique challenges and processes while sharing common struggles. Therefore, there is an urgent need within scholarly communities to delve into this fundamental topic. This exploration is crucial to ensure that our school board members function as critical local-level policy actors responsible for creating and interpreting policies that profoundly impact district employees, students and their families, and the broader community.

Other implications for practice and research from the findings are related to the sensemaking of communities and candidates on the duties and enactment of such duties by school boards. More research needs to be done with similar questions to capture a wider understanding of the varied contexts and how training, influences, and other conditions impact how board members make sense of their responsibilities. Due to the increasing political nature of school boards, researching and developing strong methods of learning opportunities about governance is important to ensure local educational policy actors can effectively conduct their work. These learning opportunities can involve modules provided by the district for their community to understand school board governance and even more reflect a focused research praxis to develop quality on-boarding and continued professional development for public school board members. In order to do this work, the launching pad would be to investigate past the initial perceptions of candidates and what changed after being elected by researching the entire first year experience of newly elected school board members to provide a detailed analysis on the practices that helped and hindered them. Similarly, further research must be conducted with a focus on the relation to the localization of national politics at the local level for school boards and how that impacts their approaches to governance along with sensemaking of the position’s roles and responsibilities.

Lastly, one practical approach that can address the gap between board members’ motivations and the actual responsibilities of the role is through onboarding workshops and mentoring sessions provided by some districts. These initiatives are designed to offer new members a comprehensive understanding of the processes, structures, roles, and responsibilities associated with their position. Additionally, current board members can host regular community open sessions to inform the public about the functions and roles of the board, while also assisting prospective candidates in understanding the nature of the position they are considering. Members who undergo thorough training and mentorship are likely to perform more effectively, as they gain a better understanding of their roles. This is particularly crucial as board members often face decision-making responsibilities early in their tenure, and each decision they make significantly impacts the community they serve.

Conclusion

As education experiences continual shifts from the after-effects of responding to the pandemic, deeper comprehension of school board members’ sensemaking is imperative to assist these local educational policy actors in best serving their districts. State legislation that has passed throughout the nation in relation to curriculum, lesson content, materials used, and districts having equitable practices/procedures in response to student’s various identities like banning transgender student participation in athletics will be creating arenas where school board members must navigate their sensemaking and decision-making that will result in the best outcomes for their communities. The microscope that has been placed on school districts and school boards after the pandemic situates them as local-level policymakers in need of support from educational researchers and it is a time that researchers can provide guidance to local policy actors that will lead to the best outcomes for students.

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

We want to recognize and thank the individuals that serve as elected public school board members throughout the nation, most serving as volunteer elected officials. Your dedication to the future prosperity of the children in your communities is deeply appreciated.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open Practices

Instructions on how we recruited school board member participants and data collection interview protocol available at openicpsr-211042.

ORCID iDs

Blake Willoughby

Se Woong Lee

Emily R. Crawford

Notes

Authors

BLAKE WILLOUGHBY is a recent doctoral graduate in the Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis Department at the University of Missouri-Columbia and is a current school board member for Columbia Public Schools. His research explores school board governance, school board member experiences, and the professional development of school board members.

SE WOONG LEE is an associate professor in the Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis Department at the University of Missouri-Columbia. His research focuses on the educator labor market, educational policy, and leadership, with a strong emphasis on identifying and addressing social and structural barriers that affect marginalized and racially minoritized students and educators. Through his work, he aims to expand our understanding of how policies and practices can foster equity, advance justice, and reduce inequalities in education. His research focuses on understanding the impact educators—teachers, assistant principals, and principals—have on students while addressing the inequalities that persist in the educational system.

EMILY R. CRAWFORD is an associate professor in the Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis Department at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Her research explores issues related to leadership and immigration in Pk-12 public schools across geographic contexts.

References

Alsbury

(2008). The future of school board governance : Relevancy and revelation. Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Alsbury

Gore

(2015). Improving school board effectiveness: A balanced governance approach. Harvard Education Press.

Asen

(2015). Democracy, deliberation, and education. Penn State University Press.

Ballentine

(2023a, March 30). Missouri house bans diversity funding; Senate likely to undo. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/missouri-racism-diversity-budget-republican-8b6ecc772db9783782e15bab7fb77b71

Ballentine

(2023b, April 27). Missouri governor pushes ban on kids’ gender-affirming care. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/transgender-legislation-legislature-missouri-sports-2dd6a4c599190a08aa72d12868215547

Bartlett

Vavrus

(2017). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. Routledge.

Campbell

D. W.

Fullan

(2019). The governance core: School boards, superintendents, and schools working together. Corwin.

Campbell

D. W.

Green

(1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21^st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 391.

Carrillo

Sheridan

Shockman

(2023, January 10). A coordinated nationwide agenda dominated local school board elections last year. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/01/10/1148211343/a-coordinated-nationwide-agenda-dominated-local-school-board-elections-last-year

10.

Carter

G. E.

Cunningham

W. G.

(1997). The American school superintendent: Leading in an age of pressure. Jossey-Bass.

11.

Carter

P. L.

Welner

K. G.

(2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance. Oxford University Press.

12.

Castro

A. J.

Siegel-Hawley

Bridges

Williams

S. E.

(2022). Narratives of race in school rezoning: How the politics of whiteness shape belonging, leadership decisions, and school attendance boundaries. AERA Open, 8(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221091274

13.

Ching

C. D.

(2023). Developing “equity sense”: Meaning-making at a community college. American Educational Research Journal, 60(4), 810–844. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312231178760

14.

Coburn

C. E.

(2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805276143

15.

Coburn

C. E.

Talbert

J. E.

(2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1086/505056

16.

Collins

J. E.

(2021a). Does the meeting style matter? The effects of exposure to participatory and deliberative school board meetings. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 790–804. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000320

17.

Collins

J. E.

(2021b). Should school boards be in charge? The effects of exposure to participatory and deliberative school board meetings. Peabody Journal of Education, 96(3), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2021.1943239

18.

Collins

J. E.

(2023). Policy solutions: Should we abolish school boards? Phi Delta Kappan, 105(1), 58–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217231197483

19.

Cooper

C. W.

(2009). Parent involvement, African American mothers, and the politics of educational care. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(4), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680903228389

20.

Crofton

(2020, May 15). The old deluder Satan: Puritan emphasis on compulsory education. The Paul Revere House. https://www.paulreverehouse.org/that-old-deluder-satan-puritan-emphasis-on-compulsory-education/

21.

Davidson

F. D.

Schwanenberger

Wiggall

(2019). What matters most in superintendent evaluation. ICPEL Education Leadership Review, 20(1), 217–233.

22.

Diem

Frankenberg

Cleary

(2015). Factors that influence school board policy making: The political context of student diversity in urban-suburban districts. Education Administration Quarterly, 51(5), 712–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15589367

23.

Dorner

L. M.

(2011). Contested communities in a debate over dual-language education: The import of “public” values on public policies. Educational Policy, 25(4), 577–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904810368275

24.

Dorner

L. M.

Harris

Willoughby

(2022). Policy enactment during a pandemic: How one school responded to Covid-19 in negotiation with a nonprofit partner. AERA Open, 8(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221078328

25.

Duncheon

J. C.

DeMatthews

D. E.

(2023). Exploring the principal’s role in cross-sector Partnerships: Sensemaking and politics in a high-performing early college high school. AERA Open, 9(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231205478

26.

Eadie

(2009, July). Developing your board. American School Board Journal.

27.

Epstein

(2006). Who’s in charge here? The tangled web of school governance and policy. Brookings Institution Press.

28.

Erickson

(2023, January 10). New Missouri auditor pledges to probe school district finances and curriculum. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/new-missouri-auditor-pledges-to-probe-school-district-finances-and-curriculum/article_9d30d700-3c3f-5e20-a0ac-35e7c943a05e.html

29.

Farley

A. N.

Leonardi

Donnor

J. K.

(2021). Perpetuating inequalities: The role of political distractions in education policy. Educational Policy, 35(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820987992

30.

Flood

L. D.

Angelle

P. S.

(2022). Of school boards and superintendents. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 25(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554589211034551

31.

Ford

M. R.

Ihrke

D. M.

(2015a). A comparison of public and charter school board governance in three states. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 25(4), 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21133

32.

Ford

M. R.

Ihrke

D. M.

(2015b). School board member definitions of accountability: What are they, and do they impact district outcomes?. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1), 198–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2016.1071173

33.

Ford

M. R.

Ihrke

D. M.

(2017). Board conflict and public performance on urban and non-urban boards: Evidence from a national sample of school board members. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12315

34.

Ford

M. R.

Ihrke

D. M.

(2018). Linking the distribution of board-executive governance responsibilities to charter school performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 26(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2016-1067

35.

Ford

M. R.

Ihrke

D. M.

(2020a). Connecting group dynamics, governance, and performance: Evidence from charter school boards. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(5), 1035–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020911206

36.

Ford

M. R.

Ihrke

D. M.

(2020b). Uncontested: Electoral competition in American school board elections. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(6), 661–675. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2019-0020

37.

Ford

M. R.

Ihrke

D. M.

(2021). Determinants of priority conflict on city school boards. Urban Education, 56(10), 1815–1835. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918770713

38.

Fuhrman

S. H.

Elmore

R. F.

(1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737012001082

39.

Ganon-Shilon

Schecter

(2017). Making sense of school leaders’ sense-making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 682–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216628536

40.

Grissom

J. A.

(2010). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations: The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(3), 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup043

41.

Grissom

J. A.

(2014). Is discord detrimental? Using institutional variation to identify the impact of public governing board conflict on outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 289–315. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus042

42.

Grumke

(2022, January 21). Missouri’s attorney general files 9 more anti-mask lawsuits against school districts. St. Louis Public Radio. https://www.stlpr.org/education/2022-01-21/missouris-attorney-general-files-anti-mask-lawsuits-against-school-districts

43.

Halpern

(2023). The fight for the soul of a school board. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-fight-for-the-soul-of-a-school-board

44.

Heemskerk

(2020). The multidimensionality of conflict in supervisory boards in education in the Netherlands. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(3), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219827302

45.

Heemskerk

(2023). The vice and virtue of conflict in boards: A longitudinal study into the effect of conflicts and cohesion on the task performance of supervisory school boards in the Netherlands. European Journal of Education, 58, 314–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12549

46.

Heisler

W. K.

Hanlin

L. L.

(2019). The Scott County school board: A case in group dysfunction. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 22(1), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458918819655

47.

Hemmer

Aguilar

Fleming

(2018). Visionary planning and the Eagle Ford Shale Play: A cross-case study of rural school superintendents as sense-makers. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(6), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2017.1318959

48.

Hendricks

(2013). Evaluating the superintendent: The role of the school board. Education Leadership Review, 14(3), 62–72.

49.

Horsford

S. D.

Sampson

(2013). High-ELL-Growth states: Expanding funding equity and opportunity for English language learners. Voices in Urban Education, 37, 47–54.

50.

Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB). (n.d.). Standards for effective school boards. Iowa Association of School Boards: Toolbox: The Standards for Effective School Boards. https://www.ia-sb.org/docs/default-source/toolbox/standards-for-effective-school-boards/iowaschoolboardstandardsf6262cdf-25da-48bc-ab7f-f8f27e4c169f.pdf?sfvrsn=bab5b3b5_3

51.

Jarrett

Tran

Buckman

D. G.

(2018). Do candidates’ gender and professional experience influence superintendent selection decisions? AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 15(1), 7–21. https://eric.ed.gov/?redir=http%3a%2f%2fwww.aasa.org%2fjsp.aspx

52.

Jimenez

(2022, November 4). The “Great Resignation” hits school boards. Only 38% of members want to run for reelection. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/11/04/great-resignation-school-boards-research/10618795002/

53.

Johnson

P. A.

(2012). School board governance: The times they are a-changin’. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(2), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458911413887

54.

Kask

K. M.

(1990). Training and development needs of school boards members as perceived by school board members and superintendents in Ohio [Dissertation]. Ohio State University.

55.

Kenney

A. W.

(2019). Negotiating authority in the ritual of the public school board meeting. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(5), 705–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19891223

56.

Kogan

(2022). Locally elected school boards are failing: Pandemic stress-tested school governance, revealing many flaws. Education Next, 22(3), 8–13. https://www.educationnext.org/locally-elected-school-boards-failing-pandemic-stress-tested-school-governance/

57.

Kogan

Lavertu

Peskowitz

(2021). The democratic deficit in U.S. education governance. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 1082–1089. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000162

58.

Ladson-Billings

(2013). Critical race theory—What it is not! In Lynn

Dixson

A. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 54–67). Routledge.

59.

LaMonte

Delagardelle

(2009, August). Seeing the light. American School Board Journal, 196(8), 27–30.

60.

Land

(2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229–278. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072002229

61.

Lee

D. E.

Eadens

(2014). The problem: Low achieving districts and low performing boards. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 9(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2014v9n3a563

62.

Maitlis

Christianson

(2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/19416520.2014.873177

63.

Mervosh

Hubler

(2020, August 13). As the Coronavirus comes to school, a tough choice: When to close. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/us/school-closing-coronavirus.html

64.

Mills

J. H.

(2003). Making sense of organizational change. Routledge.

65.

Missouri Governor’s Office. (1993). A primer to the Outstanding Schools Act. Missouri Governor’s Office.

66.

Missouri School Boards’ Association (MSBA). (2021). School board basics: Responsibilities of school board. Missouri School Boards’ Association: Resources: School Board Basics. https://ams.embr.mobi/Documents/DocumentAttachment.aspx?C=ZfON&DID=GKHGM

67.

Mountford

Brunner

C. C.

(2010). Gendered behavior patterns in school board governance. Teachers College Record, 112(8), 2067–2117. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811011200804

68.

MSBA. (2024). New board member online training lengths. Missouri School Boards’ Association: New Board Member Training. https://core-docs.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/3136/MSBA/4649089/Online_Training_Lengths.pdf

69.

New England Historical Society. (2020). How the Old Deluder Satan Act made sure Puritan children got educated. New England Historical Society. https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/old-deluder-satan-act-made-sure-puritan-children-got-educated/

70.

Nierenberg

(2021, October 27). The conservative school board strategy. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/us/the-conservative-school-board-strategy.html

71.

Office of Governor Mike Parson. (2020, March 24). Governor Parson highlights the leadership of Missouri schools and higher education institutions during Covid-19 crisis [Press release.]. Office of Governor Mike Parson. https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/governor-parson-highlights-leadership-missouri-schools-and-higher-education

72.

Outstanding Schools Act of 1993, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 162.203. (2019). https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=162.203

73.

Person

Chesnut

Messick

De Jong

Robinson

(2021). Leadership traits of superintendents in a rural, Midwest state: Perceptions of school board presidents and superintendents. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 17(4), 42–59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348814206

74.

Plough

(2014). School board governance and student achievement: School board members’ perceptions of their behavior and beliefs. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 25, 41–53.

75.

Ray

H. A.

(2003). ISLLC administrator competencies: A comparison of perceptions among superintendents, school board presidents, and principals [Dissertation]. Saint Louis University.

76.

Roberts

K. L.

Sampson

P. M.

(2011). School board member professional development and effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(7), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108

77.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

78.

Sampson

(2019a). (Im)possibilities of Latinx school board members’ educational leadership toward equity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(2), 296–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18799482

79.

Sampson

(2019b). From a lighthouse to a foghorn: A school board’s navigation toward equity for English learners. American Journal of Education, 125(4), 521–546. https://doi.org/10.1086/704098

80.

Sampson

Bertrand

(2023). Counter-storytelling, metaphors, and rhetorical questioning: Discursive strategies of advocacy toward racial equity in school board meetings. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 44(2), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2021.2002268

81.

Saultz

Fusarelli

L. D.

McEachin

(2017). The Every Student Succeeds Act, the decline of the federal role in education policy, and the curbing of executive authority. The Journal of Federalism, 47(3), 426–444. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjx031

82.

Sawchuck

(2021, July 29). Why school boards are now hot spots for nasty politics. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/why-school-boards-are-now-hot-spots-for-nasty-politics/2021/07

83.

Scheurich

J. J.

Bonds

V. L.

Phelps-Moultrie

J. A.

Currie

B. J.

Crayton

T. A.

Elfreich

A. M.

Bhathena

C. D.

Kyser

T. S.

Williams

N. A.

(2017). An initial exploration of a community-based framework for educational equity with explicated exemplars. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(4), 508–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1299123

84.

Shorman

(2021, August 24). Missouri attorney general sues to block mask mandates issues by public school districts. The Kansas City Star. https://www.kansascity.com/news/coronavirus/article253706758.html

85.

Shurtleff

N. B.

(1853). The Old Deluder Act of 1647. From records of the governor and company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, 2 (p. 203). Press of William White.

86.

Spillane

J. P.

(1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904896010001004

87.

Spillane

J. P.

(1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312035001033

88.

Spillane

J. P.

(1999). State and local government relations in the era of standards-based reform: Standards, state policy instruments, and local instructional policy making. Educational Policy, 13(4), 546–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904899013004004

89.

Spillane

J. P.

Anderson

(2014). The architecture of anticipation and novices’ emerging understandings of the principal position: Occupational sense making at the intersection of individual, organization, and institutions. Teachers College Record, 116(7), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411600705

90.

Spillane

J. P.

Reiser

B. J.

Reimer

(2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387

91.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

92.

Sutherland

D. H.

(2020). School board sensemaking of federal and state accountability policies. Educational Policy, 36(5), 981–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820925816

93.

Sutherland

D. H.

(2022). “Tell them local control is important”: A case study of democratic, community-centered school boards. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30(178), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.7439

94.

Torres

A. C.

(2023). Causal stories and problem definitions: How policymakers and superintendents frame school turnaround. AERA Open, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231186425

95.

Turner

E. O.

(2015). Districts’ responses to demographic change: Making sense of race, class, and immigration in political and organizational context. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 4–39. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214561469

96.

Valenzuela

(2010). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. State University of New York Press.

97.

Vickers

Pate

J. K.

Brockmeier

L. L.

Green

R. B.

Tsemunhu

(2014). No board left behind: Perceptions of local board governance standards by superintendents and chairpersons. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 9(2), 47–70. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1048077.pdf

98.

Webner

De Jong

Campoli

Baron

(2017). Public school board presidents’ and superintendents’ perceptions of the characteristics of effective superintendents in a midwestern state. Journal of School Leadership, 27(6), 800–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461702700602

99.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.

100.

Weick

K. E.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

Obstfeld

(2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133

101.

Weiler

S. C.

(2015). When an elected official fails to play nice: The legal implications and lessons learned from associations with a caustic school board member. Planning and Changing, 46(1), 3–20.

102.

Williams

N. V.

Robinson

Gillham

J. C.

Fetty

(2021). Superintendent evaluations: School boards report on criteria, procedures, and professional development. Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, 18(4), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.v18i4.4610

103.

Yin

R. K.

(2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

104.

Zorn

R. L.

(2008, August). Educating new board members. American School Board Journal.