A Guide for Those Who Lead Volume V, No. 2– Fall 2000

Iowa School Board

COMPASS

IASB’s Lighthouse Study:

School Boards and StudentAchievementDo some school boards create higherstudent achievement than others? Theresults of a groundbreaking researchstudy by the Iowa Association of SchoolBoards indicate that school boards inhigh-achieving districts are significantlydifferent in their knowledge and beliefsthan school boards in low-achievingdistricts. And, this difference appears tocarry through among administrators andteachers throughout the districts.

In the arena of educational research,the effect of school boards on studentachievement is largely uncharted terri-tory. Studies have shown that someteachers, some schools and some cur-riculums and instructional methodsgenerate higher student achievementthan others, in some cases dramaticallyhigher. But the IASB effort is one of thefew to study school boards based on quantifiable, reliable measures of studentachievement.

IASB’s goal was to identify links between what school boards do and theachievement of students in schools. An IASB research team studied school board/superintendent teams in districts where schools have generated unusually highachievement over a period of several years and compared those teams to ones indistricts where schools have consistently generated unusually low levels ofachievement.

“Our goal was that the results of this study could serve as a ‘lighthouse’ to guideother school boards in their efforts to improve student achievement and IASB in ourefforts to help them do so,” said Mary Delagardelle, IASB director of leadershipdevelopment and coordinator of the research team.

About the Districts StudiedIt was very important that the differences in student achievement be formallydocumented, quite large and consistent over time. Iowa has not built a reliablestatewide database from which to identify high-achieving and low-achieving

In the arena ofeducationalresearch, theeffect of schoolboards onstudentachievement islargelyunchartedterritory. TheIASB effort isone of only a fewto study schoolboards based onquantifiable,reliablemeasures ofstudentachievement.

continued on page 2

2

Iowa School Board CompassLisa Bartusek, EditorE-mail: lbartusek@ia-sb.orgPublished by theIowa Association of School Boards700 Second Ave., Ste. 100Des Moines, Iowa 50309-1731(515) 288-1991 or 1-800-795-4272Visit our Web site: www.ia-sb.org

districts against those criteria. How-ever, in Georgia, the Council forSchool Improvement maintains adatabase from which the districtscould be identified. Following con-tacts with the Georgia School BoardsAssociation, the Council for SchoolImprovement gained agreement fromsix school districts to be studied, withthe guarantee of anonymity to theschool district and participants.

IASB used census data to ensurethat the schools were not only compa-rable to each other but to districts inIowa. The districts studied werecomparable to Iowa districts in termsof enrollment, percent of childrenliving in poverty, spending per student,household income and other factors.

Student Achievement: The districtswere selected because they containedone or more schools that ranked veryhigh or very low for all three aca-demic years 1995-96, 1996-97, and1997-98 on standardized achievementtest data and a variety of other indica-tors. Data available for 1998-99indicated that the schools maintainedtheir rank, whether high or low.Achievement indicators included theIowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) whichwas administered to third, fifth, andeighth grade students, and the GeorgiaHigh School Graduation Test adminis-tered to high school students.

Enrollment: The districts were rela-tively similar in enrollment, rangingfrom 1,395 students to 5,163 students.Most of the districts in the study con-

“Our research

confirms that whileboard members are

not professional

educators, they have

important responsi-bilities related to

teaching and learn-

ing, curriculum and

instruction, and thelearning environ-

ment. Their job is to

work with the super-

intendent to createthe conditions for a

professional learning

community to thrive

so that all schoolscan generate results

for students. IASB’s

challenge is to

provide the supportsto help them do so.”

—Ron Rice, IASBexecutive director

Our Filter: Conditionsfor School Renewal

IASB worked with nationally recog-nized educational researchers BruceJoyce and Jim Wolf to create sound,unbiased interview questions andguidelines to gather information fromboard members, superintendents andschool personnel. The interviews werebuilt around research on effectiveschools, school improvement andchange, based on seven key condi-tions for school renewal:

1. Shared Leadership

2. Continuous Improvement andShared Decision Making

3. Ability to Create and Sustain Initia-tives

4. Supportive Workplace for Staff

5. Staff Development

6. Support for School Sites throughData and Information

7. Community Involvement

Copyright September 2000Iowa Association of School Boards

This publication is sent as a memberservice to all board members, superin-tendents/chief administrators, boardsecretaries/business managers and othereducation leaders.

continued from page 1

3

tain one or two towns, one of which isthe county seat, and farms and tractsof timber. All six districts contain onlyone middle school.

Demographics: The Council for SchoolImprovement database ensured thatthe differences between the selectedschools were not a product of demo-graphic characteristics of the students.The high-achieving schools accom-plished more in comparison withschools serving similar populationsand in comparison with schools in thestate as a whole. In addition, informa-tion collected during the interviewsindicated relative consistency in termsof the occupation, demographics, andpersonal history of the participants.

The InterviewsIASB’s five-member research teamand one consultant interviewed a totalof 159 people during site visits in thesix districts (three high-achieving andthree low-achieving districts). The firsttwo districts were studied in May

IASB Research TeamPictured at right with the many volumes ofnotes and transcriptions from nearly 160interviews are members of the IASBresearch team.

Front, left to right: Margaret Buckton,IASB government relations director; WayneLueders, IASB associate executive director;Mary Delagardelle, IASB leadershipdevelopment director and former Iowaschool board member.

Back, left to right: Jim Wolf, SynergisticSchools, Missouri City, Texas; Carolyn Jons,former Iowa school board member and anIASB past president; Bruce Joyce, BooksendLaboratories, Pauma Valley, California;Mary Jane Vens, IASB board developmentdirector, former Iowa school board member.

Not pictured: Research consultantJeannie Weathersby, The National Facultyof Education, Atlanta, Georgia.

1999; the other four in February 2000.Each interview included about 25questions and took about an hour tocomplete. The research team did notknow which were the high or lowachieving districts. The research teamand consultants then analyzed theresults of the interviews to look forpatterns.

Key FindingsSimilaritiesCaring about children. While theirspecific attitudes were remarkablydifferent, in all cases the peopleinterviewed appeared to care deeplyabout doing the right thing for children.

Peaceable relationships. In all casesthe board/superintendent teams hadfairly amicable relationships. Typically,board members in all six districts said“We disagree without making itpersonal.”

–continued on next page

4

Board opinion of superintendent. Allthe boards were fairly well satisfiedwith their superintendents.

Tension about roles in a site-basedsystem. All were feeling some tensionin balancing the goal of building-levelautonomy in site-based managementwith the need for equity and continu-ity across the school system.

Students in categorical programs(special education, Title I, bilingualprograms). Neither high or lowachieving districts had been success-ful at closing the learning gap forstudents with special needs.

Local backgrounds of board membersand staff. Approximately 75-80percent of the board members andprofessional staff in all districts grewup in the district, an adjacent countyor a similar county within their region.

DifferencesElevating vs. Accepting Belief System.In the high-achieving districts, theboard/superintendent team and schoolpersonnel consistently expressed an“elevating” view of students. Studentswere viewed as emerging and flexibleand the school’s job was seen asreleasing each student’s potential. Theboard/superintendent team and schoolpersonnel viewed the school systemcritically and were constantly seekingopportunities to improve. The social oreconomic conditions of homes and thecommunity were seen as challenges inthe quest to help all students succeed.“This is a place for all kids to excel.No one feels left out,” said one boardmember. Another said, “Sometimespeople say the poor students havelimits. I say all kids have limits. Ibelieve we have not reached the limitsof any of the kids in our system.”

In the low-achieving districts, theboard/superintendent team and schoolpersonnel accepted limitations instudents and the school system. Theytended to view students as limited bycharacteristics such as their income orhome situation, and accepted schoolsas they were. Their focus was onmanaging the school environment,rather than changing or improving it.“You always have some parents youjust can’t reach,” said one boardmember. Another said, “You can lead ahorse to water but you can’t makethem drink. This applies to both stu-dents and staff.”

Understanding and Focus on SchoolRenewal. In the high-achieving dis-tricts, school board members showedgreater understanding and influence ineach of the seven key areas for schoolrenewal. They were knowledgeableabout topics such as improvementgoals, curriculum, instruction, assess-ment and staff development. Theywere able to clearly describe thepurposes and processes of schoolimprovement initiatives and identifythe board’s role in supporting thoseinitiatives. They could give specificexamples of how district goals were

5

being carried out by administrators andteachers. This clarity was also evidentamong school personnel. In the low-achieving districts, board memberswere, as a whole, only vaguely awareof school improvement initiatives.They were sometimes aware of goals,but seldom able to describe actionsbeing taken by staff members to im-prove learning.

Action in Buildings and Classrooms:Generally, interviews with centraloffice administrators, principals andteachers confirmed that the board’sknowledge and beliefs around theseven conditions for school renewalwere connected to action at the build-ing and classroom levels.

Next StepsThe IASB study found that the under-standing and beliefs of school boardsin high-achieving districts were mark-edly different from those of boards inlow-achieving districts.

“It’s important to note that, as aresult of this study, we can’t say thatthe board caused high achievement orlow achievement to happen. Instead,the board’s understanding and beliefsappeared to be part of a district-wideculture focused on improvement instudent learning,” said Delagardelle.

It’s tempting to ask how an im-provement-focused culture might haveemerged so differently in otherwisevery similar communities, saidDelagardelle. “But the real questionfor IASB is, can we make it happen forboards in Iowa?”

Ron Rice, IASB executive director,said the study will have several impli-cations for the association:

• IASB services, such as boardtraining and information, willexpand their focus on helpingboard members understand theirrole in school renewal and studentachievement. This continuesIASB’s focus on student achieve-ment, set by the IASB Board ofDirectors in the association’sstrategic plan, said Rice.

• As IASB moves forward, it will beimportant to clearly define how theboard’s role differs from that ofeducation professionals. IASB hasappointed an administrators advi-sory committee, composed ofsuperintendents and principals, toassist staff in supporting our mem-bers as board/administrative teams.

• IASB will work with a few pilotsites in Iowa to provide intensivetraining and support based on thefindings of this research. “Ourwork with these ‘lighthouse dis-tricts’ will serve as a guide forother boards and districts as theyattempt to create a district-wideculture focused on improvingstudent achievement,” said Rice.

“As board mem-

bers we need tolook at our

actions based on

this research and

consider wherewe can build our

skills and be-

come better and

more focused insupporting school

improvement

conditions. From

IASB’s standpoint,we must build

this knowledge

into IASB training

programs andsupport board/

superintendent

teams in their

efforts.”

—Dick Vande Kieft,IASB president,Cedar Falls schoolboard member

In high-achieving districts, schoolboard members were knowledge-able about improvement goals,curriculum, instruction, assess-ment and staff development.They were able to clearly de-scribe the purposes and processesof school improvement initiativesand identify the board’s role insupporting those initiatives.

Staff members in the high-achiev-ing districts could link building goals toboard/district goals for student learningand describe how those goals werehaving an impact in their classroomand other classrooms in the building.Staff members identified clear goals forimprovement, described how staffdevelopment supported the goals, andhow they were monitoring progressbased on data about student learning.

In the low-achieving districts theseconnections across the system werenot discernable. There was littleevidence of a pervasive focus onschool renewal at any level when itwas not present at the board level.

For more complete examples, seethe comparisons on pages 6-11.

6

Boards Show Clear Differences in Knowledge, Beliefs

Seven Conditions for SchoolRenewal Central to AchievementIASB researchers interviewed 159 boardmembers, superintendents and school staffmembers in high- and low-achieving schooldistricts. Their goal was to compare theboard/superintendent teams’ ability toencourage positive change by exploring thepresence of seven conditions for schoolrenewal. These conditions were derivedfrom extensive reviews of research onproductive change in education.

For school board members and districtadministrators, the interviews probed theextent to which the seven conditions existedand were understood by the interviewees.For school personnel the interviews probedthe degrees to which the conditions werepresent in the workplace of teaching. Inother words, if board members and thesuperintendent were aware of and focusedon school renewal, was it actually havingan impact in buildings and classrooms?

IASB borrowed terms used by researcherSusan Rosenholtz in 1989 to describe thedistricts in our study as moving—becausestudent achievement was on the move andfar above the norm— and stuck—becausestudent achievement was relatively stableand below the norm.

The comparison of the boards in themoving and stuck districts revealed signifi-cant consistency within and across districts.On the whole, the vast majority of peopleexpressed knowledge and beliefs matchingthe descriptions below.

1. Shared LeadershipA focus on student learning through a shared clear vision,

high expectations and dynamic leadership among all levels.

Stuck✓ Although some board members saidgoals and improvement plans existed aswritten documents, they couldn’t describehow they were being implemented.Some board members mentioned that theirdistricts had goals, but seldom knew whatthey were. In some cases, board membersacknowledged that a specific area—such asreading—was an important area for thedistrict’s efforts, but were vague about whatwas being done and why.

✓ Board members said it wasn’t their jobto know about instruction or they expressedopinions about what was happening inclassrooms based on their own child’sexperience, their spouse’s experience as ateacher, or some other personal contact.

Moving✓ Board members were knowledgeableabout the learning conditions in theschools, alternatives for improving educa-tion and the needs of students. Boardmembers could mention specific initiativesthat were underway and could explain theinitiative and identify specific ways thatthe board contributed to the initiative.Board members described a clear directionand focus on specific goals related toimproving reading. Board members coulddescribe the work of staff around the goalsin clear, specific terms.

✓ Board members could describe whatwas happening in classrooms and withinstruction.

The Seven Conditionsfor School Renewal

1. Shared Leadership

2. Continuous Improvement and Shared Decision Making

3. Ability to Create and Sustain Initiatives

4. Supportive Workplace for Staff

5. Staff Development

6. Support for School Sites through Data and Information

7. Community Involvement

7

Moving✓ Board members expressed their focuson finding ways to reach all children.“We can’t just let them fall through thecracks.”

✓ Board members had high expectationsfor all students.

Stuck✓ Board members indicated student needswere too varied to meet them all. “Youcan’t reach all kids.”

✓ Board members had limited expecta-tions for some students.

Shared Leadership, continued

2. Continuous ImprovementA continuous focus on improving education with high levels

of involvement and shared decision making.

Moving✓ Board members seemed to feel aninternal desire to improve. They talkedabout the importance of improving educa-tion for the sake of students.

✓ Board members consistently expressedtheir belief that all children could learnand gave specific examples of ways thatlearning had improved as a result ofinitiatives in the district. Poverty, lack ofparental involvement and other factorswere described as challenges to be over-come, not as excuses.

✓ Board members expected to see im-provements in student achievement quicklyas a result of initiatives.

Stuck✓ Board members referred to externalpressures as the reasons for working toimprove. For example, state mandates or“not wanting to have the lowest test scores”were cited as reasons for improvementefforts.

✓ Board members often focused on factorsthat they believed kept students fromlearning, such as poverty, lack of parentalsupport, societal factors, or lack of motiva-tion.

✓ Board members expected it would takeyears to see any improvements in studentachievement.

"The Iowa Lighthouse study affirms the National School Boards Association’sfocus on the Key Work of School Boards, a national initiative that focuses onhelping school boards create a vision and structure for the district and engag-ing the community to improve student achievement. The seven principles inthis study parallel the Key Work framework for good boardsmanship. NSBAtalks about vision, standards, assessment, accountability and collaboration.The Iowa study talks about focusing on improvement, sustaining initiatives,staff development, community involvement and shared leadership. These areall essential to making the efforts of school board members even more effec-tive in improving student achievement.

The study demonstrates the two very difference philosophies and practicesbetween high- and low-achieving districts. High-achieving school districts donot accept limitations, but view them as challenges. These districts aremoving in the right direction and can be models for other school districtsacross the country."

–Anne Bryant, executive director National School Boards Association

8

3. Ability to Create and Sustain InitiativesAn understanding of how to organize the people and the school environment

to start and sustain an improvement effort.

Moving✓ Board members could describe specificways board actions and goals were commu-nicated to staff, such as a post-boardmeeting for teachers and administrators.

✓ Board members mentioned goal-settingexercises in which the board and superin-tendent learned together and solvedproblems together.

✓ Board members could describe structuresthat existed to support connections andcommunications within the district. Forexample, board members could describeteaching teams, faculty committees andhow they related to school improvementinitiatives.

✓ Board members described evidence ofregularly learning together as a board. Theytalked about studying an issue togetherbefore making a decision.

Stuck✓ Board members did not describe anyclear processes for linking board actionsand goals with that of the staff.

✓ Board members believed the superinten-dent “owns” information, and indicated itwas the superintendent’s responsibility tolearn, interpret information and recommendsolutions to problems.

✓ Board members didn’t know or werevague about how teachers and administra-tors interacted with each other or howteamwork was linked to goals or initiatives.The board assumed this communication washappening. (Staff interviews indicated itwas not.)

✓ Board members did not discuss learningtogether beyond information that waspresented to them by the superintendent orother administrative staff.

4. Supportive Workplace for StaffA supportive workplace that enables all staff to succeed in their roles.

Moving✓ Board members expressed a high levelof confidence in staff. They made frequentpositive comments about staff and couldgive specific examples of how staff mem-bers showed commitment, how staffmembers were improving, and how staffmembers were working to help studentslearn. Board members could identifyspecific examples of the way the boardshowed its appreciation for staff, such asrecognition at board meetings.

✓ Board members expressed their beliefthat changes could happen with existingpeople, including students, staff andcommunity.

Stuck✓ Board members tended to make negativestatements about the staff, such as identify-ing the need to change principals or get ridof poor teachers. They made few positivecomments about staff and seldom indicatedhow the board recognized staff contribu-tions.

✓ Board members expressed their beliefthat new staff members, more involvedparents, higher income families, or perhapsdifferent students would be needed topositively impact student achievement.

“It is obviously ofcritical importancethat policy leader-ship be focused onwhether the learningneeds of students arebeing met. With thehelp of the IASB,Iowa school boardmembers can benational leaders increating this focusand ensuring higherstudent achieve-ment.”

—Ted Stilwill, director,Iowa Department ofEducation

9

5. Staff DevelopmentRegular schoolwide staff development that is focused on studying teaching and learning.

Moving✓ Board members described staff develop-ment activities in the district and coulddescribe the link between teacher trainingand board or district goals for students.Board members described a belief in theimportance of staff development activitiesfocused on student needs.

Stuck✓ Board members described staff develop-ment as chosen by individual teachers or asrequired for teacher certification. Boardmembers knew there was a budget for staffdevelopment, but were unsure whetherthere was a plan for staff development.Board members made frequent disparagingremarks about staff development, both asan expense of time and as an ineffectivestrategy for changing/improving practice.

6. Support for School Sitesthrough Data and Information

Using data and information on student needs to make decisionsand modify actions at the district and building level.

Moving✓ Board members talked about receivinginformation from many sources, includingthe superintendent, curriculum director,principals, teachers, along with sourcesoutside the district, such as informationabout exemplary programs and practices.Information was received by all boardmembers and shared at the board table.

✓ Board members often referred to studentneeds—as shown through data aboutstudents and groups of students—as thefocus for decision making. Board membersmentioned data on the dropout rate, testscores and student needs. They talkedabout receiving information on a routinebasis, such as monthly reports.

✓ Board members could usually be veryclear about their decision-making process interms of study, learning, reading, listening,receiving data, questioning, discussing andthen deciding and evaluating.

Stuck✓ Board members referred to the superin-tendent as the primary source of informa-tion. Board members discussed concernsthat information was not all shared or notshared equally. Some felt left out of theinformation flow.

✓ Board members referred to data used indecisions as based on anecdotes andpersonal experiences. Data on studentachievement was received as a report tothe board, but rarely linked to a decision.The board talked very generally about testscores and relied on the interpretation madeby the superintendent.

✓ Board members generally referred totheir decision-making process as discussinga recommendation from the superintendentand deciding.

“This research will be of major assistance to boardmembers and administrators around the state as theygrapple with what they can do to improve studentperformance. It focuses and helps to define theboard’s role in student achievement and will be avehicle to help push that agenda statewide. It’simportant to look at improving student achievementsystemically, however, including the roles of theboard, superintendent, teachers, administrators andothers. All of those pieces must fit together if we areto make a difference for students.”

—Gaylord Tryon, executive director,School Administrators of Iowa

“I am intrigued bythe findings from thisresearch but notsurprised. Boardmembers reflect thecommunity. If thecommunity is wellinformed and sup-portive, they are thenon the 'same page'as the administrationand teachers. Thisisn’t always easy toachieve but has to becontinually devel-oped. Being a qualityschool, deliveringhigh quality instruc-tion for high qualitystudent learning, is ashared responsibil-ity.”

—Jolene Franken,president, Iowa StateEducation Association

10

7. Community InvolvementA close connection between the school, parents and community.

Moving✓ Board members identified how they hadsought out ways to connect with and listen tothe community. Board members expressedpride in their community and in their effortsto involve parents.

✓ Board members could name specific waysthe district was involving parents andcommunity and all indicated a desire formore involvement.

Stuck✓ Board members described parents’ lackof interest and education as a barrier tostudent learning but identified few actionsbeing taken to improve involvement.

✓ Board members were less likely tomention specific ways the community wasinvolved and were more likely to expressfrustration with the lack of involvement.They expressed a belief that there was notmuch they could do about the level ofparent/community involvement. They oftenstated that the lack of involvement wasevidence of a lack of interest from parents.

SuperintendentsGenerally, the superintendents of the moving districts expressed belief systems in line with

their board and school staff (see below).

Moving✓ Superintendents described processes theywere putting in place so a focus on im-provement was ongoing within the district.Superintendents described various means forsharing information frequently and broadly.They were intentional about involvingpeople in decision making.

✓ The superintendent and board establisheddistrict goals based on student needs.School goals were expected to be linked tothe district goals.

✓ The superintendents described centraloffice administrators, principals, andteachers as all working together to improvestudent learning.

✓ Superintendents discussed how districtactions reflected community needs andinput.

✓ Superintendents had high expectationsfor all students.

✓ Superintendents described initiativeswithin the district that were focused onstudent learning needs and improvingachievement.

Stuck✓ Superintendents were more likely tomandate change or take a “hands off”approach to change. Superintendents weremore cautious and deliberate in theirsharing of information. Decisions weremade with limited input.

✓ The superintendents discussed goals andimprovements plans as “ends” rather than a“means” to an end of improving studentlearning. There was little or no evidencethat goals were driving actions within thedistrict.

✓ The superintendents discussed the needto hold the principals and teachers ac-countable for improved test scores.

✓ Superintendents discussed frustrationwith lack of community involvement.

✓ Superintendents made excuses for whysome students didn’t learn or why their testscores were not as high as they would like.

✓ Superintendents described initiativeswithin the district that were focused onfacility issues or improving discipline.

“Board membersand educators eachcome to their roleswith a toolbox. Yourchallenge as aschool board asso-ciation—and ours,as board/superinten-dent teams—is toexpand the toolbox.This research doesthat by emphasizingthe board’s role insupporting changeand improvement.”

—Bill Wright,superintendent,Denison

“Our board usesresearch to makedecisions. IASB’sresearch helpsreinforce that theboard members’role is to focus onhow the systemsupports studentachievement.”

—Ron Sadler,superintendent,Howard-Winneshiek

11

Staff InterviewsGenerally, interviews with central office administrators, principals and teachers in the movingdistricts confirmed that the board’s knowledge and beliefs were having an impact related to

the seven conditions for school renewal at the building and classroom levels.

Moving✓ Staff members identified clear district-wide goals and expectations for improve-ments in student achievement.

✓ Staff members could link building goals toboard/district goals for student learning anddescribe how those goals were having animpact in their classroom and other class-rooms in the building.

✓ Staff members described the board assupportive. They knew who the boardmembers were and what the board believed.Staff members said they felt the board wouldrespect and listen to them.

✓ Staff members indicated they felt supportfrom administration and that they had asupportive network, such as mentors, fellowstaff members, and/or teams they could turnto for help.

✓ Staff members were eager to see data, testscores so they could use them to improvestudent learning.

✓ Staff members indicated it was neveracceptable to give up on a student.

✓ Staff members described staff develop-ment that was more student focused, morecollective, and linked to board goals.

Stuck✓ Staff members said they knew that testscores had to get better, but didn’t indicatea clear idea of what was expected or howthey would accomplish it.

✓ Staff members couldn’t identify boardgoals for student learning nor how they hadimpacted teaching and learning.

✓ Staff members often didn’t know whothe board members were or only knewindividuals by personal contact or relation-ship.

✓ Staff members talked about their inde-pendence and isolation. If teams orcommittees existed, they were often ill-defined, unrelated to student learning,inactive, teachers were unclear about thepurpose, or teachers were uncertain how tobecome a part of the team or committee.

✓ Staff members were less likely to refer todata or how it helped them improveinstruction.

✓ Most staff members indicated that whilethey wouldn’t give up on a child, they weresure others in the district did so.

✓ Staff members described staff develop-ment in terms of courses selected to meetindividual teacher needs.

If board members and thesuperintendent were aware ofand focused on school renewal,was it actually having an impactin buildings and classrooms?

“Some commonlyheld assumptions—that school boardsshould avoid mat-ters that deal withteaching andlearning—mayhave drawn schoolboards away fromthe very behaviorsthat are most likelyto have the greatestimpact on studentachievement. It’simportant thatschool boards bedynamic leaders inthe school renewalprocess without‘micromanaging’instructional is-sues.”

—Mary Delagardelle,IASB research teammember

12

Non-profit Organization

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

Des Moines, IowaPermit 2111

Want to know more?To learn more about the conditions for school renewal that form the research base of theIASB study on school boards and student achievement, see these materials.

How to Use Action Research in the Self-Improving School, by E. Calhoun. Alexandria, VA:The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1995.

The New Meaning of Educational Change, by M. Fullan and Stiegelbauer. New York:Teachers College Press, 1993.

Getting There From Here; School Board Superintendent Collaboration: Creating a SchoolGovernance Team Capable of Raising Student Achievement, by R. Goodman, L. Fulbrightand W. Zimmerman Jr. Arlington, VA: New England School Development Council andEducational Research Service, 1997.

The New Structure of School Improvement, by B. Joyce, E. Calhoun and D. Hopkins. Phila-delphia, PA: The Open University Press, 1999.

Student Achievement through Staff Development, by B. Joyce and B. Showers. White Plains,NY: Longman, Inc., 1995.

Teachers' Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools, by S. Rosenholtz. White Plains,NY: Longman, Inc., 1989.

School Board Leadership: The Future, by the Iowa Association of School Boards and StateBoard of Education. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Association of School Boards, 1994.

Key Work of School Boards, by the National School Boards Association.Available on the Internet: www.nsba.org/keywork

“School boardmembers will getboth reinforcementand inspirationfrom this research.It will help themunderstand whysome things theyare already doingare helping chil-dren learn. It willalso provide newideas for evenmore powerfulways to make adifference forstudents, and that’swhat we are allabout.”

—Carolyn Jons, IASBresearch teammember, former Amesschool board member

Iowa Association ofSchool Boards700 Second Ave., Ste. 100Des Moines, Iowa 50309-1731

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED