Thesis advisor: Rebecca Lowenhaupt / This single case study examines how stakeholders of a local education agency (LEA) understand and implement state turnaround policy for its chronically underperforming schools. While there is ample research on how to improve chronically underperforming schools that research becomes limited when looking at turnaround implementation actions that are in response to policy mandates. This qualitative study uses the theory frame of policy sense-making to identify how implementers come to understand turnaround policy and to explore how that sense-making impacts their implementation decisions. This individual study examines how school board members make sense of their roles as policy implementers. Findings resulting from interviews, observation and document analysis highlight how the role of the turnaround school board has become ambiguous and misunderstood particularly as their historical roles have evolved, state activism has increased and the authority of the superintendent has expanded. Results indicate that board members tend to make sense of their turnaround policy implementation role primarily through their budgeting and financial oversight responsibilities. In so doing, they depend on the social and political capital they have accrued as experts of the local context which allows them to serve as resource facilitators, resource bridge builders and resource navigators. Communication between school board members and internal/external policy implementers emerged as an influencing factor in board member sense-making. Findings indicate that school board members identify the superintendent as the primary conduit for communication, and interpretation of their internal turnaround policy role. Communication from external agents such as state monitors had a mixed influence on board member policy sense-making. An unexpected finding was the role of a "dissenting voice" on school board sense-making. Recommendations are made for clarifying and strengthening the role of school boards in turnaround districts to increase the effectiveness of policy implementation. / Thesis (EdD) — Boston College, 2014. / Submitted to: Boston College. Lynch School of Education. / Discipline: Educational Leadership and Higher Education.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Lehigh University, 2000. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 111-117).

Role conflict between school board members and superintendents appears to exist in some Indiana school corporations. The purpose of the study was to investigate and report role perceptions of school board member duties and obligations as seen by board members and superintendents. A further purpose of the study was to identify task-related areas of disagreement regarding role responsibilities generally perceived by each respective response group.A questionnaire was designed to solicit responses from school board members and superintendents regarding perceived initial board member involvement with twenty-one educational tasks. Each task was arranged into a five step horizontal continuum, ranging from executive duties to legislative duties. Respondents were selected from a random sampling of Indiana school corporations which had been stratified according to student enrollment into three equal groups.Major findings derived from the analysis of data were:1. School board members and superintendents demonstrated significant differences in perceptions regarding board member initial involvement with respect to ten of the twenty-one educational tasks.2. In ten of the remaining eleven tasks, board members and superintendents demonstrated intragroup disagreement.3. School board members and superintendents of different sized school corporations demonstrated intergroup disagreements.Major conclusions based on findings of the study were:1. School board members fail to differentiate between the policy-making role of the school board and the administrative role of the superintendent.2. School board members and superintendents are not consistent with respect to perceptions of initial board member involvement.3. School board members and superintendents in different sized school corporations disagree concerning perceptions of initial board member assumption of responsibilities.Major recommendations based upon the findings and conclusions of the study were:1. School board members and superintendents need to cooperatively plan orientation andtraining sessions in order to understand the processes of policy planning, policy development, and policy evaluation.2. Research should be conducted to determine the effects of written policies and procedures upon the role perceptions of superintendents and board members regarding the duties and obligations of board members.3. The study should be replicated with an enlarged sample to further validate the findings that were influenced by size of school corporation.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1994. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 128-133). Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Washington State University, May 2009. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on Apr. 14, 2010). "College of Education." Includes bibliographical references (p. 139-146).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin, 1966. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliography.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Washington State University, May 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 110-112).

School governance at South African schools is now almost twelve years old. In these twelve years some schools have made great strides whilst others are still facing various challenges. This research article is a qualitative, empirical and a descriptive case study, based on two farm schools in Kwa-Zulu Natal Province. It has investigated the governance capacity of both farm school governing bodies (SGB) in the execution of their roles and responsibilities together with the challenges that they faced using a documentary study and with structured interviews in a focus group. The structure for writing this article used the four principles as designed by Yin (1994) which are; Conceptualization, Contextual details, Data collection and Analytical strategies. Evidence from this Research indicate that the Farm School Governing Body face many contextual challenges and that a tailor-made Governance capacity building programme be made available to farm schools so that they (SGB) are able to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively.

No description available.

ABSTRACT District Superintendent and School Board President Perceptions regarding Leadership Characteristics for Superintendents of Texas Schools. (December 2009) Kenneth Lee Groholski, B.S., Sam Houston State University M.Ed., Tarleton State University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. John R. Hoyle The purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of Texas Public School superintendents and school board presidents on the importance of leadership characteristics of the superintendency. The questionnaire used in this study was developed by Dr. Douglas D. Wilson and modified by the researcher. Responses to a Likert Scale instrument and a nominal ranking of ten leadership characteristics were solicited from superintendents and school board presidents of Texas public schools. The population was superintendents and school board presidents from Texas Public Schools. The population was divided into large school districts (>10,000 students) and small school districts (<10,000 students). Data was then generated regarding the respondent’s perceptions of leadership characteristics. Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney Tests for differences were used to determine if possible significant differences exist in the data. Results were reported using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 14.0). Major findings of the study suggest: 1. Superintendents may view the importance of instructional leadership, prior work experience in education, and effective school board relations significantly higher than school board presidents. 2. Superintendents of small schools may view the importance of instructional leadership, prior work experience in education, and effective school board relations significantly higher than school board presidents of small schools. Conversely, school board presidents of small schools may view the focus on professional development significantly higher than superintendents of small schools. 3. Superintendents of large schools may view the importance of instructional leadership, comfort with media relations and politics, and effective school board relations significantly higher than school board presidents of large schools. 4. Regardless of school size, superintendents and school board presidents appeared to be in agreement concerning the three least important superintendent leadership characteristics.