In this paper we use the case of U.S. school boards to compare small group governing dynamics across suburban and rural school boards serving fewer than 1,000 students. Using a national dataset, we find that rural school board members are less diverse, perceive higher levels of interpersonal conflict, and higher levels of interest group influence compared to their suburban colleagues. The results reveal the need to consider contextual factors such as urbanity when researching small group governing dynamics on public boards, and the importance of place-based policy making. The results are relevant to scholars of small group dynamics, municipal governance, and school boards.
AlsburyT. L. (Ed.) (2008). The Future of School Board Governance. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
2.
AshbyL. W. (1968). The effective school board member. Danville, IL: Interstate Printers & Publishers.
3.
BauchP. A. (2001). School-community partnerships in rural schools: Leadership, renewal, and a sense of place. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 204–221.
4.
BerryC., & HowellW. G. (2005). Democratic Accountability in Public Education. In HowellW. G. (Ed.), Besieged: School Boards and the Future of Education Politics (pp. 150–172). Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.
5.
BrownW. A. (2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(3), 317–339.
6.
DelagardelleM. L. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of School Board Leadership in the Improvement of Student Achievement. In AlsburyT. L. (Ed.), The Future of School Board Governance (pp. 191–224). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
7.
FinnC. E.Jr. & PetrilliM. J. (2013). The Failures of U.S. Education Governance Today. In MannaP. & McGuinnP. (Eds.), Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 21–35). Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.
8.
FordM. R., & IhrkeD. (2015). Do School Board Governance Best Practices Improve District Performance? Testing the Key Work of School Boards in Wisconsin. International Journal of Public Administration. doi:10.1080/01900692.2014.982293.
9.
FordM. R., & IhrkeD. M. (2015a). School Board Member Definitions of Accountability: What are they, and Do they Impact District Outcomes?Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1), 198–222.
10.
FordM. R., & IhrkeD. M. (2016). Board Conflict and Public Performance on Urban and Non-Urban Boards: Evidence From a National Sample of School Board Members. Journal of Urban Affairs. doi:10.1111/juaf.12315.
11.
FordM. R., & IhrkeD. M. (2018). Perceptions are Reality: A Framework for Understanding Governance. Administrative Theory & Praxis, doi: 10.1080/10841806.2018.1512337.
12.
FredericksonH. G. (1996). Comparing the Reinventing Government Movement with the New Public Administration. Public administration review, 56(3), 263–270.
13.
FredericksonH. G., SmithK. B., LarimerC. W., & LicariM. J. (2012). The Public Administration Theory Primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
14.
FryR. (2009). The rapid growth and changing complexion of suburban public schools. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
15.
GabrisG. T., & NelsonK. L. (2013). Transforming Municipal Boards into Accountable, High-Performing Teams: Toward a Diagnostic Model of Governing Board Effectiveness. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(3), 472–495.
16.
GoodsellC. (1994). The Case for Bureaucracy. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House.
17.
GrissomJ. 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.
18.
HeidbrederB., GrasseN., IhrkeD., & CherryB. D. (2011). Determinants of Policy Conflict in Michigan Municipalities. State and Local Government Review, 43(1), 32–45.
19.
HenigJ. R. (2013). The Rise of Education Executives in the White House, State House, and Mayor's Office. In MannaP. & McGuinnP. (Eds.), Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 178–208). Washington D.C.: Brooking Institution.
20.
HessF. (2008). Money, Interest Groups, and School Board Elections. In AlsburyT. L. (Ed.), The Future of School Board Governance (pp. 137–154). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
21.
HessF., & MeeksO. (2011). School Boards Circa 2010: Governance in an Accountability Era. Retrieved from Washington D.C.: National School Boards Association.
22.
HillP. T. (2013). Picturing a Different Governance Structure for Public Education. In MannaP. & McGuinnP. (Eds.), Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 329–352). Washington D.C.: Brooking Institution Press.
23.
HowellW. G. (Ed.) (2005). Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
24.
Ihrke, Douglas M., and Scott Niederjohn. 2005. “Conflict on city councils in Wisconsin.” Journal of Urban Affairs27 (4):453–462.
25.
JehnK. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.
26.
JehnK. A., & MannixE. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.
27.
KettlD. F. (2005). The Global Public Management Revolution. (2nd ed.). Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
28.
LucasJ. (2016). Fields of Authority. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
29.
LutzF. W., & IannacconeL. (2008). The Dissatisfaction Theory of American Democracy. In AlsburyT. L. (Ed.), The Future of School Board Governance. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
30.
MannaP., & McGuinnP. (Eds.). (2013). Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.
31.
MathisW. J. (2003, March). Equity and adequacy challenges in rural schools and communities. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the American Education Finance Association, Orlando, FL.
32.
MilwardH. B., & ProvanK. (2003). Managing the hollow state: Collaboration and contracting. Public Management Review, 5(1), 1–18.
33.
MullinsD. R., & PaganoM. A. (2005). Local budgeting and finance: 25 years of developments. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(4s), 3–45.
34.
OddenA. R. (2011). Strategic Management of Human Capital in Education. New York: Routledge.
35.
OsborneD., & GaeblerT. (1993). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Plume.
36.
OsborneD., & PlastrikP. (1997). Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
37.
OsborneS. P. (2010). The (New) Public Governance: a suitable case for treatment? In OsborneS. P. (Ed.), The New Public Governance. (pp. 1–16). New York: Routledge.
38.
PetersonP. E. (1976). School Politics Chicago Style. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
PollittC. (1993). Managerialism and the public services: Cuts or cultural change in the 1990s?. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Business.
40.
PortzJ., SteinL., & JonesR. R. (1999). City Schools & City Politics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
41.
ProvanK. G., & MilwardH. B. (2001). Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks. Public administration review, 61(4), 414–423.
42.
RaffelJ. A. (2007). Why has public administration ignored public education, and does it matter?. Public administration review, 67(1), 135–151.
43.
StillmanR. J. (1999). Preface to Public Administration. (2nd ed.). Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press.
44.
SimonH. A. (1946). The proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review, 6(1), 53–67.
45.
ViterittiJ. P. (Ed.) (2009). When mayors take charge: school governance in the city. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.
46.
WeberM. (1946). Bureaucracy. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, 196–244.
