In this article, we use original survey data from Wisconsin school board members to determine the extent of conflict present on Wisconsin school boards and the determinants of different types of perceived board conflict. School boards, by virtue of overseeing a public good with readily measurable performance variables, offer an ideal case for testing a relationship between board governance performance and conflict. Using multivariate regression analysis, we find that that the perceived level of conflict on Wisconsin school boards is dependent on the quality of superintendent–board relations, the demographic profile of the school district overseen by the school board, and the age and experience level of school board members. Notably, we do not find a clear relationship between conflict and measures of school district academic performance.
Alsbury TL (ed) (2008) The Future of School Board Governance. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
2.
AndrewsRBoyneGA (2010) Capacity, leadership, and organizational performance: Testing the black box model of public management. Public Administration Review70(3): 443–454.
3.
BjorkLG (2008) Leading in an era of change: The micropolitics of superintendent-board relations. In: AlsburyTL (ed.) The Future of School Board Governance, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 61–80.
4.
CarverJ (2006) Boards That Make a Difference, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
CoserL (1956) The Functions of Social Conflict, New York: The Free Press.
6.
DelagardelleML (2008) The lighthouse inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In: AlsburyTL (ed.) The Future of School Board Governance, Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield, pp. 191–224.
7.
DeutschM (1973) The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes, New Haven: Yale University Press.
8.
EliotT (1959) Toward an understanding of public school politics. The American Political Science Review53(4): 1032–1051.
9.
FredericksonHG (1990) Public administration and social equity. Public Administration Review50(2): 228–237.
10.
GabrisGTGolembiewskiRTIhrkeDM (2001) Leadership credibility, board relations, and administrative innovation at the local government level. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory11(1): 89–108.
11.
GabrisGTNelsonKL (2013) Transforming municipal boards into accountable, high-performing teams: Toward a diagnostic model of governing board effectiveness. Public Performance and Management Review36(3): 472–495.
12.
GerringJ (2004) What is a case study and what is it good for?American Political Science Review98(2): 341–354.
13.
GerringJ (2007) Is there a (viable) crucial-case method?Comparative Political Studies40(3): 231–253.
14.
GolembiewskiRT (1995) Practical Public Management, New York: Marcel Dekker.
15.
GrissomJA (2010) The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations: The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory20(3): 601–627.
16.
GrissomJA (2014) Is discord detrimental? Using institutional variation to identify the impact of public governing board conflict on outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory24(2): 289–315.
17.
HanushekE (1997) Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis19(2): 141–164.
18.
HanushekEAPetersonPEWoessmannL (2013) Endangering Prosperity: A Global View of the American School, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
19.
Heidbreder B, Grasse N, Ihrke D, et al. (2011) Determinants of policy conflict in Michigan municipalities. State and Local Government Review 43(32): 32--45.
20.
HessF (2008) Money, interest groups, and school board elections. In: AlsburyTL (ed.) The Future of School Board Governance, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education, pp. 137–154.
21.
Hess R and Meeks O (2011) School Boards circa 2010: Governance in an Accountability Era. Washington DC: National School Board Association.
22.
Houle CO (1997) Governing Boards: Their Nature and Nurture, A Publication of the National Center for Nonprofit Boards (now BoardSource). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Company.
23.
Ihrke DM, Proctor R and Gabris G (2003) Understanding innovation in municipal government: City council member perspectives. Journal of Urban Affairs 25(1): 79--90.
24.
JehnKA (1997) A qualitative analyses of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly42: 530–557.
25.
JehnK (1999) Diversity, conflict, and team performance: Summary of a program of research. Performance Improvement Quarterly12: 6–19.
26.
JohnsonTIhrkeDM (2004) Determinants of conflict on Wisconsin town boards. State and Local Government Review36(2): 103–117.
27.
KettlDF (2005) The Global Public Management Revolution, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
28.
KozolJ (1991) Savage Inequities, New York: Crown.
29.
KozolJ (2005) The Shame of a Nation: The Return of Apartheid Schooling in America, New York: Crown.
30.
LutzFWIannocconeL (2008) The dissatisfaction theory of American Democracy. In: AlsburyTL (ed.) The Future of School Board Governance, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 3–24.
31.
Miller M (2008) First, kill all the school boards. Atlantic Monthly, 92–94.
32.
MountfordM (2008) Historical and current tensions among board-superintendent teams: Symptoms or cause? In: AlsburyTL (ed.) The Future of School Board Governance, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 81–114.
33.
MoynihanDP (2005) Why and how do state governments adopt and implement “Managing for Results” reforms?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15(2): 219–243.
34.
NelsonKLGabrisGTDavisTJ (2011) What makes municipal councils effective? An empirical analysis of how council members perceive their group interactions and processes. State and Local Government Review43(3): 196–204.
35.
NelsonKLNollenbergerK (2011) Conflict and cooperation in municipalities do variations in form of government have an effect?Urban Affairs Review47(5): 696–720.
36.
OsborneDGaeblerT (1993) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector, New York: Plume.
37.
OsborneSP (2010) The (new) public governance: A suitable case for treatment? In: OsborneSP (ed.) The New Public Governance, New York: Routledge, pp. 1–16.
38.
PetersonGJFusarelliLD (2008) Systemic leadership amidst turbulence: Superintendent-school board relations under pressure. In: AlsburyTL (ed.) The Future of School Board Governance, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 115–136.
39.
PetersonP (1976) School Politics Chicago Style, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
RavitchD (2011) The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, New York: Basic Books.
41.
RavitchD (2013) Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
SavasES (2000) Privatization and Public Private Partnerships, New York: Chatham House Publishers.
44.
SeawrightJGerringJ (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly61(2): 294–308.
45.
SmoleyER (1999) Effective School Boards: Strategies for Improving Board Performance, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
46.
Sokolow AD (1989) Legislators without ambition: Why small-town citizens seek public office. State and Local Government Review 21(1): 23--30.
47.
StillmanRJ (1999) Preface to Public Administration, 2nd ed. Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press.
48.
StokerG (2005) Public value management – A new narrative for networked governance?American Review of Public Administration36(1): 41–57.
49.
SvaraJ (1990) Official Leadership in the City: Patterns of Conflict and Cooperation, New York: Oxford University Press.
50.
TalbotC (2009) Public value – The next “big thing” in public management?International Journal of Public Administration32(3–4): 167–170.
51.
Viteritti J (ed) (2008) When Mayors Take Charge: School Governance in the City. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
52.
WalserN (2009) The Essential School Board Book: Better Governance in the Age of Accountability, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
