The purpose of this study was to establish the content, construct, and predictive validity of the Effective Board Leadership Practices Survey (EBLPS). The EBLPS was designed to measure the leadership practices of boards of education that support student achievement. A literature review identified 12 board leadership practices supportive of student achievement. These practices formed the content basis of the 33-item EBLPS. A factor analysis approach to construct validity revealed six significant factors underlying the EBLPS, while a t test revealed a significant difference between the mean EBLPS scores of high- and low-achieving school districts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlsburyT. (2008). School board politics and student achievement. In AlsburyT. L. (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 247–272). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
2.
BartlettM. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. JRoyal Statist Soc16(Series B) 296–298.
3.
BjorkL. (2008). Leading in an era of change: The micropolitics of the superintendent–board relations. In AlsburyT. L. (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 61–80). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
4.
ChubbJ. E., & MoeT. M. (1990). Politics, markets and America's schools.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
5.
DanzbergerJ., KirstM., & UsdanM. (1994). Governing the nation's schools: The case for restructuring local school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(4), 67–80.
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: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 191–223). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
7.
Education Commission of the States. (1999). Governing America's schools: Changing the rules.Denver, CO: Author.
8.
FinnC. E. (1991). We must take charge.New York: Free Press.
FusarelliL. D., CooperB. S., & CarellaV. A. (2002). Who will serve? An analysis of superintendent occupational perceptions, career satisfaction, and mobility. Journal of School Leadership, 13(3), 304–327.
11.
GeberlingK. W., SmithC. W., & VillaniJ. S. (2000). The key work of school boards.Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
12.
GehringJ. (2003, October 29). Essential or obsolete: Panel debates role of school boards. Education Week, p. 14.
13.
GlassT., BjorkL., & BrunnerC. (2000). The study of the American superintendency.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
14.
GoodmanR. H., FulbrightL., & ZimmermanW. G.Jr. (1997). Getting there from here: School board–superintendent collaboration. Creating a school governance team capable of raising student achievement.Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
15.
GoodmanR. H., & ZimmermanW. G.Jr. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for 21st century school board/superintendent leadership. Governance and teamwork for high student achievement.Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service and New England School Development Council.
16.
HessF. M. (2002). School boards at the turn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of school governance.Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
17.
HessF. M. (2008). Money, interest groups, and school board elections. In AlsburyT. (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 137–154). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
18.
HofmanR. (1995). Contextual influences on school effectiveness: The role of school boards. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(4), 308–331.
19.
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2000). IASB's Lighthouse Study: School boards and student achievement. Iowa School Board Compass, 5(2), 1–12.
20.
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2002). Iowa school board member attitudes/beliefs about student achievement.Des Moines, IA: Author.
21.
KaiserH. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika.39, 31–36.
22.
KaplanG. (1989). Who runs our schools?Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
23.
KirstM. W. (2008). The evolving role of school boards: Retrospect and prospect. In AlsburyT. L. (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 37–58). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
24.
KowalskiT. (2008). School reform, civic engagement, and school board leadership. In AlsburyT. L. (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 225–246). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
25.
LamontH., & DelagardelleM. (2009). What you need to know from the lighthouse project. American School Board Journal, 196(8), 20–24.
26.
LandD. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to students’ academic achievement.Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
27.
LaRocqueL., & ColemanP. (1993). The politics of excellence: Trustee leadership and school district ethos. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 39(4), 449–475.
28.
LauB. (Ed.). (2004). Taking responsibility: Using public engagement to reform our public schools.Washington, DC: Public Education Network.
29.
LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496–528.
30.
LynnM. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382–385.
31.
MarzanoR. J., & WatersT. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
32.
McAdamsD. (2000). Fighting to save our urban schools … and winning.New York: Teachers College Press.
MoeT. (2005). Teachers’ unions and school board elections. In HowellW., Besieged: School boards and the future of educational politics (pp. 254–287). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
35.
MorganC., & PetersenG. J. (2002). The role of the district superintendent in leading academically successful school districts. In FusarelliB. C., The promises and perils facing today's school superintendent (pp. 175–196). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
36.
MountfordM. (2008). Historical and current tensions among board–superintendent teams: Symptoms or cause? In AlsburyT. L. (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 81–114). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education
37.
MurphyJ., & HallingerP. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective school districts. Journal of Educational Research, 81(3), 175–181.
38.
National School Boards Association. (1996). Becoming a better school board member: A guide to effective school board service.Alexandria, VA: Author.
39.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
40.
PetersenG., & FusarelliL. (2008). Systemic leadership amidst turbulence: Superintendent–school board relations under pressure. In AlsburyT. L. (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 115–136). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
ResnickA., & BryantA. (2010). School boards: Why American education needs them. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 11–14.
43.
RiceR., DelagardelleM., BucktonM., JonsC., LuedersW., VensM. (2001, April). The lighthouse inquiry: School board/superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student achievement by the Iowa Association of School Boards. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Seattle.
44.
StevensJ. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45.
StringfieldS. (2008). School boards and raising student outcomes: Reflections (confessions?) of a former urban school board member. In AlsburyT. L. (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 273–292). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
46.
ThurstoneL. L. (1947). Multiple Factor Analysis, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
47.
TwainM. (1897). Pudd'nhead Wilson's new calendar. In Following the equator.American Publishing.
48.
UsdanD. (2010). School boards: A neglected institution in an era of school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 8–10.
49.
ViaderoD. (2000). Lags in minority achievement defy traditional explanation. Education Week, 19(28), 18–22.
50.
WhitsonJ. (1998). Are local school boards obsolete?Childhood Education, 74(3), 172–173.
51.
WyndC. A., SchmidtB. A., & SchaeferM. A. (2003). Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(5), 508–518.
52.
ZeiglerL. (1975). School board research: The problems and the prospects. In CistoneP. (Ed.), Understanding school boards: Problems and prospects (pp. 32–47). Lexington, MA: Heath.
