National School Board Survey

Abstract

The National School Board Survey (NSBS) is a psychological instrument developed in 2003 by faculty (L. Bishop and R. Manley) and doctoral students at Dowling College. Its primary purpose is to assess the level of participation and perceived effectiveness of school board members concerning various governance practices. The scale comprises 73 quantitative items using a Likert-type items response format, supplemented by two qualitative open-ended questions focused on the evolving roles of board members. The instrument was validated using a national sample of K–12 school board members across urban, suburban, and rural districts in the United States, demonstrating strong internal consistency and construct validity through factor analysis.

Keywords

School Boards, Governance Practices, Board Effectiveness, Policy Orientation, Financial Management, Curriculum Evaluation, Teamwork, K-12 Education, United States, Factor Analysis.

Authors

L. Bishop, R. Manley, and Doctoral Students (Dowling College, 2003). The scale was utilized and analyzed extensively by J. A. Chen (2008).

Purpose

The core purpose of the National School Board Survey is to systematically quantify and evaluate the engagement levels of school board members across nine critical dimensions of operational and strategic governance. By measuring these dimensions, the survey aims to establish relationships between specific governance practices and the dependent variable of overall board effectiveness.

The instrument was designed to facilitate comprehensive data analysis, allowing researchers to determine differences in attitudes and practices among board members based on district type (suburban, urban, rural), and demographic variables such as gender, age, and years of experience. Ultimately, the survey serves as a tool for understanding how governance dimensions predict the effectiveness of local boards of education.

Construct

The primary construct measured by the NSBS is School Board Governance, conceptualized as a multi-dimensional construct encompassing nine distinct areas of practice. These nine dimensions include: Teamwork, Financial Planning, Policy Orientation, Academic Assessment, Financial Management, Curriculum Evaluation, Technology Investment, Curriculum Investment, and Financial Analysis. The survey also measures the tenth, distinct construct of Board Effectiveness, which serves as the dependent variable in predictive analyses.

The instrument captures attitudes and perceptions regarding both prescriptive (policy setting, financial oversight) and collaborative (teamwork, communication) aspects of school board operation, providing a holistic view of board functionality and self-assessment.

Validity

Construct validity for the National School Board Survey was established through rigorous statistical methods, specifically utilizing factor analysis. This analysis confirmed that the scale items loaded onto the intended underlying constructs, supporting the theoretical framework of nine governance dimensions and one board effectiveness dimension. The statistical results, including factor loadings, communalities, and eigenvalues, were reported in detail in the foundational dissertation (Chen, 2008).

Reliability

The internal consistency of the NSBS subscales was assessed using Alpha coefficients, demonstrating acceptable to excellent reliability across the measured factors. The coefficient values for the 10 factors are summarized as follows:

• Teamwork: 0.97 (Excellent)

• Financial Planning: 0.73 (Acceptable)

• Policy Orientation: 0.82 (Good)

• Academic Assessment: 0.79 (Acceptable)

• Financial Management: 0.77 (Acceptable)

• Curriculum Evaluation: 0.69 (Acceptable)

• Technology Investment: 0.65 (Acceptable)

• Curriculum Investment: 0.67 (Acceptable)

• Financial Analysis: 0.65 (Acceptable)

• Board Effectiveness: 0.88 (Good)

The high reliability coefficient for Teamwork (0.97) suggests exceptional consistency within this factor, while all other dimensions achieved coefficients meeting or exceeding the commonly accepted threshold of 0.65 for exploratory research.

Factor Analysis

The structure of the National School Board Survey was confirmed via a 10-factor equamax solution. This solution was accepted based on eigenvalues ranging from 1.33 to 23.0, indicating strong underlying components explaining the variance in the data. The 10 identified factors align precisely with the theoretical framework of the instrument: nine factors defining the dimensions of school board governance and one factor representing board effectiveness.

The specific composition of the 10 factors is detailed below, listing the factor name and the corresponding item numbers (referring to the 73 quantitative items):

• Teamwork (12 items): 18, 19, 32, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 70, 71, 72, and 73.

• Financial Planning (6 items): 12, 20, 21, 26, 40, and 48.

• Policy Orientation (7 items): 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 17.

• Academic Assessment (5 items): 51, 52, 53, 54, and 61.

• Financial Management (7 items): 23, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, and 69.

• Curriculum Evaluation (4 items): 1, 3, 6, and 10.

• Technology Investment (3 items): 15, 27, and 60.

• Curriculum Investment (4 items): 55, 56, 64, and 65.

• Financial Analysis (4 items): 37, 57, 62, and 63.

• Board Effectiveness (10 items): 9, 16, 24, 25, 30, 35, 42, 66, 67, and 68.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report Attitudinal Survey (Mixed Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative)

Format: 73 quantitative Likert-type items scored on a 5-point scale, plus 2 open-ended qualitative questions.

Language Available: English (United States)

Population Group: Educational Administrators / Elected or Appointed Officials

Age Group: Adult (Professionals serving on school boards)

Population Details: K–12 school board members (appointed or elected) from urban, suburban, and rural districts across all 50 states in the U.S. The foundational sample included 247 participants from a pool of 300 selected members.

Test Methodology: Survey methodology, including descriptive statistics (means and frequencies), item analysis, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to detect differences based on district type, Pearson correlation for relationship analysis (governance vs. demographics), and regression analysis to predict effectiveness. Content analysis was used for the qualitative items.

Keywords

School Board Effectiveness, Governance Dimensions, Equamax Rotation, Reliability Coefficients, Descriptive Statistics, ANOVA, Regression Analysis, Policy Making, Financial Planning.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source. Affiliation is Dowling College (2003).

Correspondence Address: Correspondence related to the seminal application of the scale is associated with Dowling College (Oakdale, NY) at the time of the dissertation (Chen, 2008).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: Developed in 2003.

Permissions and Fees: The scale was developed as part of an EdD dissertation project. Researchers typically need to contact the original authors (L. Bishop, R. Manley, and J. A. Chen) or the institution (Dowling College, now merged) for formal permission to use the instrument. As this is an academic scale derived from a dissertation, usage fees may vary or be waived for non-commercial academic research.

Reference’s

Chen, J. A. (2008). The role of school boards, their governance practices and sense of effectiveness in suburban, urban, and rural settings in the United States. EdD dissertation, Dowling College.

Burak, M. (2006). The relationship of governance practices to effectiveness moderated by curriculum responsibilities in urban and suburban school board members in the northeast region of the United States. EdD dissertation, Dowling College.

Eisenberg, C. (2004). New York State school board members’ attitudes towards school governance, finance practices, conflict, team- work and board effectiveness. EdD dissertation, Dowling College.

Feltman, J. A. (2003). The relationship between four components of governance and coercive power among school board trustees in selected Suffolk County, New York school districts. EdD dissertation, Dowling College.

Grucci, C. (2003). Executive team stability and school board members’ attitudes toward school finance and governance practices in selected Nassau County, Long Island, New York, school districts. EdD dissertation, Dowling College.

Hawkins, R. (2003). The relationship of team learning and the four components of governance practices among school board members in Suffolk County, Long Island. EdD dissertation, Dowling College.

Items of the National School Board Survey

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. Our board requires instructional leaders to present an evaluation of the literacy/reading curriculum for our primary grades.

2. Our board provides leadership for the financial plan of the district.

3. Our board requires instructional leaders to present an evaluation of the math curriculum.

4. Our board members evaluate policies about hiring of staff.

5. Our board has a policy that defines the purpose of education.

6. Our board requires administration to compare curriculum programs with those of other districts.

7. Our board matches district-wide policies with the mission and objectives of the district.

8. Our board allows for community participation.

9. Our board has training and educational programs to promote its own growth and development.

10. Our board uses an assessment of student needs to verify that the curriculum is aligned to these needs.

11. Our board has formal reports about student achievement.

12. Our board focuses on its role in policy making.

13. Our board provides policy to develop the district’s mission statement.

14. Our board is attentive to the ethnic and multicultural needs of the school district.

15. Our board provides sufficient funds for staff to receive appropriate staff development.

16. Our board president advises trustees on their responsibilities as board members.

17. Our board uses demographic trends in its planning.

18. Our board has respectful communications with the superintendent.

19. In public session, our board members exhibit respect for each other.

20. Our board reviews the financial impact of state aid projections.

21. Our board has a process to gather information from a variety of sources.

22. Our board considers current research during the process of decision making.

23. Our board routinely asks questions at the monthly meeting on the treasurer’s report, which includes the investment report and cash reconciliation report.

24. Our board committee assignments are based upon the expertise of board members.

25. I have participated in board discussions about the effectiveness of our performance.

26. Our board creates policies to achieve district goals.

27. Our board ensures that current technology equipment is accessible to students.

28. Our board has a structured method for analyzing data in the process of making decisions.

29. Our board assesses progress toward its goals.

30. Our board conducts an orientation program for new members.

31. Our board has designed a method to solicit community input.

32. Our board works together for a common purpose.

33. Our board has created policy to guide negotiations with bargaining units.

34. Our board matches revenues against planned expenditures on a monthly basis.

35. When a new member joins the board, we make sure someone serves as a mentor to help the person learn the ropes.

36. Our board considers the financial impact on all community groups in the development of its financial multiyear plan.

37. I can recall an occasion when the board acknowledged its responsibility for making an imprudent decision.

38. Our board routinely asks for justification at the monthly meeting when a transfer of appropriations between codes is requested.

39. Our board reviews fund balance projections at least twice a year to anticipate modifications in the current year’s spending plan.

40. Our board compares the cost of instructional school-wide programs with regional standards for future improve- ments.

41. Most people on the board learn about their roles and responsibilities through explicit discussion and training.

42. Our board works together with respect and trust.

43. Our board uses individual skills to help each other.

44. Our board provides leadership by requesting data concerning issues facing the school district.

45. Our board makes a real effort to understand each other’s perspectives.

46. Our board reviews alternative financing plans for capital projects in order to project costs and select the best option.

47. Our board acts according to shared beliefs.

48. Our board examines the annual budget to determine the impact on educational programs.

49. Our board recognizes our interdependence and enjoys working together.

50. Our board reviews census and enrollment projections to forecast future budgetary needs.

51. Our board requires an analysis of those students who fail to meet curriculum standards.

52. Our board identifies that current curriculum guides are aligned with state standards.

53. Our board annually conducts hearings on our students’ academic performance.

54. Our board requires administrators to evaluate the impact of staff development activities on teaching.

55. Our board funds a variety of electives for students on the high school level.

56. Our board funds a science research program for high school students.

57. Our board funds music programs in all of our schools.

58. Our board funds art programs in all of our schools.

59. Our board financially supports the students wishing to take advanced placement courses.

60. Our board requires assessments of the use of technology in the classroom.

61. Our board requires a review of teacher surveys regarding their satisfaction with the district’s technology for instruction.

62. Our board requires administration to participate in cooperative bidding programs to reduce costs.

63. Our board requests an analysis of ongoing costs of proposed projects before committing taxpayer dollars to any project.

64. Our board supports competitive salaries to recruit highly qualified teachers.

65. Our board endorses a low student teacher ratio in the classroom to promote learning.

66. I have participated in discussions with new members of this board about the roles and responsibilities of membership.

67. I have received helpful feedback on my performance as a member of this board.

68. This board has conducted an explicit examination of our roles and responsibilities.

69. I have participated in board discussions about what we should do differently as a result of a mistake the board made.

70. Our board cooperates with each other to achieve the board’s vision.

71. Our board assumes good faith in its members.

72. Our board enjoys working as a team.

73. Our board uses constructive criticism to help each other.

The two open-ended qualitative questions are:

74. Please describe how your perceptions of what it means to serve on a local board of education have changed since you were first elected.

75. Since you were elected, has the role of a school board member changed? If so, how?

Scoring:

Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Slightly Agree = 3; Agree = 4; and Strongly Agree = 5.