School Board Development Questionnaire

Abstract

The School Board Development Questionnaire (SBDQ) is a 35-item instrument developed by Shoulders (2004) as part of an EdD dissertation at the University of Kentucky. The scale is designed to measure and compare the perceptions of two critical groups of educational leaders—superintendents and school board chairs—regarding the explicit role and responsibilities of the superintendent in facilitating the professional development and training of school board members. The SBDQ explores areas such as policy development, organizational structure, conflict resolution, and accountability systems, aiming to identify potential perceptual gaps between the two governance parties.

Keywords

Superintendent, School Board, Professional Development, Educational Leadership, Governance, School Administration, Board Training, Policy Development, Perception Gap, Kentucky.

Authors

Shoulders, D. K.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the School Board Development Questionnaire (SBDQ) is to systematically quantify the beliefs and viewpoints of both superintendents and school board chairs concerning the extent and nature of the superintendent’s involvement in board member development. The instrument seeks to determine if there are statistically significant differences in perception between these two groups regarding who is responsible for providing essential training, particularly concerning board roles, responsibilities, and effective governance practices.

The scale was developed to support the findings of the dissertation, which focused on defining the perceived role of the superintendent in fostering an informed and effective board, thereby contributing to smoother board-superintendent relationships and improved district outcomes.

Construct

The SBDQ measures a singular construct centered on the perceived role and effectiveness of the superintendent as a facilitator of school board member development. This construct encompasses several key thematic areas related to effective educational governance, including:

• The superintendent’s role in promoting professional development related to board member responsibilities and legal obligations.
• The superintendent’s actions in facilitating training on academic standards, assessment, and accountability systems.
• Perceptions regarding conflict resolution, policy development, and the establishment of productive board-superintendent relationships.
• The understanding of roles concerning human resources, communications, and district vision implementation.

Validity

Content validity for the SBDQ was established through a rigorous, multi-stage process. The initial item pool was generated directly from an extensive review of academic and professional literature pertaining to superintendents’ relations with school boards and the defined roles of each entity. Specific attention was paid to ensuring the items accurately reflected documented school board member responsibilities.

Following the literature review, the items underwent scrutiny by a panel of five subject matter experts to confirm relevance and clarity. Finally, the questionnaire was validated through a pilot study involving 30 former school board chairs and 30 former superintendents in Kentucky, ensuring the instrument was functionally sound prior to the main study deployment.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the School Board Development Questionnaire (SBDQ) was determined to be exceptionally high. The overall reliability for the entire 35-item scale, calculated using the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, was 0.98. This high coefficient suggests that the items within the questionnaire are highly interrelated and measure a single, unified underlying construct with remarkable consistency.

Factor Analysis

A formal Factor Analysis was not completed during the development and validation phase of the SBDQ. The decision to forgo this analysis was based on two primary factors: the relatively low response rate observed during the initial data collection stages, and, more significantly, the extremely high internal consistency indicated by the Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.98. This high reliability metric strongly suggested that the 35 items were measuring a single dominant factor related to the perceived role of the superintendent in board development, rendering a multidimensional factor exploration unnecessary.

Instrument

Test Type: Perception Questionnaire / Survey Instrument

Format: 35 items utilizing a 4-point Likert scale.

Language Available: English

Population Group: Educational Governance Officials (Superintendents and School Board Chairs)

Age Group: Adult Professionals

Population Details: The sample utilized for the primary study consisted of superintendents and school board chairs drawn from 176 public school districts, primarily located in the state of Kentucky. The response rate was 86.9 percent for superintendents and 65.3 percent for school board chairs.

Test Methodology: Self-report survey administered to measure and compare perceptions across two key leadership groups.

Data Analysis and Scoring

Descriptive statistics, including Means and Standard Deviations, were calculated for the perception scores. To assess whether the differences in perceptions between superintendents and school board chairs were statistically significant, a t-test was conducted. Given that the t-test yielded significant results, further item-level analysis was performed using Chi-square tests for each of the 35 items. This detailed analysis revealed that 22 of the 35 items showed statistically significant differences in how the two groups perceived the superintendent’s role.

Keywords

Likert Scale, Reliability, Internal Consistency, School Governance, Superintendent Evaluation, Educational Policy, Board Member Training, Perception Measurement, Kentucky Education.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address: Shoulders, D. K., EdD Dissertation, University of Kentucky (2004).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 2004

Permissions and Fee: Developed as part of an academic dissertation; permissions for use typically reside with the author and the degree-granting institution (University of Kentucky). Specific commercial fee information is not available in the source material.

The original dissertation, “The perceived role of the superintendent in school board member development,” by Shoulders, D. K. (2004), can be accessed through academic databases.

Reference’s

The following references informed the development and validation of the School Board Development Questionnaire:

• American Association of School Administrators and the National School Boards Association. (1994). Roles and relationships: School boards and superintendents. Author.
• Brunner, C. C., Grogan, M., and Bjork, L. G. (2002). Shifts in the discourse defining the superintendency: Historical and current foundations in the position. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 211–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Cuban, L. (1976). The urban school superintendent: A century and a half of change. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
• Lutz, F., and Iannaccone, L. (1978). Public participation in local school districts. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• Shoulders, D. K. (2004). The perceived role of the superintendent in school board member development. EdD dissertation, University of Kentucky.

Items of the School Board Development Questionnaire

Scoring: Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2, Agree = 3; Strongly Agree = 4.

1. A significant role of the superintendent is to provide professional development to board members related to their roles and responsibilities.
2. Conflict between superintendents and school boards is due to a lack of understanding in the responsibilities of each position.
3. The superintendent facilitated board training in the establishment of board policy.
4. Individuals who fit the norms, values, and beliefs of the school district are hired for the superintendency.
5. Poor understanding of board member and superintendent roles leads to superintendent job turnover.
6. The superintendent facilitated board training in academic standards and assessment.
7. Development of board policy is the school boards responsibility.
8. The superintendent facilitated board training in the board’s role of being advocates for students and schools to the community.
9. The superintendent facilitated board training in the evaluation process of the superintendent.
10. Superintendent evaluation practices are intended to reward effective practices
11. The superintendent facilitated board training in the development of a board team.
12. The superintendent facilitated board training in developing and implementing a communications plan for handling complaints.
13. As a superintendent, I have assisted board members in understanding policy development.
14. As a superintendent, I have assisted board members in understanding the importance of a district vision.
15. As a superintendent, I have assisted board members in understanding the district’s organizational structure.
16. As a superintendent, I have assisted board members in understanding the assessment and accountability system.
17. As a superintendent, I have assisted board members in planning programs to support at-risk students.
18. As a superintendent, I have assisted board members in developing positive image for the schools in the community.
19. Superintendent evaluation practices reward apolitical norms of behavior.
20. As a superintendent, I have assisted board members in planning employee salary and benefits to retain good teachers.
21. As a superintendent, I have assisted board members in handling parent complaints by using the board policy for communications.
22. As a superintendent, I have assisted board members in achieving good relationships with fellow board members.
23. Governance is the shared responsibility of the school board and the superintendent.
24. As superintendent, I have assisted board members in understanding the board’s role in promoting student achievement.
25. As superintendent, I have assisted board members in developing working relationships with other board members.
26. I believe that politics do not fit within accepted superintendent norms of behavior.
27. As superintendent, I have assisted board members in understanding the board’s role in attracting and retaining teachers.
28. As superintendent, I have assisted board members in understanding the board’s role in minority recruitment for personnel.
29. As superintendent, I have assisted board members in understanding the legal relationship between the school board and school-based decision-making councils.
30. Board-superintendent conflict has resulted in a shortage of applicants for superintendent vacancies.
31. As superintendent, I have assisted board members in understanding the state’s testing program (CATS).
32. High-stakes testing such as CATS and NCLB have resulted in increased superintendent turnover.
33. As superintendent, I have assisted board members in understanding the relationships of the board to other agencies such as cooperatives and government agencies.
34. Exposure to effective school board members as role models influences how I practice school administration.
35. My school district has a formal training program for school board members.

Short Answer Prompts Included in the Original Questionnaire:

• From what person or agency do school board members receive the majority of their training?
• If you were giving advice to a new superintendent about working with board members on issues, what would you say?