The Problem: Low Achieving Districts and Low Performing Boards

What the Research Examined

Despite decades of school board reform efforts, relatively little empirical work had directly observed board meeting behavior across districts stratified by performance level. Lee and Eadens addressed that gap by deploying a structured observation instrument, the School Board Video Project (SBVP) survey, across 115 board meetings, rating specific governance behaviors and then comparing results by district performance category.

The study builds on earlier work by Delagardelle and Alsbury (2008), who found that superintendents and board members hold inconsistent perceptions of what effective board work looks like, and Glass (2007), who found that most states impose no formal effectiveness evaluation requirements on school boards. Lee and Eadens situate their observational study as a response to both gaps: rather than asking boards to self-report, trained observers rated actual meeting behavior.

Key Behavioral Differences Across District Performance Levels

The statistical analyses revealed a consistent pattern: low-performing districts' board meetings differed from medium- and high-performing ones across multiple observable dimensions. These were not marginal differences -- MANOVA results indicated significant multivariate differences, and follow-up univariate tests isolated which specific behaviors drove the separation.

• Meeting orderliness: Low-performing district meetings were rated as less orderly, with more procedural disruption and less structured deliberation.
• Student achievement focus: Time spent explicitly on student achievement data and outcomes was measurably lower in low-performing district meetings, suggesting that boards were not regularly grounding discussion in the core organizational mission.
• Engagement quality: Observers rated low-performing district meetings lower on respectful and attentive engagement, members were less consistently present and responsive to speakers from across the governance team.
• Individual agenda-setting: Board members in low-performing districts were more likely to be observed advancing personal or individual agendas rather than collective governance priorities, a pattern associated with fragmented rather than unified board functioning.
• Governance team relationships: Working relationships between board members and the superintendent were weaker in low-performing districts, with fewer board members visibly relying on the superintendent for advice and input during meetings.
• Dominant non-president voices: In low-performing district meetings, one member other than the board president was more likely to stand out for taking excessive time, a pattern suggesting unbalanced participation and potential leadership diffusion.
• Policy focus: High- and medium-performing district boards more consistently directed attention to policy-level items; low-performing boards were less likely to anchor discussion at the policy level rather than operational or individual concerns.

Implications for Governance Practice

• Training is not optional for turnaround: The research concludes that targeted board training, not just generic orientation, is necessary for low-performing districts. The behavioral differences observed are learnable governance habits, not fixed traits, making structured professional development a meaningful intervention point.
• Meeting behavior is a leading indicator: The SBVP instrument demonstrates that trained observers can detect governance dysfunction in real time through meeting behavior. Districts and state agencies could use structured board meeting observation as an early-warning system for governance failure, rather than waiting for student outcome data to confirm what is already visible at the board table.
• Superintendent-board relationship is central: The finding that low-performing district board members less frequently rely on superintendents for advice and input points to a breakdown in the governance partnership at the heart of effective district leadership. Board training programs should explicitly address how to build and sustain that working relationship.
• State accountability gaps enable dysfunction: Glass's (2007) finding, that most states do not require boards to undergo effectiveness evaluation, creates the conditions in which low-performing board behaviors can persist unchecked. Policymakers should consider structured board effectiveness evaluation as a complement to school and district accountability systems.