Where's the Data? Examining the Case of a Rural Town's School Board Decision Making

• In Event: 56.033 - School Boards in Changing Contexts: An Analysis of Equity and Opportunity in Policy Making Across Missouri

Abstract

Objectives and Framework
The use of evidence/research-based practices has been gaining momentum in schools since No Child Left Behind (NCLB) encouraged it as one way to eliminate inequality. Although teachers are now expected to use research-based practices (Honig & Coburn, 2008), there is less discussion about policymakers’ use of evidence or data. A limited body of work suggests that board members use research/evidence infrequently (Asen, Gurke, Conners, Solomon, & Gumm, 2013). Over the course of a school year, this study explored one rural district’s decision-making processes, broadly asking: What resources do board members use in making decisions? In particular, how does research or data/evidence shape board members’ understanding of their community?

Methods and Data
This case study (Yin, 2014) used qualitative methods, including: participant observation at three board meetings, one focus group with administrators, four interviews with board members, and collection of artifacts and news articles on all board meetings from August 2015 to June 2016. Rural Town was purposefully sampled to represent the typical, homogeneous, small, rural district in Missouri; around 50% of Missouri’s population lives outside of urban areas (U.S. Census, 2012). In 2015, Rural Town’s school district included 611 students grades K-12, 98% “White” and ~40% free/reduced lunch (state department of education). At the time of the study, the town’s school board had seven elected members, six males and one female all of Caucasian descent, ranging from their first to final sixth year of service. Their education levels varied: High School Diploma (2), Associate's (2), Bachelor's (2), and Master’s (1) degrees.
Initial open coding identified that board members in this context relied heavily on a state association and the superintendent as resources for decision-making, with little reliance on data or research. Future analyses will employ critical discourse analysis (Rogers, 2011) to see how such resources -- and apparent lack of research/data -- positioned students and community needs.

Results
In their decision-making processes, Rural Town’s board sought advice almost exclusively from the superintendent or Missouri Association of Rural Educators. The Superintendent’s language use suggested a reliance on his perceived, established reputation as the expert, e.g.: “you know me,” “look, this is how it is,” and “trust me.” Unlike other case studies in Missouri (especially resource-rich districts), board members rarely questioned or challenged policy recommendations. They did not ask the superintendent to clarify his reasoning, or show proof of research use. Only once did the board rely upon an outside expert during board meetings (an architect, regarding a new building). No recorded meetings focused on analyzing data, either from the district itself or other resources, with few discussions about students or community needs.

Significance
This work suggests that access to research and resources for decision-making may be limited in rural contexts, with board members relying exclusively on perceived experts in their close networks. In addition, the perceived homogeneity and/or lower levels of educational access in this context may have led to assumptions about the community and an ethos that did seek out further research/evidence in decision-making for students.

Author

• Laura Gavornik Browning, University of Missouri - Columbia