How Should School Boards Govern?: Visions from Three Board Governance Models

• In Event: A Critical Examination of School Board Governance Models: Imagining a Better Future

Abstract

Purpose
School boards matter and how they govern can impact school systems, classrooms, and communities (Land, 2002). Yet, little research has examined models that guide school boards’ work. In this study, we critically examine three currently circulating models—Student Outcomes Focused Governance (SOFG), Balanced Governance (BG), and Empowered Governance (EG)—and the imagined futures for school board governance they propose.

Perspectives
We are guided by school board research indicating that “reforms intended to maximize effectiveness and efficiency may further undermine public, democratic school governance” (Trujillo, 2013a, p. 339) and instantiate race evasive approaches that undermine racial educational equity (Turner, 2020). Critical policy analysis (CPA) also informs our study as we explore the origins, rhetoric, and training associated with these models, who benefits and who does not, and how educational equity and democracy are addressed (Diem et al., 2014).

Methods and Data Sources
This study is part of a larger multi-phase/method project. We initially conducted a scan of the most popular governance models school boards are adopting and narrowed our analysis to three major models. We utilized content analysis methods (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to examine the content (e.g., descriptions, rubrics, training materials) that reflects the models. We employed qualitative methods (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003) to conduct interviews with key advocates of the models. We then analyzed the data (Saldaña, 2009) to identify emerging themes and how they compare to existing research.

Preliminary Findings
Across the models, and their histories, we find distinctions in the emphases and operationalization of equity, democracy, and the efficient maximization of student outcomes. All models indicate some concern with equity. SOFG makes equity optional while BG identifies “breaking links between race, poverty, and educational outcomes” as “nonnegotiable” (Gelber & Thompson, 2015, p. 130). EG explicitly articulates an organizational mission to “empower 2,500 school board members over the next five years to champion antiracist, student-centered governance.” In terms of democratic aims and practices, SOFG limits community input and requires narrow board goals that may preclude community driven goals as well as accountability to the model rather than the community. BG expresses concern with maintaining democratic governance and emphasizes balancing deliberation with efficient use of time. EG emphasizes community voice and expertise, community-centered objectives, and diverse board members.

All models reinforce technocratic means of governance, which previous research suggests may undermine equity and democracy goals (Trujillo, 2013a, 2013b; Turner, 2020). SOFG and BG largely maintain a stance of value neutrality and emphasize practices related to alignment, role definitions, and goal setting. EG articulates a more equity and democracy aligned approach; however, it aligns itself with SOFG, thus implicitly condones and reinforces its coercive technocratic message.

Significance
In line with the AERA 2026 Annual Meeting theme, we detail the landscape and rise of national school board governance models so we can develop future guidance for more equitable and democratic frameworks. Such models would humanize uses of data to measure metrics that matter in supporting healthy and equitable schools for all children, families, and communities that school boards represent.

Authors

• Sarah Diem, University of Missouri

• Erica O. Turner, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Christina Bustos, Arizona State University