Different Journeys, Shared Destinations: Power Dynamics in Implementing a Statewide School Board Governance Framework

• In Event: Power as Resource, Tool, and Constraint: Examining Power in Educational Organizations

Abstract

Lone Star Governance (LSG), Texas's statewide school board governance framework, can be either voluntarily adopted by districts or mandated by the Texas Commissioner of Education as a corrective measure. However, little is known about how these different adoption pathways shape district governance cultures. This comparative qualitative study examines how voluntary versus mandated LSG adoption influences board members’ experiences and governance dynamics.

This study integrates two theoretical frameworks. First, drawing on critical sensemaking, I center how school board members interpret and respond to institutional pressures, foregrounding power and relationships, both between board members and superintendents and between the school board and state education agency (Mills et al., 2010). Next, I root my analysis in implementation theory suggesting that "readiness for change" differs between voluntary and mandated contexts (Armenakis & Harris, 1993), with mandates increasing implementation complexity due to resistance and local adaptation (Honig, 2006). From these lenses, LSG is not simply a neutral governance tool but a contested reform intersecting with local and state power dynamics, with the voluntary/mandated distinction being a critical factor in how LSG is interpreted and experienced.

I employ a comparative case study design examining two Texas districts: one that voluntarily adopted LSG and one where LSG was state-mandated as a remedy for inadequate student supports. Data collection included semi-structured interviews and focus groups with current and former board members (n=4-6 per district) who experienced LSG. Interviews/focus groups (60-120 minutes) explored: (1) LSG training reactions; (2) changes in board meeting procedures and culture; (3) superintendent-board relationship dynamics; and (4) perceived benefits, challenges, and unintended consequences. Using comparative case study methodology, I first analyzed transcripts through within-case and cross-case analysis, using deductive coding to identify patterns and differences. I then employed critical sensemaking, implementation, and institutional theory frameworks in an inductive coding process to understand how participants constructed meaning around LSG based on adoption context and power dynamics.

Preliminary findings reveal how board members experience LSG differently based on adoption pathway yet reach surprisingly similar conclusions. In the voluntary district—one of the highest academic achievement districts in the state—board members describe LSG as a tool championed by the board president following a failed school bond. While providing value related to goal setting and meeting structure, participants emphasized that LSG severely narrowed conversation, silenced dissenting board members, and was performative regarding community input. Board members in the mandated district expressed feelings reminiscent of state takeover, describing “loss of local control.” LSG was characterized as punishment, constraining authentic deliberation, forcing compliance with state priorities conflicting with community needs, and stifling discussion of critical local issues.

This comparative analysis illuminates how adoption context shapes implementation and experience. Findings contribute to understanding how state accountability systems interact with local democratic governance, even when reforms serve as both voluntary tools and punitive interventions. Results inform broader debates about local control, state intervention, and the complex dynamics between choice and coercion in education policy implementation.

Author

• Rachel Sue White, University of Texas at Austin