What’s the Root of School Board Conflict?

Board-Savvy Superintendent

In 2008, I read Matt Miller’s provocative piece in the Atlantic Monthly in which he called for the elimination of school boards. His rationale was simple: The school board model is inherently flawed and therefore ineffective.

About a year later, a policy debate over mayoral control of Milwaukee’s school system, where I lived at the time, centered on the notion the city’s school board was paralyzed by conflict and ineptitude. I was troubled by the absence of facts in the Milwaukee debate, which led me to pursue research.

My principal interests were these: Are the nearly 14,000 school boards in the United States monolithic to the point where sweeping generalizations of their worthiness can be made? If conflict on school boards is a bad thing, what are its causes? Can those causes be mitigated?

Group Dynamics

Hence, in 2013 and 2014 I administered an 89-question governance survey to more than 5,000 school board members nationwide. The questions were varied, but particular emphasis was placed on the small-group dynamics of school boards under the assumption that positive group dynamics leads to improved governance.

Once my data collection was complete, I matched board member survey responses to district demographic data and tested hypotheses regarding the sources of board member conflict. I measured conflict through a battery of questions which, when taken together, created a strong measure of the level of negative conflict perceived by Wisconsin school board members.

Specifically, I asked board members their level of agreement with the following statements on a one-to-five scale:

• Conflict among some school board members is high;
• Disagreements between board members often become personalized;
• School board coalitions (two or more individual members joining forces) tend to form along predictable lines (e.g., political party, male/female, etc.); and
• During board negotiations, prior conflicts often resurface.

The study results were presented by Douglas Ihrke, a political scientist at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and me in a recent issue of Public Policy and Administration.

Conflict’s Causes

So what are the sources of perceived conflict on school boards? First, school board members who see their superintendent as a partner in the governing process exhibit significantly lower levels of conflict than those who do not. Though not surprising, it demonstrates the importance of a strong relationship between the board and school district administrator.

Second, boards overseeing districts with comparably more challenging student populations (i.e., those with high percentages of low-income pupils) are conflict-prone. This, too, is not surprising. When a board has more problems to address, there are more opportunities for differences of opinion to escalate to conflict.

Third, more experienced board members tend to perceive lower levels of conflict, suggesting board members get better at keeping board disagreements professional over time.

Fourth, boards with a clearly identified leader exhibit better group dynamics.

Finally, boards that do a good job delegating the day-to-day management of their school district to their superintendent have far lower levels of conflict than those with a tendency to micromanage.

Small Steps

The overall takeaway from this research is twofold. First, new board members and those serving districts with high numbers of low-income pupils need to be on the lookout for negative conflict and have a plan to deal with it before it becomes a distraction.

Second, all boards should strive to work as a partner with their superintendent in a governance process where the role of both the board and the superintendent is clearly and appropriately defined. These small steps to reduce conflict can result in improved governance and, ultimately, improved district outcomes.

Michael Ford is assistant professor of public administration at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh.
@fordm10