Abstract

ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATIONSchool Board Conflict, Decision-Making Processes, and Professional Development:The Effect on Superintendent TurnoverbyMark JutabhaDoctor of EducationUniversity of California, Los Angeles, 2017Professor Christina A. Christie, Co‐ChairProfessor Diane Durkin, Co‐ChairWithin California, superintendents continue to experience a high rate of turnover, affecting over six million students in nearly 1,000 school districts. The literature cites conflict as a key indicator affecting superintendent tenure. Knowledge of roles and responsibilities and political interests are often highlighted as contributing to this conflict. School boards—typically comprising three, five, or seven individuals who are charged with managing the superintendent as well as determining local policies to ensure state and federal laws are followed—also play a role. Their ability to skillfully resolve conflict is essential. While much of the existing research on this topic centers on identifying causal factors of turnover, this study sought to identify significant indicators that separate high and low turnover districts. I posited that turnover is associated with the level of training board members and superintendents receive. Moreover, findings from the literature show higher functioning districts have established protocols for decision making. Therefore, I wanted to compare decision-making processes between high and low turnover districts. I partnered with the California School Board Association to conduct a survey of superintendents and school board members on these key issues. The study found relationships between board members and superintendents and specific areas of governance to be key indicators of conflict. Further, these indicators were found to be primary reasons for board members or superintendents not returning to their roles the following year. Effective conflict resolution was also found to be associated with turnover. I found no association between high and low turnover districts and the use of decision-making protocols. However, I found a difference between high and low turnover districts in how board members and superintendents were trained in knowledge of roles and responsibilities and constituent and community interests. Furthermore, respondents had high interest in ongoing professional development with feedback. Service providers such as consultants or county offices of education can use these findings to inform professional development delivery methods designed to address the turnover indicators. This is an important consideration given the challenges in scheduling training for board members who typically have other, competing professional responsibilities. A school board with a clearer understanding of roles and expectations and the ability to skillfully resolve conflict can not only improve superintendent turnover rates but also positively impact the education of California’s student and teacher population.