Linda Dawson is IASB director of editorial services and Journal editor.
Board members are spending more time on board work, but they don't seem to be spending more years on the board itself, according to the most recent survey of school board members in Illinois.
Illinois Association of School Boards conducted its fourth member survey in 2008. Similar surveys were sent out in 1992, 1998 and 2003.
In addition to answering questions about how much time they spend on board work and the number of years they have served, board members participating in the survey answered questions about their demographics, their district, their reasons for running for the board, their views of education and a myriad of questions designed to elicit preferences for receiving information and professional development from IASB.
The biggest difference in the current data shows a decided change in the length of mid-level service (between four and 10 years). The number of board members serving 10 years or more is the same as in 1998 (20 percent), but a mid-level length of service dropped considerably, from 44 percent to 30 percent between 1998 and 2008. The gain went to those serving less than four years, which grew from 37 percent to 49 percent.
While that would seem to be a significant change, any rush to judgment may need to be tempered by the knowledge that the survey does not represent a complete picture of all 5,985 board members to whom it was sent. The 2008 survey had a response rate of 28 percent.
After questions about length of service, the survey turned to the question of whether they would run again, where the number who said they either "definitely would" or "probably would" run again was down 10 percent from 10 years ago, from 48 percent to 38 percent, but about the same as five years ago (37 percent).
Only board members with terms that would expire in April 2009 were asked to answer questions about their election plans. Of the 1,699 overall respondents, 51 percent indicated they would be up for election.
The decrease in those who would "definitely" run again was not offset by an increase in the number who said they "wouldn't" or "probably wouldn't" run for reelection. Those who answered in the negative in 1998 numbered 27 percent, compared to 22 percent in 2008.
The increase went to those who had not yet made up their mind. The number of survey responses of "undecided" jumped from 25 percent in 1998 to 40 percent in 2008.
Interestingly, even though the numbers have changed on their length of service and whether they want to run again, the top two reasons given for not running again were the same: time to step aside (48 percent in 2008, 30 percent in 1998) and excessive demands of the job (17 percent in 2008, 19 percent in 1998).
Board service
The top two reasons citizens choose to run for a position on the school board have not changed from five years ago either: they value public education and they want to make a specific improvement. However, what is notable is that those answers were at exactly the same levels as the previous survey, 39.1 and 19.7 percent, respectively.
The next two highest reasons to run for the school board were to help their children get a good education and to fulfill their civic responsibility, both coming in at 15 percent.
Those four reasons also ranked in that exact same order in the 2005 and 2007 surveys of new board members that were conducted at new board members workshops across the state.*
While they seem to run for the board for the same reasons, once elected, the number of hours that they devote to board service has been steadily increasing.
Board members were asked about the amount of time they devote to board work in five-hour increments. In 1993, 55 percent of respondents said they spent five hours or less a month on board business. By 2008, that percentage had dropped to 18 percent. While the number of board members spending six to 10 hours a month was fairly consistent (37 and 40 percent, respectively), those spending 11 to 15 hours a month jumped from 5 percent to 23 percent in 15 years. Those spending 16 hours or more skyrocketed from 1 percent to 19 percent.
Regionally, board members in the Northeast were more likely to spend 16 or more hours a month on board work than those in the other three regions. Slightly more than 27 percent reported their board time at that level, as compared to 22 percent in the North, 13 percent in Central Illinois and just 12 percent in the South. Conversely, board members in the Central and South were more likely to spend less than five hours a month on board work: 23 and 24 percent, respectively, versus their counterparts in the Northeast and North who reported fewer than five hours at 9 percent and 15 percent, respectively.
Does that increased time demand change their overall satisfaction with serving on a board? Surprisingly, no. Despite an increased time commitment, board members still overwhelmingly find their board experience satisfying. Those respondents devoting five or fewer hours to board work actually were less likely to find the job "very" or "somewhat" satisfying (82 percent) than those putting in more hours. The highest rating for "very" satisfying came from board members who reported spending 16 to 20 hours a month on board work (60 percent). Overall, those putting in six to 10 hours a month found their work either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied.
Although they are decidedly in the minority, the biggest percentage (6 percent) who have been "downright disappointed" in board service all said they put in more than 20 hours a month on board work. Those putting in under five hours a month only reported a "disappointment" rate of 1.7 percent.
More students, more work
It may come as no surprise to board members that the hours devoted to board service increase proportionately with the number of students in the district. Board members with fewer than 1,000 students in their district were more likely to report spending 10 hours or less a month on board meetings and preparation (77 percent) compared to just 3 percent reporting they spent more than 20 hours. (See Table A.)
The highest percentage who reported spending more than 20 hours a month on board work came from board members in districts with 5,000 or more students (36 percent), as compared with just 21 percent in the largest districts saying they spent 10 or fewer hours a month.
Women were slightly more likely to spend more time on board work per month than men, with 10 percent of women saying their board service was 20 hours or more, while men reported 20 hours or more just 6 percent of the time. In all other five-hour increments, however, the percentages for hours served were fairly similar for men and women.
Student numbers may also help explain why board members in the Northeast seem to spend more time on board work. Not surprisingly, the 42 percent in that region said they had 2,500 students or more in their district. Just 21 percent reported that number of students in the North, 10 percent in the Central region and 14 percent in the South, which would include the Metro East area near St. Louis.
To provide an additional comparison on the time demands of board service, of the new board members surveyed at IASB workshops in 2005 and 2007, the percent of those who expected to spend five hours a week or less on board work decreased from 4 percent to less than 2 percent. Those expecting to spend more than 20 hours a month increased from 34 percent to 44 percent.
Job satisfaction
So if board members are spending more time attending and preparing for meetings, what does this mean in terms of the level of satisfaction they feel with being on the board?
There really seems to be little correlation.
Approximately 85 percent of board members overall described their experience on the board as either "very" or "moderately" satisfying and those percentages held true whether they spent five hours or less a month on board work or more than 20 hours a month. In fact, the second highest percentage compared to satisfaction rate came from those who spent 16 to 20 hours a month on board activities (86 percent), right behind the 87 percent job satisfaction rate given by those who spent six to 10 hours a month.
Regionally, there were few differences in rating their satisfaction level for serving on a school board. Respondents in the Northeast and North regions indicated satisfaction levels of 87 percent either "very" or "somewhat" satisfying. Those in the Central and South were very close at 84 percent.
The highest number who found board work "downright disappointing" was in the Central region where 4 percent gave that response. However, keep in mind that represents just 20 board members out of the 1,699 who returned the survey.
The top two reasons that board members gave as the most positive thing about being a board member were involvement in important public discussions and decisions, and seeing students graduate and continue to grow.
The most negative thing by far about being a board member is dealing with state mandates and a lack of funding, which remained unchanged since the 1998 survey.
Impact of professional development
A correlation seemed to emerge between job satisfaction and professional development. Those who said they had not attended an Association workshop when they were newly elected to the board were more likely to find board work "not as satisfying as I had hoped" or "downright disappointing," 46 percent and 51 percent, respectively, as compared with just 28 percent who had not attended a new board member workshop and found the job "very satisfying."
Board members in the Central and South regions had a slightly lower satisfaction rating and also were less likely to have attended an IASB new board member workshop (38 percent and 41 percent, respectively). Slightly more than 68 percent of board members in the Northeast and North regions had attended a new board member workshop, compared with 58 percent in the Central region and 56 percent in the South region.
The number of board members attending a new board member workshop was down slightly from the rate in 2003 when approximately 75 percent reported attending when first elected. As with the 2003 survey, just 1 percent (21 respondents) said they thought no particular training is necessary to be a board member, compared with 88 percent who believe board members need professional development.
The vast majority of board members and their superintendents believe in professional development for board members. Just 1 percent in both surveys said serving on the board "does not and should not" require any particular training. Another 11 percent of board members said it would be "helpful" but "is not usually essential," while just 8 percent of superintendents responded that way.
When asked, about possible mandatory training for board members, 46 percent said it should not be required, but they would support and encourage board members to seek professional development voluntarily. Superintendents responded that way 38 percent of the time.
Board members and superintendents also agreed that workshop topics and content, as well as the opportunity to network with other board members and superintendents, were the most positive features of IASB workshops.
Views on education
Now that we have looked at board service and professional development, how do responses compare on board members' view of education issues, both in their own district and in the state? (See Table B.)
Overall, 86 percent of board members were either "very" or "somewhat" optimistic about the future of education in their own districts. That's up slightly from 2003 levels, when 78 percent responded with those answers. Only 1.8 percent of respondents in 2008 said they were very pessimistic because of a lack of resources or inadequate plans for improvement.
That's in contrast with the way they feel about education in the rest of the state. Only 37 percent of respondents were optimistic about education generally in Illinois and 57 percent are pessimistic. Of the latter percentage, 21.5 were very pessimistic. Those levels of optimism are consistent with the 2003 survey, which was down 20 percentage points from the levels of statewide optimism in 1998.
A closer look reveals that optimism for their own district and pessimism for education in the state as a whole held true in all sizes of districts and in all regions. Those responses seem to mirror the latest Phi Delta Kappan poll, released in September 2008, on parents' views of their own schools as compared with schools nationally. Parents graded their own schools an "A" or "B" 46 percent of the time in 2008, up slightly from 45 percent in 2007. In contrast, just 22 percent gave schools nationally the same grades, although the percentage doing so was up from a dismal 16 percent in 2007.
By enrollment, those board members with the fewest students in their district were the least optimistic about their own district. While 82 percent of respondents in districts with fewer than 500 students answered either "very" optimistic (29 percent) or "somewhat" optimistic (53 percent), all of the other enrollment categories answered with totals of 88 or 89 percent "very" or "somewhat" optimistic.
The most optimistic views on their own district in 2008 came from women board members in districts with between 1,000 and 2,499 students and men board members in districts with more than 5,000 students. Those respondents both weighed in with 48 percent saying they were "very" optimistic about their district.
Respondents in the Northeast region also were more likely to say they were "very" optimistic about the future of education in their own district, but as a region, their percentage of optimism was not as high as the others. Overall, 83 percent of those in the Northeast region said they were "very" or "somewhat" optimistic about education in their district. That compares with 85 percent who answered the same way in the Central region, 86 percent in the North region and 87 percent in the South region.
Women in the South region were the least likely to check "very" optimistic at just 26 percent, but another 55 percent of women in the South region said they were "somewhat" optimistic that reforms were heading in the right direction. Men in the Central region were the least likely to check "very" optimistic, but at a slightly higher percentage (30 percent). This group also reported the highest number for "somewhat" pessimistic (11 percent).
Turning to the future of education in the state, the most pessimism came from men in districts with 2,500 to 4,999 students. A total of 64 percent responded that they were "somewhat" or "very" pessimistic about the future of education in Illinois. Another 62 percent of the men in districts with 1,000 to 2,499 students and 62 percent of the women in districts with 500 to 999 responded the same way.
By region, those in the North and Northeast were more likely to be pessimistic about the future of education in Illinois, but the highest overall percentage of those with a "very" pessimistic view came from men in the Central region: 26 percent. Overall, the men in the Central region were balanced by the women who were the most optimistic about education in the state: 42 percent said they were "somewhat" optimistic that education reform in Illinois is moving in the right direction.
No Child Left Behind
When board members and superintendents were surveyed in 2003, the No Child Left Behind Act had only been in effect for a year. At that time, both groups were asked how they believed NCLB would affect their district and both answered that they thought it "will harm our district," with superintendents more likely to choose that response from among those offered.
By 2008, 41 percent of superintendents said NCLB had harmed their district by "forcing us to use time and money in unproductive ways," while 14 percent thought it had been positive in helping the district focus efforts on school improvement, and another 31 percent said it had validated what the district was already doing.
Board members, however, were less impressed: 44 percent said the district had been harmed; 11 percent said it provided focus; and 27 percent said it validated what the district was doing already. Eight percent of respondents, or 137 board members, said they either "didn't know" or had no response about the impact of NCLB.
Men on the school board were slightly more likely to say that NCLB has harmed the district and older board members, especially those in the 50 to 59 age bracket, were more likely to say that it was harmful. (See Table C.)
Governing issues
Turning to board process issues and relationships with the superintendent, there still seems to be a disconnect between how much time board members think they spend talking about their own processes and performance and what their superintendents think.
While 77 percent of board members say they talk about their own process and performance for 20 minutes at least once a year (and at least 29 percent feel they do so at least every two or three months or more frequently), just 64 percent of superintendents say their board members talk about process issues at least once a year and just 14 percent report that those conversations of 20 minutes or longer occur once every two or three months or better.
The same was true in 2003 when 75 percent of board members said they spoke about processes and performance at least once a year or more often, but just 60 percent of superintendents said they observed those levels of conversation.
Keep in mind, however, that in both sets of survey data the superintendents and board members who responded were not necessarily from the same school districts.
Rating the superintendent
Board members' perception of their superintendent's performance has not varied since the first survey was conducted in 1992. Consistently, board members gave their superintendent 84 percent or above on issues of curriculum, finances, relationship with the board and ethics. Although slightly lower, they still rated their superintendent's performance at 70 percent or better on relations with the community and staff and leadership that creates support among the staff and community for the district's mission. (See Table D.)
A typical board member
Overall, the picture of an Illinois school board member has changed just ever so slightly since IASB began surveying its members in 1992.
Respondents in the 2008 survey create a picture of a typical board member as slightly older, slightly better educated, more likely to be married than single, definitely more Internet savvy and earning more, but less likely to have children in school than in 1992. The face of that board member is still more likely to be Caucasian but is more likely to be female than 16 years prior.
These demographic results mirror a survey of new board members conducted at summer workshops following the 2007 elections, although the number of African-American respondents was more than double that of the 2008 survey and new board members, as a group, were more likely to be younger.
While board members taking the survey still are predominantly Caucasian, the number of African-American respondents has risen by more than a full percentage point from 2.1 percent to 3.2 percent. Representation from other minorities on the board has also risen slightly from fractions of a percentage to a full percentage point or slightly more for those identifying themselves as of Hispanic, Asian or multi-racial descent.
By region, the Northeast seems to have the edge on attracting women to board service and the Southern region seems to attract more men to the board. While the other North and Central regions generally followed the demographics split of the survey respondents (43 percent female and 57 percent male), the Northeast respondents posted a 54 percent female/46 percent male split, while respondents from the South were 34 percent female and 66 percent male. Those numbers are more consistent with the actual male/female ratio in IASB's database, which shows 36 percent female and 64 percent male board members in the state.
How the survey was conducted
The 2008 IASB survey was sent in paper form to every member district in the state, with one for board members and another for superintendents. IASB received surveys back from 1,699 board members and 404 superintendents for participation rates of approximately 28 percent and 47 percent, respectively.
The response rate represents considerably fewer board member participants than in previous years. The first survey elicited 2,748 board member responses with 2,469 responses in 1998 and 2,008 in 2003. Superintendent rates of response also were down as 67 percent of the 855 district leaders surveyed (579) responded to the 1998 survey.
For survey purposes, the state was divided into four regions to tabulate results. The regions were divided along IASB division lines:
Northeast: West Cook, North Cook, South Cook, Lake County and DuPage
North: Blackhawk, Kishwaukee, Northwest, Three Rivers and Starved Rock
Central: Western, Central Illinois Valley, Two Rivers, Illini, Abe Lincoln and Corn Belt
South: Wabash Valley, Southwestern, Kaskaskia, Egyptian and Shawnee
As a whole, board members from the Northeast and Central regions were slightly more likely to answer the survey, and women were more likely than men to answer the survey. IASB's database shows board members are split 64 percent men and 36 percent women. However, 43 percent of the responses came from women while 57 percent came from men.
Since the survey in 1992, the number of female respondents has increased by 6 percent, from 37 percent in 1993 to 40 percent in both 1998 and 2003 and now 43 percent in 2008.
More information on the survey results will be presented in the September/October Journal. All survey data is available at www.iasb.com.
Thank you
IASB is grateful to the Western Illinois Computer Center for assistance in tabulating responses from the surveys. IASB also is indebted to the district superintendents in Illinois who helped with the distribution and collection of the survey instruments. Thank you also to the school board members and superintendents who took the time to complete and return the lengthy surveys.