This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
September/October 2003

IASB survey shows:
Illinois school boards are diverse, consistent

by Gerald R. Glaub

Gerald R. Glaub is IASB deputy executive director for communications and policy services.

About the surveys

The names and faces of Illinois school board members change very rapidly.

Consider: of the 6,100 people serving on boards 10 years ago, only about 1,200 are still serving. In fact, more than 7,000 school board members came and went in the five elections between 1993 and 2003.

Obviously, many board seats turned over several times in those 10 years.

So, it's reasonable to expect that the backgrounds and attitudes of school board members today are much different from those in 1993, right?

Wrong.

A 2003 survey of school board members conducted by IASB shows the demographic makeup of Illinois boards has not changed materially in 10 years. Ditto for the apparent attitudes and beliefs of individual board members.

The 2003 survey depicts school board members as a widely diverse group with equally diverse opinions and attitudes - just as they were 10 years ago. In fact, school board members have not changed demographically for at least 20 years. Here is how the authors of a report on a 1992 IASB survey compared their findings with data from the early 1980s:

"... the profile of a board member has not changed significantly over the past decade. While there are a few more women board members, they seem to be located more in suburban areas. Income (when adjusted for inflation), professional preparation, type of occupation, average age and other factors have not changed significantly in the past decade."

IASB first conducted an in-depth survey of board members in 1992, repeating the survey in 1998 and again this year. The most noticeable change is in the declining numbers of survey participants, from 2,748 in 1992 to 2,469 in 1998 to 2,008 this year.

Demographic variables

One message has remained consistent over the three surveys: the diverse views of school board members in Illinois rarely correlate with typical demographic variables. For example, differences between northern Illinois and southern Illinois are not nearly as great as differences within one area or the other. Similarly, the differences in views between men and women are not nearly as great as the differences in views among women or among men.

The same finding emerges in testing differences based on age, family size or income, community type and other variables.

There are, however, some subtle tendencies that consistently follow certain variables. For instance:

• Women are slightly more likely than men to complete the survey, to read IASB periodicals and take part in IASB workshops. But women report the same obstacles to workshop participation as men do - most often a lack of time..
• Women are slightly more likely than men to say they find the IASB Web site useful and say they seek to represent the interests of children, while men are somewhat more likely than women to say they represent the best interests of public education in their communities or represent the interests of all citizens.

Women made up 40 percent of the respondents to the 2003 survey, exactly the same proportion as in the 1998 survey.

Retiring board members

Somewhat more than half of the survey respondents said their terms would expire in April 2003 (1,044). Of those, 751 (72 percent) said they would seek re-election. As it turned out, incumbents filled fewer than half of the seats contested in April, creating a strong sense that numerous incumbents may have been defeated. (One must be cautious in extrapolating from the 2,008 survey respondents to the full population of 6,050.)

The most popular reasons given for not seeking re-election were:

39 percent - I have done my share and it's time to step aside for someone else.

24 percent - I need to spend more time with my family and/or my job..

18 percent - Excessive demands on schools and the lack of funding make school board work unduly frustrating.

Time on task

The amount of time survey respondents reported spending on school board work varies greatly and bears a strong relationship to district size and community type. (See Table A.)

It is interesting to note that many board members cite time demands as a problem, but the amount of time they say they spend on school board work does not appear to correlate with whether they find board work satisfying or decide to run for re-election. For example, those who spend the least amount of time on board work and those who spend the most are equally likely to:

• say time is a problem;
• seek election to another term;
• say the reason for not seeking another term is the need to spend more time with family or job.

Moreover, although service on a school board appears to be a satisfying experience for a big majority of board members, the amount of time devoted to the job appears to have only modest impact.

Nearly 86 percent of responding board members described their experiences as very or moderately satisfying, a proportion consistent with findings in the 1992 and 1998 surveys. This year's survey suggests that the strength of those feelings about board work seem to increase along with the amount of time devoted to it.

That is, board members who reported spending the greatest amount of time on board work (more than 20 hours per month) also were more likely than others to describe their experiences as either "very satisfying" (53 percent) or "downright disappointing" (4 percent). Perhaps those who devote the most time to their avocation also make the greatest emotional investment.

Survey results also show that the more time board members spend on board work, the more likely they are to say:

• they have achieved the goals they had in mind when they were first elected;
• compensating board members would not reduce school board turnover but might make the situation worse;
• the most positive thing about serving on a school board is either the involvement in important public policy decisions or seeing their students graduate and continue to grow;
• they would support a law requiring board members to participate in workshops or other training.

Conversely, the less time board members spend on board work the more likely they are to say:

• they had no goals in mind when they were first elected;
• compensation for board members might help reduce board turnover;
• the most positive thing about serving on a school board is being part of school and student activities;
• dealing with state mandates and/or lack of funding is the most negative part of being a board member.

District superintendents

The time district superintendents say they devote to school board work greatly exceeds the amount of time board members say they devote. The proportion of responding board members who said they spend more than 20 hours each month on board work was 8 percent, compared with 43 percent of the superintendents.

The biggest variation between board members and superintendents is among smaller school districts. For example, just 12 percent of the superintendents in districts with fewer than 500 pupils said they spend less than 10 hours a month on board work, compared with 78 percent of the board members who reported spending less than 10 hours.

Nearly 19 percent of the superintendents said they spend more than 30 hours a month on school board work, including roughly 40 percent of those in cities above 50,000 population and districts with more than 5,000 pupils.

Pleasures and pains

More than 63 percent of responding board members said they have been able to achieve the goals they had when first elected. Some said they had no such goals or said it is too early to tell. A few said their goals have changed. Only 6 percent said they had not achieved their goals, which may help explain why board members consistently report satisfaction with their experiences.

On questions probing possible sources of disappointment, few school board members offered complaints. The percentage of board members who said the following factors were sources of disappointment to them:

• inadequate financial resources - 60 percent, compared with 41 percent in 1998 and 68 percent in 1992;
• excessive interference from state laws - 40 percent, the same proportion as in 1998, but down substantially from 74 percent in 1992;
• lack of community appreciation for the work of the board - 31 percent, the same as 1998;
• student test scores - 31 percent, up from just 22 percent in 1998.

Declining optimism

In spite of the general level of satisfaction expressed by a majority of school board members, the survey this year found a decided decline in the level of optimism that board members and superintendents alike feel about the future of education. The 1998 survey occurred during a period of economic prosperity for the state and most school districts, and the survey reflected a rosy outlook on the future. This year, that rosy outlook faded to 1992 levels.

As shown in Table B, both board members and superintendents are consistently more optimistic about the future of education in their own districts than about the future of education in Illinois generally.

Although concerns about financial problems no doubt drive much of the decline in optimism, worries about the federal No Child Left Behind Act clearly play a role, too.

The 2003 survey asked both board members and superintendents how they believed NCLB would affect their districts over the next few years. The most frequent response selected: "the new federal law will harm our district." In fact, a majority of superintendents picked that option from among the four offered.

The second most frequent response was: "the law will validate what our district was already doing." Only a relative handful of either group said the law would have a very positive impact. (See Table C.)

Part of the problem with NCLB is reflected in a number of related questions asked only of superintendents. Responses to those questions suggest a lack of information or clarity regarding requirements of the federal law and whether the school district qualifies for special help in meeting those requirements.

Board processes

Few school boards, it appears, spend any appreciable amount of time discussing their own performance or their processes for getting work done. And board members tend to be more expansive than superintendents in reporting the amount of time they spend.

About one-fourth of responding board members said their boards discuss their own processes or performance for more than 20 minutes at a time at least once every three months and many said once every month. Another one-fourth of the respondents said about twice a year, one-fourth said once a year and one-fourth said never or almost never.

In contrast, 60 percent of the superintendents said the frequency was more like once a year or never. (Bear in mind that superintendents and board members who responded are not necessarily from the same school districts.)

In discussions of board processes or performance, the most frequent topics appear to be: board and community expectations; the board's relationship with the staff or community; and getting the public involved in district planning. A big majority of boards (70 to 85 percent) discuss these topics at least briefly.

Board member training

Three of every four responding school board members say they have attended an IASB New Board Member Workshop when first elected and most of them continue to attend at least one workshop each year. More than 30 percent say they attend two or more workshops each year, while about 28 percent say they never attend.

Although 544 board members say they do not attend IASB workshops, only 20 of the 2,008 respondents (1 percent) said they believe no particular training for school board members is necessary. Another 8 percent said training is helpful but not essential. A large group said every board member needs training in the basics (34 percent) and even more of them said, "school board members need all the training they can get" (38 percent).

Even among the 544 board members who do not attend workshops, 60 percent said board members need training.

What are the most positive features of IASB workshops for board members? Relevant topics (44 percent) and the opportunity to interact with other board members (37 percent) were the most popular features, a result fully consistent with the responses of board members in the 1998 survey and with superintendents in this year's survey.

Questions regarding the negative aspects of IASB workshops and reasons for not attending elicited responses that have remained constant over the years. Most board members and superintendents cite the inconvenience of times and places or the many demands on their time. Smaller numbers point to irrelevant content, boring speakers or high cost. Many superintendents (one in four) criticize the lack of opportunity at workshops to interact with officials from other districts.

To a series of questions designed to assess various options for receiving training, here is the proportion of board members who said they are very or somewhat likely to attend:

Workshop held in conjunction with the Joint Annual Conference: 78 percent

Workshop delivered for your board in your district (at greater cost): 65 percent

Workshop delivered via the Internet: 51 percent

Regional workshop requiring you to drive 100 miles plus an overnight stay: 22 percent

District ratings

Both board members and superintendents are generally upbeat about their school systems. Only 17 percent of the responding superintendents said they have at least one school on the early academic warning list or academic watch list of the State Board of Education, and only 8 percent said they have more than one school on the lists.

Even fewer superintendents (16 percent) believe their communities perceive the quality of education in their districts as average or worse than average. Significant majorities of both superintendents and board members found few if any fault with their school systems or with their boards.

Table D shows the percentages of board members and superintendents who gave satisfactory ratings to conditions in their districts. Conditions most often seen as needing improvement are the school tax rate and community involvement in setting policies and standards.

Asked to select the biggest obstacle to good education in their districts, 70 percent of superintendents and 59 percent of board members said, "lack of money." The social problems facing schools and excessive state regulations were the most frequent second choices.

Superintendent ratings

School board member perceptions of their superintendents' performance has not changed over the past 10 years - 80 to 85 percent of responding board members consistently give their superintendents ratings of satisfactory on a wide range of performance indicators. In only three areas does the proportion of board members marking "satisfactory" drop below 80 percent - leadership in building support for the district's mission, relations with the community and relations with the staff. (See Table E.)

About the surveys

In February 2003, Illinois Association of School Boards distributed a lengthy questionnaire to approximately 6,050 members of Illinois school boards. A separate questionnaire was distributed to about 865 district superintendents.

Response rates were as follows:

• 2,008 board members responded, about 33 percent of the 6,050 total population;
• 444 district superintendents responded, about 51 percent of the 865 total population.

The survey of school board members consisted of 140 questions in 19 categories, while the survey of district superintendents consisted of 114 questions in 16 categories. Results of both surveys are available on IASB's Web site at http://www.iasb.com/files/03surveys_menu.htm.

IASB is grateful to the Western Illinois University Computer Center for assistance in tabulating responses from these surveys and to Max Pierson and Robert Hall, professors of Educational Administration at WIU, for their help in planning and conducting the surveys. For their help in identifying key issues to cover in the surveys, IASB also thanks Mark Metzger, board member at Indian Prairie CUSD 204, and Craig Whitlock, superintendent at United Township HSD 30, in East Moline.

IASB also is indebted to the district superintendents in Illinois who helped with distribution and collection of survey instruments. Thanks also to school board members and superintendents who took the time to complete and return the lengthy surveys.