Public Organization Review

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 451–479 | Cite as

Are We on the Same Page? Determinants of School Board Member Understanding of Group Accountability Perceptions

  • Michael Ford
  • Douglas Ihrke


This article connects the accountability and small group dynamics literature by testing several hypotheses related to the link between perceived dynamics on American school boards and board member agreement on accountability perceptions. The authors conclude that board members who view their boards as productive, low-conflict, and active, are more likely to be in agreement with their fellow members’ perceptions of accountability. The results are of use to scholars seeking to understand the relationships between small group dynamics, accountability, and performance on governing boards.


Accountability Governance School boards 


  1. Berry, C., & Howell, W. (2005). Democratic accountability in public education. In W. G. Howell (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 150–72). Washington D.C: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  2. Delagardelle, M. L. (2008). The lighthouse inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In T. L. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school board governance (pp. 191–224). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  3. Dubnick, M., & Yang, K. (2011). The pursuit of accountability: Promise, problems, and prospects. In H. White & D. Menzel (Eds.), The state of public administration: Issue, challenges, opportunities (pp. 171–86). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  4. Epstein, N. (Ed.). (2004). Who’s in charge here?: The tangled web of school governance and policy. Washington D.C: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  5. Favero, N., & Bullock, J. B. (2015). How (not) to solve the problem: an evaluation of scholarly responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ford, M. R., & Ihrke, D. M. (2015a). Comparing nonprofit charter and traditional public school board member perceptions of the public, conflict, and financial responsibility: is there a difference and does it matter? Public Management Review. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2015.1028975.Google Scholar
  7. Ford, M. R., & Ihrke, D. M. (2015a). Active charter school board member governance and performance: perceptions and reality. Paper presented at the Complications and Conundrums: The New Era of Research on Nonprofit Governance and the Work of Boards, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  8. Ford, M. R., & Ihrke, D. M. (2015b). School board member definitions of accountability: what are they, and do they impact district outcomes? Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1), 198–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frederickson, H. G., Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., & Licari, M. J. (2012). The public administration theory primer. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gabris, G. T., & Nelson, K. L. (2013). Transforming municipal boards into accountable, high-performing teams: toward a diagnostic model of governing board effectiveness. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(3), 472–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabris, G. T., Golembiewski, R. T., & Ihrke, D. M. (2001). Leadership credibility, board relations, and administrative innovation at the local government level. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(1), 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Golembiewski, R. T. (1995). Practical public management. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  13. Grissom, J. A. (2014). Is discord detrimental? using institutional variation to identify the impact of public governing board conflict on outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 289–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guan, W. (2003). From the help desk: bootstrapped standard errors. The Stata Journal, 3(1), 71–80.Google Scholar
  15. Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: an update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327.Google Scholar
  17. Heidbreder, B., Grasse, N., Ihrke, D., & Cherry, B. D. (2011). Determinants of policy conflict in Michigan municipalities. State and Local Government 5view, 43(1), 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hess, R., & Meeks, O. (2011). School boards circa 2010: Governance in an accountability era. Washington D.C: National School Board Association.Google Scholar
  19. Hochschild, J. (2005). What school boards can and cannot (or will not) accomplish. In W. G. Howell (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 308–23). Washington D.C: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  20. Hogue, C. (2013). Government organization summary report: 2012. Washington D.C: United States Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  21. Ihrke, D. M., & Niederjohn, S. (2005). Conflict on city councils in Wisconsin. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(4), 453–462.Google Scholar
  22. Ihrke, D., Proctor, R., & Gabris, J. (2003). Understanding innovation in municipal government: City council member perspectives. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(1), 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, T., & Ihrke, D. M. (2004). Determinants of conflict on Wisconsin town boards. State and Local Government Review, 36(2), 103–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kettl, D. F. (2015). Politics of the administrative process (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kukla-Acevedo, S., Streams, M. E., & Toma, E. (2012). Can a single performance metric do it all? A case study in education accountability. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(3), 303–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  28. Manna, P., & McGuinn, P. (Eds.). (2013). Education governance for the twenty-first century. Washington D.C: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  29. McDermott, K. A. (2007). “Expanding the moral community” or “blaming the victim”? The politics of state education accountability policy. american educational research journal, 44(1), 77–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2013). Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: common source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 429–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, M. (2008). First, kill all the school boards. Atlantic Monthly, 92–94.Google Scholar
  32. Mulgan, R. (2000). ‘Accountability’: an ever‐expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mullins, D. R., & Pagano, M. A. (2005). Local budgeting and finance: 25 years of developments. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(4s), 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nelson, K. L., Gabris, G. T., & Davis, T. J. (2011). What makes municipal councils effective? An empirical analysis of how council members perceive their group interactions and processes. State and Local Government Review, 43(3), 196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peterson, P. E. (1976). School politics Chicago style. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Peterson, P. E. (1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Polikoff, M. S., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. (2011). How well aligned are state assessments of student achievement with state content standards? American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 965–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Portz, J., Stein, L., & Jones, R. R. (1999). City schools & city politics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  39. Ravitch, D. (2010a). Why public schools need democratic governance. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 24–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ravitch, D. (2010b). The life and death of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  41. Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York: Knopf Doubleday.Google Scholar
  42. Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 227–238.Google Scholar
  43. Rudalevige, A. (2003). The politics of no child left behind. Education Next, 3(4), 63–9.Google Scholar
  44. Smoley, E. R. (1999). Effective School Boards: Strategies for Improving Board Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  45. Superfine, B. M. (2005). The Politics Of Accountability: The Rise and Fall of Goals 2000. American Journal of Education, 112(1), 10–43.Google Scholar
  46. Svara, J. (1990). Official leadership in the City: Patterns of conflict and cooperation. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.Google Scholar
  47. Tucker, M. S. (2014). Fixing our national accountability system. Washington D.C: The National Center on Education and the Economy.Google Scholar
  48. Van Dunk, E., & Dickman, A. (2003). School choice and the question of accountability: The Milwaukee experience. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Walser, N. (2009). The essential school board book: Better governance in the age of accountability. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wong, K., & Langevin, W. (2007). Policy expansion of school choice in the American states. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2), 440–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yang, K. (2012). Further Understanding Accountability in Public Organizations: Actionable Knowledge and the Structure–Agency Duality. Administration & Society, 44(3), 255–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-OshkoshOshkoshUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations