URBAN SCHOOL BOARD SURVEY

URBAN SCHOOL BOARD SURVEY Council of the Great City Schools Fall Characteristics, Structure, and Governance of Large Urban Public School Boards

Council of the Great City Schools Introduction The Council of the Great City School s Urban School Board Survey: Characteristics, Structure, and Benefits of Large Urban Public Schools is the third in a series of biennial reports on the makeup and structure of school boards in the nation s large urban school districts. Over the years, the Council has worked closely with school boards and school board members in each of the Council s 67 member districts to elevate the quality of urban public school systems. In 2005, the Council began surveying school boards and reporting organizational trends. This report details the dimensions of school board operations that include school board governance, benefits, committee structures, campaigns, and training on key issues affecting urban school districts. This report also highlights demographic trends in the makeup of school boards in urban school districts. The survey was administered to the Council s school board representatives via SurveyMonkey during the Fall of the 2012 school year. To increase response rates, the survey was resent to school board representatives through January 2012. Surveys were received from 40 of the 65 member districts that received the survey a response rate of 62 percent (Refer to page for a list of district respondents). The data are reported in the aggregate of all CGCS school boards. The report is divided into two sections Demographics and School Board Structure and Governance. Together, they represent a detailed look at our nation s big city school boards and highlight trends in changing demographics, board members tenure, engagement in issues, and school board elections. i

Urban School Board Survey Contents Introduction... i School Board Demographics... 1 Educational Attainment and Occupation... 3 Tenure... 5 School Board Structure... 6 School Board Meeting Characteristics... 7 School Board Involvement and Professional Development... 8 School Board Resources... 12 School Board Benefits and Compensation... 13 School Board Elections and Campaigns... 14 District Leadership... 17 Appendix A... a Appendix B... b Table of Figures Figure 1. Percentage of CGCS school board members by race/ethnicty 2005... 1 Figure 2. Percentage of CGCS school board members by age range 2005... 2 Figure 3. Percentage of CGCS school board members by highest level of educational attainment... 3 Figure 4. Percentage of CGCS school board members by profession 2005... 4 Figure 5. Percentage of CGCS school boards by term length 200... 5 Figure 6. Percentage of CGCS school board members by average length of service... 5 Figure 7. Percentage of CGCS school boards by board structure... 6 Figure 8. Percentage of CGCS school boards by seat type 2008... 6 Figure 9. Percentage of CGCS school boards by meeting schedules... 7 Figure 10. Percentage of CGCS school boards by average meeting length... 8 Figure 11. Percentage of CGCS school boards by average time spent on board business per week... 8 Figure 12. Percentage of CGCS school boards by engagement of meeting topics... 9 Figure 13. Percentage of CGCS school boards by type of board training... 10 Figure 14. Percentage of CGCS school boards by type of subcommittees... 11 Figure 15. Percentage of CGCS school boards by staffing levels 2005... 12 Figure 16. Percentage of CGCS school boards by members benefits and compensation... 13 Figure 17. Percentage of CGCS school boards by type of benefit 2008... 13 Figure. Percentage of CGCS school boards by competitiveness of school board elections 2005... 14 Figure 19. Percentage of CGCS school boards by amount spent on election campaigns 2005... 15 Figure 20. Percentage of CGCS school boards by active constituents in school board elections 2005... 16 Figure 21. Average tenure of CGCS superintendents in years... 17 ii

Council of the Great City Schools Demographics School Board Demographics Between 2005 and, the racial composition of school boards has shifted. The percentage of White school board members dropped from 57 percent to 51 percent. The percentage of African American board members increased from 30 percent to 37 percent. The percentage of Latino board members decreased slightly from 9 percent to 8 percent. The percentage of Asians board members increased from 1 percent to 2 percent. (Figure 1). A growing majority of CGCS school board members are women, increasing from 52 percent to 56 percent between 2005 and. The percentage of White females has decreased from 31 percent to 27 percent while the percentage of African American women has increased from 15 percent to 24 percent. The percentage of Latina and Asian females has remained stable at 4 percent and 1 percent, respectively. (Figure 1) The percentage of CGCS male school board members has decreased from 48 percent to 44 percent between 2005 and. The percentage of White males has slightly decreased from 26 percent to 24 percent; African American male school board members decreased from 15 percent to 13 percent; Latino males from 5 percent to 4 percent; and Asian males from 2 percent to 1 percent. (Figure 1) Figure 1 Percentage of CGCS school board members by race/ethnicity and gender (N=303) 2005 24 27 White 2008 2005 24 26 28 31 African American 2008 2005 13 15 15 15 24 4 4 Latino 2008 2005 5 5 4 4 1 1 Asian 2008 2 2 2005 2 1 1 1 Other 2008 3 2005 1 Male Female 1

Urban School Board Survey The age distribution of CGCS school board members slightly shifted between 2005 and. The percentage of school board members age 60 and older increased from 21 percent to 28 percent. Likewise, board members between the ages of 30 39 increased from 7 percent to 12 percent (Figure 2) However, since 2005 there was a decrease in the percentage of board members between the ages of 40 49 (34 percent to 28 percent) and 50 59 (34 percent to 31 percent). Meanwhile, there was also a slight decrease of CGCS school board members between the ages of 20 and 29 (2 percent to 1 percent). Figure 2 Percentage of CGCS school board members by age range (N=304) 2005 34 34 30 28 33 31 25 28 21 11 12 7 2 1 1 20 29 30 39 40 49 50 59 60 or older 2005 2008 2

Council of the Great City Schools Educational Attainment and Occupation Between 2005 and, the percentage of CGCS school board members whose highest educational attainment was a bachelor degree decreased from 44 percent to 31 percent. However the percentages rose for those holding an Associate s Degree (4 percent to 9 percent), a Graduate degree (28 percent to 30 percent), and PhD s (10 percent to 12 percent). In, a relatively small percentage of CGCS school board members held a high school diploma (7 percent), a law degree (9 percent), and a medical degree (2 percent) as their highest level of educational attainment (Figure 3). Figure 3 Percentage of CGCS school board members by highest level of educational attainment (N=3) JD 9 High school education 7 Associate's degree or 2 years MD 2 of college 9 Ph.D/Ed.D 12 Graduate degree 30 Bachelor's degree 31 3

Urban School Board Survey Between 2005 and, there was an increase in the percentage of urban school board members who worked in the private sector (15 percent to 27 percent) and medical field (1 percent to 4 percent). However, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of board members who worked in the legal sector (9 percent to 7 percent), higher education sector (10 percent to 8 percent), and the government sector (9 percent to 8 percent). Additionally, there has also been a decline in the percentage of urban school board members who are homemakers (17 percent to 4 percent) and members who are retired ( percent to 16 percent) (Figure 4). Figure 4 Percentage of CGCS school board members by profession (N=304) 2005 27 22 15 14 14 17 16 9 7 7 4 4 4 10 10 9 8 8 6 4 1 1 0 0 Private sector Law Medicine Nonprofit sector K 12 education Higher education Government (municipal, state, or federal) Military Homemaker Retired 2005 2008 4

Council of the Great City Schools School Board Structure & Governance Tenure The average CGCS school board has approximately 8 board members unchanged since 2005. In, approximately 88 percent of CGCS school boards operate within 4 year term lengths, 8 percent grant 3 year term lengths, and 3 percent allow for 2 year term lengths (Figure 5). Additionally, 27 percent of CGCS school board members have served on the school board for less than 2 years, 28 percent have served 2 4 years, 26 percent have served 5 8 years, 12 percent have served 9 12 years, and 7 percent have served more than 12 years (Figure 6). Figure 5 Percentage of CGCS school boards by term length (N=40) 2008 81 88 2 3 10 8 7 3 2 years 3 years 4 years Other 2008 Figure 6 Percentage of CGCS school board members by average length of service (N=313) More than 12 years 7 9 12 years 12 Less than 2 years 27 5 8 years 26 2 4 years 28 5

Urban School Board Survey School Board Structure Approximately 83 percent of CGCS school boards are elected while 15 percent are appointed positions (Figure 7). Of those school boards that are appointed, they may be appointed by either the mayor, the city council, sitting school board members or a combination of the governor, mayor and the city council. Since 2008, there has been an increase in the percentage of CGCS school boards that elect/appoint school board members on a geographic basis (38 percent to 48 percent) and a decrease in the seats elected/appointed on a citywide basis (36 percent to 25 percent) (Figure 8). Figure 7 Percentage of CGCS school boards by board structure (N=40) Both 3 Appointed 15 Elected 83 Figure 8 Percentage of CGCS school boards by seat type (N=40) 2008 48 36 38 25 24 25 2 3 Citywide Geographic Districts Both Other 2008 6

Council of the Great City Schools School Board Meeting Characteristics Approximately 37 percent of CGCS school boards meet on a biweekly schedule (twice a week), 24 percent meet on a bimonthly schedule (twice a month), percent meet on a weekly basis, and 5 percent meet on a monthly basis (Figure 9). According to respondents, the majority of board meetings last between 3 and 4 hours (58 percent). Another, 24 percent of board meetings reported lasting between 1 and 2 hours, and percent reported lasting over 5 hours (Figure 10). The majority of respondents (63 percent) indicated that, on average, school boards spend over 6 hours a week on Board business. Approximately percent respondents indicated that school boards spend between 3 and 4 hours a week on school board business; 13 percent indicated between 5 and 6 hours; and 5 percent indicated between 1 and 2 hours per week on Board business (Figure 11). Figure 9 Percentage of CGCS school boards by meeting schedules (N=38) Other 16 Weekly Bi Monthly 24 Biweekly 37 Monthly 5 7

Urban School Board Survey Figure 10 Percentage of CGCS school boards by average meeting length (N=38) 58 24 0 5 13 Less than 1 hour 1 2 hours 3 4 hours 5 6 hours More than 6 hours Figure 11 Percentage of CGCS school boards by average time spent on board business per week (N=38) 63 0% 5 13 Less than 1 hour 1 2 hours 3 4 hours 5 6 hours More than 6 hours School Board Involvement and Professional Development Surveyed about the degree the school board engaged in a variety of issues, 93 percent of CGCS respondents indicated that the board was either moderately or significantly engaged in budgeting/funding issues; 90 percent were moderately or significantly engaged in student achievement; and 86 percent were moderately or significantly involved in closing achievement gaps (Figure 12). In matters of charter schools and school choice, 58 percent of respondents indicated that their school boards were either moderately or significantly engaged in the issue of charter schools; while 70 percent of respondents noted that their school boards were moderately or significantly engaged in issues of school choice. 8

Council of the Great City Schools Among other issues that CGCS respondents reported relatively high levels of moderate to significant engagement were teacher quality (80 percent), school safety (75 percent), English language learners (73 percent), professional development (71 percent), No Child Left Behind (71 percent), education technology (75 percent), and special needs students (70 percent). Among the issues in which CGCS school boards were the most likely to be slightly engaged or not at all engaged were teacher shortages (48 percent) and drug/alcohol policy (41 percent). Figure 12 Percentage of CGCS school boards by engagement of meeting topics 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Budgeting/funding 13 80 Student achievment 3 25 65 Charter schools 13 20 23 35 School choice 5 15 25 45 Closing acheivement gaps 5 23 63 School construction 23 23 48 Education technology 3 15 45 30 Teacher quality 10 25 55 Professional development 3 33 38 Teacher shortages 10 38 20 23 No Child Left Behind 3 38 33 Black male students 5 23 30 30 English language learners 3 38 35 Hispanic students 5 25 33 28 Special needs students 23 35 35 Parental outreach 3 8 33 48 Drug/alcohol policy 8 33 33 Discipline 5 25 28 33 School safety 30 45 Physical school conditions 25 20 48 Not at all engaged Slightly engaged Moderately engaged Significantly engaged NOTE: The number of respondents ranges from 35 37 for each issue (See Appendix A). 9

Urban School Board Survey On issues of training and professional development for school board members, at least 80 percent of school boards received training on board member roles and responsibilities (83 percent), board/superintendent relations (83 percent), legal issues (82 percent), and budget/resource allocation (80 percent) (Figure 13). A large percentage of CGCS school boards also reported receiving training in student achievement (73 percent), technology (72 percent), leadership skills (71 percent), and board accountability (71 percent). Respondents also indicated that specific areas warranted further training including special education policy (52 percent) and English language learns and bilingual education policy (43 percent). Figure 13 Percentage of CGCS school boards by type of board training Board member roles/responsibilities 83 17 Board/Superintendent relations 83 17 Leadership skills 71 29 Legal issues 82 Board accountability 71 29 Communications 69 31 Student achievement 73 27 Community engagement/partnerships 68 32 Budget/resource allocation 80 20 Superintendent/district staff accountability 68 32 Policy governance/leadership models 69 31 Curriculum/educational programs 69 31 English language learners/bilingual education policy 57 43 Special Education Policy 48 52 Technology 72 28 Received training Needed training NOTE: The number of respondents ranges from 31 36 for each area of professional development (See Appendix B). 10

Council of the Great City Schools In, 68 percent of school boards have a subcommittee structure compared with 93 percent in 2008. Thirty two percent of school boards reported having no subcommittee structure at all (Figure 14). Compared to 2005, there was a large increase in the percentage of CGCS school boards with a legislation policy subcommittee (44 percent to 62 percent), finance and budget subcommittee (44 percent to 69 percent), and curriculum and academic achievement subcommittee (13 percent to 42 percent). Since 2005, respondents also indicated an increase in the percentage of urban school boards with a property and facility subcommittee (20 percent to 46 percent), community relations subcommittee (13 percent to 38 percent), and an audit subcommittee (33 percent to 58 percent). Figure 14 Percentage of CGCS school boards by type of subcommittees (N=37) No Board Committees 7 33 32 Strategic Planning 12 13 26 English Language Learners/Bilingual Education 7 15 Special Education Safety/Security 9 14 12 16 16 15 Property/Operations/Facilities Leglislation/Policy Information/Technology 7 13 15 20% 43 46 44 53 62 2005 2008 Human Resources/Payroll 24 26 27 Finance/Budget 44 64 69 Curriculum/Academic Achievement 13 42 48 Community Relations 13 17 38 Audit 33 43 58 11

Urban School Board Survey School Board Resources According to respondents, 95 percent of school boards have support staff assigned to the board while only 5 percent do not have any support staff a decrease from 7 percent in 2008. Among CGCS districts that do have support staff, between 2005 and there has been a steady increase in the percentage of school boards that report having secretaries (78 percent to 92 percent), and attorneys (24 percent to 42 percent). However there has been a decrease in the large city school boards with a treasurer (16 percent to 11 percent) and a researcher (16 percent to 8 percent) (Figure 15). In, 22 percent of CGCS school boards reported having other positions which include auditors, clerks, and board liaisons. In, CGCS school boards were split on whether offices were provided at the school district s headquarters. Approximately half of school boards (53 percent) do not have offices at the school district s headquarters while 47 percent of school boards are provided offices at district headquarters. Figure 15 Percentage of CGCS school boards by staffing levels (N=36) 2005 92 78 83 42 16 2 8 24 29 16 31 12 11 12 22 Researcher Secretary/Administrative Assistant Attorney Treasurer Other 2005 2008 12

Council of the Great City Schools School Board Benefits and Compensation In, 61 percent of school board members received financial compensation compared to 55 percent of school board members in 2008 (Figure 16). The percentage of school board members receiving no compensation decreased between 2008 and (26 percent to 13 percent). In regards to the type of benefits available to CGCS school boards, since 2008 CGCS school boards are less likely to receive a meeting allowance, have access to a credit card, or have access to a car. However, 63 percent of school boards are reimbursed for travel expenses (Figure 17). Figure 16 Percentage of CGCS school boards by members' benefits and compensation (N=38) 2008 55 61 19 13 26 26 Financial compensation No financial compensation Reimbursed for expenses only 2008 Figure 17 Percentage of CGCS school boards by type of benefit (N=40) 2008 55 63 33 19 17 10 Meeting expense allowance Credit card Car Travel 2008 13

School Board Elections and Campaigns Urban School Board Survey While school board elections range in terms of competitiveness, between 2008 and there has been a slight increase in the reported levels of competition in school board elections. There was an increase the percentage of respondents that characterized elections as extremely competitive (10 percent to 11 percent), very competitive (29 percent to 34 percent), and somewhat competitive (29 percent to 31 percent). However, generally elections were not as competitive as reported in 2005 (Figure ). Additionally, 17 percent of respondents reported that the competitiveness of elections varied from year to year, depends on the specific seat up for election, or reported no electoral competition due to appointments. Figure Percentage of CGCS school boards by competitiveness of school board elections (N=35) 2005 40 34 34 29 29 31 24 17 10 11 3 Extremely Very Somewhat Not competitive Other 2005 2008 14

Council of the Great City Schools Since 2005, CGCS districts have reported a drop in total campaign spending for individual school board elections. There has been approximately a 22 percent drop in campaigns spending over $25,000 since 2005. While there has also been a drop in the percentage of school board campaigns spending between $10,000 and $24,999 since 2005, CGCS districts reported an increase in campaign spending within this range since 2008 (Figure 19). Compared to 2005, there has been an increase in the percentage of school board campaign spending between $0 and $1,000 (6 percent to 24 percent), and between $5,000 and $9,999 (14 percent vs. percent). In, percent of CGCS respondents also noted that the amount spent on an election varies by individual seats. Figure 19 Percentage of CGCS school boards by amount spent on election campaigns (N=34) 2005 37 29 24 24 24 14 14 12 17 19 15 14 6 7 3 $0 $1,000 $1,001 $4,999 $5,000 $9,999 $10,000 $24,999 Over $25,000 Other 2005 2008 15

Urban School Board Survey Since 2005, CGCS school boards have reported that several stakeholder groups have become less active in school board elections including teacher unions, community organizations, businesses, and school reform coalitions. However, since 2008, several stakeholders have increased their presence in school board elections including religious organizations, ethnic/racial groups, foundations, and parent groups. In, the percentage of CGCS school boards who reported that public education foundations are active in school board elections doubled since 2005 ( percent to 40 percent). Other stakeholder groups who were listed as being active in school board elections included non teaching labor unions and chambers of commerce. Figure 20 Percentage of CGCS school boards by active constituents in school board elections (N=40) 2005 Teacher unions 73 79 92 Community organizations 60 68 69 Religious organizations 25 33 37 City government 5 Public education foundations Businesses Ethnic/racial groups 21 31 40 43 48 55 61 68 2005 2008 School reform coalitions 33 36 40 Foundations 7 11 Parent groups 52 58 76 Other 15 16

Council of the Great City Schools District Leadership In regards to superintendent tenure, the average tenure of current superintendents has increased from 3.6 years to 4 years since 2005. However, the tenure of immediate past superintendents reached a high of 5.4 years in 2008 but decreased to an average of 4.8 years in (Figure 21). Figure 21 Average tenure of CGCS superintendents in years (N=40) 2005 4.9 5.4 4.8 3.6 3.4 4.0 2005 2008 Immediate past superintendent Current superintendent 17

Urban School Board Survey Participating Urban School Districts Albuquerque Public Schools Anchorage School District Atlanta Public Schools Austin Independent School District Baltimore City Public Schools Boston Public Schools Broward County Public Schools Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools Cincinnati Public Schools Clark County School District Cleveland Metropolitan School District Columbus City Schools Dayton Public Schools Duval County Public Schools East Baton Rouge Parish School System Fort Worth Independent School District Fresno Unified School District Hillsborough County School District Houston Independent School District Indianapolis Public Schools Jackson Public Schools Jefferson County Public Schools Kansas City Public Schools Little Rock School District Long Beach Unified School District Memphis City Public Schools Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools Miami Dade County Public Schools Minneapolis Public Schools Norfolk Public Schools Oakland Unified School District Orange County Public Schools The School District of Palm Beach County Pittsburgh Public Schools Portland Public Schools Richmond Public Schools San Diego Unified School District San Francisco Unified School District St. Louis Public Schools Wichita Public Schools

Council of the Great City Schools Appendix A Percentage of CGCS school boards by engagement on meeting topic (Figure 12) Number of respondents Issue Number of Respondents Budgeting/funding 37 Student achievement 37 Charter schools 36 School choice 36 Closing achievement gaps 36 School construction 37 Education technology 37 Teacher quality 36 Professional development 36 Teacher shortages 36 No Child Left Behind 36 Black male students 35 English language learners 37 Hispanic students 36 Special needs students 37 Parental outreach 36 Drug/alcohol policy 36 Discipline 36 School safety 37 Physical school conditions 37 a

Urban School Board Survey Appendix B Percentage of CGCS school boards by type of board training (Figure 13) Number of respondents Training Number of Respondents Board member roles/responsibilities 36 Board/Superintendent relations 36 Leadership skills 31 Legal issues 33 Board accountability 34 Communications 32 Student achievement 33 Community engagement/partnerships 31 Budget/resource allocation 35 Superintendent/district staff accountability 31 Policy governance/leadership models 32 Curriculum/educational programs 32 English language learners/bilingual education policy 30 Special Education Policy 31 Technology 32 b