The enduring debate over who governs schools continues largely because of methodological and analytical limitations related to the lack of accessible and relevant district level data. Informed by the literature on school governance, representation, and David Easton’s (1965) systems analysis framework this dissertation explores the nature of school governance in the Columbus City School District located in Columbus, Ohio. This study sheds light on the historical evolution of school governance in the Columbus City School District, the structure of district governmental power, key actors in the governance process, the role of the Columbus Board of Education, the scope and character of board decision-making, and the impact of school governance decisions.
This dissertation poses four primary research questions. Firstly, how do the Columbus Board of Education and its members learn the policy preferences of the community? Secondly, what type of representation do the Columbus Board of Education and its members provide the community? Thirdly, is the Columbus Board of Education responsive to the community? Fourthly, how does the structure of school governance processes affect decisions?
The hypotheses are as follows. Hypothesis 1: In the Columbus City School District, the governance processes of the Columbus Board of Education limit local community governance of schools by decreasing and constraining opportunities for community engagement in school board governance processes. Hypothesis 2: The Columbus Board of Education and its members employ a trustee and symbolic style of representation and are not responsive to the local community because the structure of the decision-making process undermines the effective linkage between the school board and the community.
This dissertation uses qualitative and quantitative methods of investigation to create a unique district level data set that captures the behaviors of key actors and the conditions of political environments surrounding school governance. It analyzes primary data from public and private documents of the Columbus Board of Education and the Columbus City School District; personal one-on-one interviews with Columbus Board of Education members, Columbus City School District staff members, and community leaders and activists; and secondary data from the content of newspaper articles. Data analysis methods include trend table analyses of inputs and outputs; descriptive and content analyses of personal interviews; descriptive and content analyses of documents from the Columbus Board of Education and the Columbus City School District; and policy analyses of the Win-Win Agreement and the Policy Governance Model.
Results indicate that the Columbus Board of Education and its members provide opportunities and ways for the community to participate in school governance. However, community inputs and feedback do not transfer into school board decisions. There is a historical and contemporary pattern of trustee and symbolic representation on the part of the Columbus Board of Education. This pattern of representation emanates from (1) inconsistent substantive communication between the Columbus Board of Education and the community and (2) the board’s dependence on recommendations and information from superintendents.