Self-Efficacy of Female School Board Presidents

Women’s representation on school boards nearly equals that of males. As a result women are ascending to the leadership role of school board president in greater numbers. This qualitative study of female school board presidents examined the phenomenon of being a female school board president. Eight female school board presidents from Illinois participated, responding to interview questions about their role, responsibilities, and relationships with regard to the position of board president. The response data were explored using narrative analysis. The theoretical framework for analysis was based on Bandura’s SelfEfficacy theory. Responses from the interviews were interpreted vis-à-vis themes aligned to three of Bandura’s sources of information for developing self-efficacy: 1) the ability to execute and produce results (Bandura, 1977); 2) triadic reciprocality considering personal factors, behavior, and environmental influences (Bandura, 1986); and 3) mastery experience, vicarious experience, and persuasion of others (Bandura, 1977). This research contributes to a portrait of female school board presidents’ self-efficacy. In addition, it serves as a reflective collection of female leadership experiences characterized by high levels of selfefficacy. School Board Service In Illinois, as in many states across the nation, school board member service is voluntary and has as its purpose the governance of public schools through elected local control. The voluntary nature of school Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 2017 2 board service assumes there are few obligations. Yet the expectations are often substantial: attending meetings, responding to inquiries and complaints, becoming knowledgeable about school law, policies, and practices, and making decisions affecting students, families, and voters. School board governance is time-consuming and complex, navigating power structures in the schools, in the community, and at the board table (McCarty & Ramsey, 1968). Some school board governance effectiveness is challenged by members motivated by personal agendas or “single-issue concerns” (Mountford & Brunner, 1999, p. 2). Yet school boards realize effective school board governance has a positive effect on improving student achievement in their districts (Iowa School Board Compass, 2000; Goodman and Zimmerman, 2000; Waters & Marzano, 2006). School board member service is valuable for empowering others and building collaborative relationships between school and community, school and local government, school and local business and service groups (Mountford & Brunner, 1999). For many individuals, “school board membership is the highest form of public service” (Carol, Cunningham, Danzberger, Kirst, McCloud, & Usdan, 1986, p. 14), with great responsibility in making decisions that best serve the district’s students. The best decisions are sometimes difficult to arrive at with personal agendas, board member power struggles, and strained superintendent/board relationships. Board members’ positions turn over as do superintendents. The fulcrum, the tipping point, of school board effectiveness resides in the school board president and their ability to effectively work with both the board members, the superintendent, and internal and external stakeholders. The board president balances the interests and agendas of the superintendent and the interests and agendas of the board members. An Education Writers Association (2003) special report on superintendent and board shared governance asserted many school districts “are mired in relationships that often pit local lay leaders against professional managers” (pp. 3-4.) Board leadership, the board president, the report notes, keeps the focus of board members on core beliefs, vision, and a plan, contributes to effective district governance (p. 7). Finally, the report credits Thomas Glass with this point about ineffective school boards: they “lack experienced leaders from other sectors in the community...and [leaders] who do not understand the process of consensus building” (p. 8). This paper will shed light on female school board president leadership and the sources of their self-efficacy. VanTuyle & Watkins – Self-Efficacy 3 “A candidate’s sex does not affect his or her chances of winning an election. . . Winning elections has nothing to do with the sex of the candidate” (Seltzer, Newman, & Leighton, 1997, p. 79.) However, it was not until the feminist movement of the 1970s that females began to disrupt stereotypes of boardroom makeup and of executive offices. The desire for equal representation, equal pay, and equal rights, in general, caused some women to consider what they were capable of doing to get the results they wanted. This is self-efficacy. The term self-efficacy is grounded in Bandura’s (1986) theoretical framework of social cognitive theory that encompasses three factors: behavior, cognition, and the environment. These three factors are interactive and contribute to the personal motivations and behaviors of individuals. According to Bandura, “Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in ones’ capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Bandura speculated that the strength of any group or organization is attributed to the collective self-efficacy of the group and the belief that the group could master problems and achieve desired results. The personal efficacy of the leader is of paramount importance in facilitating the collective efficacy of the group. Bandura (1997) asserted the leader of the group needs to possess a sense of personal well-being and feel comfortable in their capabilities to approach difficult tasks and have assurances that these challenges can be mastered. Unique to these leaders is the passion and commitment they demonstrate to challenging goals. Another interesting fact is that if failure is encountered, they quickly recover and attribute the failure to lack of effort or knowledge and continue to approach difficult situations with assurances they can exercise over them. This efficacious outlook produces personal accomplishment and results (Bandura, 1997). The feminist movement of the 1970’s was led by women with a sense of self-efficacy (Yoder & Kahn, 1992). This movement, along with the election of Barbara Reimers, as President of the National School Board Association (NSBA) in 1973, led to questioning the scarce number of women serving on school boards throughout the United States. Reimers and the Directors of the NSBA commissioned a study to determine why women serve in such small numbers on boards of education. Although the study found little difference in the characteristics male and female board members bring to board service, the study indicated: “Attitudes about women appear to be a major impediment to women seeking school board office” (National School Boards Association, 1974, Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 2017 4 p. 1). The study found a prevalent attitude among board members: women being elected to a school boards was appropriate “unless ‘a’ woman, or ‘too many’ women, [are] on the school board” (National School Boards Association, 1974, p. 1.) The study highlighted the attitudes that were reported as handicaps and, in turn, hindered women in seeking a school board seat. Women identified their gender as a handicap and as a concern when identified as the only woman, the sole woman, the first woman. Women noted that others had attitudes about mothers, pregnant women, unqualified women, emotional women as board members that could handicap one’s ability to be elected (National School Boards Association, 1974). Whatever the attitudes, the women of the 70s that were elected to school boards attained those seats because of selfefficacy, a belief in their personal ability. In the 1970s, women’s organizational service was primarily in women’s organizations and in organizations associated with their children such as parent and teacher organizations. The National School Boards Association’s (1974) study reported that women school board members were more likely to receive encouragement and support from members of school-related organizations and non-school related organizations to which they belonged. Women were likely persuaded to expand their leadership capacity when encouraged by others with whom they associated. Similarly, a study by Bers (1978) of Cook County, Illinois board of education members in 1974-1975 found the female board members were involved in a greater number of organizations than their male counterpoints. Bers noted these organization were those where the women were involved with their children and their children’s interests. Despite this involvement with others through organizations, Bers concluded, “Women in this survey were more likely than men to seek board membership on their own rather than relying on a network of associates for encouragement and promotion” (Bers, p. 390). For the women in the study, their self-efficacy was rooted in their personal assessment of their contributions, their recognition of challenges and their persistence in facing them, and in their responses to their environments in seeking collegial and collaborative relations with stakeholders (Bers, 1978). From the 1970s to the 21st century, what has changed with regard to women and men running for and being elected to a public office? In their book from the 1990s, Women, Elections, and Representation, Darcy, Welch, and Clark (1994) noted “... most women who hold public VanTuyle & Watkins – Self-Efficacy 5 office in the United States do so at the local level, as members of city councils, school boards, county commissions, and other elected groups governing cities, counties, and other local entities” (p. 30). In the early years of the 21st century, Richard L. Fox and other researchers took up the study of gender and running for office. Fox, Lawless, and Feeley (2001) fo