In examining how school boards act, it is important to have an understanding of the responsibilities of these political bodies. Goldhammer (1964) listed the board's responsibilities as "the making of decisions, the formulation of policies, the development of programs, the employment of personnel, the levying of taxes, the provision of educationally related service, and the management of the use of the physical facilities of the school district" (p. 4). Knowledge of these processes can assist superintendents and administrators alike.

On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This law is commonly referred to as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. The federal guidelines implemented under the act "amount to a sweeping effort by the federal government to change what Americans mean when they think of education" (Wermers, 2002, p. A1). The purpose of this work is to examine the decision-making process of a local school board to determine the effect NCLB has had upon the process.

To determine the influence of the federal legislation upon the decision-making process, a case study of a school board was conducted. The methodology of this study replicated similar studies conducted by Howerton (1971) and Crum (2006). The study examined the characteristics associated with the identification, action, and termination elements of the decision-making process; in addition, chi-square analysis was used to ascertain whether or not these characteristics were similar to those of other boards, as indicated in the literature.

Although significant findings indicated that this board might have had advance notice of the items for discussion, no data suggested that decisions might have been predetermined. A phenomenological revelation from the study was the finding that the board under study proceeded to make decisions that were influenced by NCLB, with little or no mention of the law. Another significant finding was the fact that the board under study conducted problem identification, characteristic analysis, and problem termination in a manner that was statistically different from the methods used by other boards, as noted in the literature.