\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Profiling the Governance System of Local School Boards in Democratic Republic of Congo},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2019-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2019)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2019-01-15}
\title{Profiling the Governance System of Local School Boards in Democratic Republic of Congo}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Corneille Luboya  Tshiunza}

             \affil[1]{  University, Wuhan, China}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 12 December 2018 Accepted: 2 January 2019 Published: 15 January 2019}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


In many developing countries such as RD Congo where parents are the main source of school financing, the Local School Board (LSB) is strategic governance body where the parents exercise participation rights of decision-making in management of school resources (financial, human and materiel) and the control of teaching quality and quantity. The purpose of this quantitative study is to test the possible differences between the Governance System of LSB of 16 pilot primary schools (7 higher performance schools and 9 lower performance schools). The findings of the survey conducted from 224 LSB members help to describe and explain the profiles of effective governance systems of LSB in order to inspire the LSB of lower performance schools and stakeholders.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{pilot school, school board, local school board, school board governance.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 \par
he school board is an important governance body of any school in the educational systems where the school administration is considered in democratic perspectives. It operates in order to improve school outcomes. Several studies have shown the nature of relations between school board governance and student academic achievements \hyperref[b10]{(Eliot, 1959;}\hyperref[b17]{Hess, 2002;}\hyperref[b7]{Deckman, 2007;} {\ref Hess and Meeks, 2010;}\hyperref[b12]{Ford, 2012;}\hyperref[b13]{2013)}. However, all of these studies have focused on school district boards \hyperref[b6]{(Lugaz and De Grauwe, 2006)}.\par
In many developing countries as in Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo), the parents are the main source of school financing (77\%), the Local School Board (LSB) reforms are often initiated and implemented but few of them are evaluated.\par
In the context where the parents of pupils are the main financing source (about 77\%) for school operations, the LSB reform is important as it ushers in participatory management or governance of school resources. It is also extremely important to evaluate the effectiveness of this reform. The effectiveness of reform must be evaluated in order to maintain them, adjust them or to institute other new reform. The present quantitative study aims to determine the possible differences between the governance of local school boards of higher performance schools and lower performance in the National Test of End of Primary School (TENAFEP) in DR Congo. It profiles the effective governance system of LSB in DR Congo. This study answers the following questions:\par
1. What are the components of LSB governance? 2. What are the difference between the LSB governance of pilot primary school with higher performance and lower performance? 3. What are the characteristics of effective LSB? 
\section[{II. Theoretical Foundation}]{II. Theoretical Foundation}\par
Firstly, we define the terms Pilot School and Local School Board. Secondly, we describe the Governance of Local School Board. 
\section[{a) Pilot School in DR Congo}]{a) Pilot School in DR Congo}\par
Referring to the context of the educational system of DR Congo, the Pilot schools are officially accepted as effective schools. The pilot schools are classified among the best schools in DR Congo. They are national standards in regard to their constancy of school performance competitiveness in internal school examinations and national examinations. Most of them have higher quality of teaching; the best organizational climates, the infrastructure and functional pedagogical equipment. They respect national school laws, directives and official instructions and educational reforms. These schools often are targeted by the technical services of the Ministry of Education in experiments on teaching innovations and the applicability of educational reforms. In line with the national examinations results of the pilot schools, \hyperref[b28]{Anonymous (2016)} classify: (i) Pilot Schools with high performance that have achieved excellent performance school and national examinations (from 100 to 81\%); (ii) Pilot schools with normal or ordinary performance that have achieved acceptable or satisfactory performance reviews of the school and national examinations (from 80 to 70\%); (iii) Pilot schools with lower performance that have achieved low performance reviews of the school and national school examinations and reviews national examinations (below to 69\%). 
\section[{b) From School Board to Local School Board}]{b) From School Board to Local School Board}\par
In the different countries and in the different perspectives, the school governance body has taken the different names. From the advices of educational establishments, the boards of trustees to the boards of management, all of these school governance bodies are working to improve the effectiveness of school \hyperref[b34]{(Pont, Nusche and Moorman, 2008)}. In the school district level, the school board is the decentralization of school authority from the central and local government to the school unit notably in: school budget allocation, the hiring and firing of teachers and school management staff, curriculum development, the procurement of textbooks and other educational material, infrastructure improvements, the monitoring and evaluation of teacher performance and student learning outcomes \hyperref[b3]{(Caldwell, 2005};Sergiovanni, Kelleher, \hyperref[b39]{McCarthy and Fowler, 2011)}.\par
In USA, some States leave the development of curriculum and student policy under the responsibility of the school board, but others, by law, impose specific requirements \hyperref[b29]{(Lunenburg and Ornstein, 2009)}. In general, the school board must conform to the state regulations. It works to meet the State's standards as well as conforms to the federal guidelines in USA in order to benefit the endowments and public subsidies, as well as those who conform to federal guidelines, federal agents are involved \hyperref[b30]{(Lunenburg et Ornstein, (2012)}. Methods of selecting board members are prescribed by the national school laws. The three basic methods are elections (votes), legal representation (legal Copts) and volunteering or recruitment. Election is thought to make for greater accountability to the public, but some scholars argue that appointment leads to greater competence and less politics. Election is the most common practice. The election is held to lead to greater responsibility to the public, but some think that the voluntary service or recruitment leads greater competence and trend less political. \hyperref[b17]{Hess (2002)} reported that of the approximately 100,000 school board members in USA. In 2009, 90 percent of school Board members throughout the country were elected and 10 percent have been appointed  {\ref (Hess, 2010)}. \hyperref[b34]{Pont et al, (2008)} stated that "in many European countries (OECD), 50\% of school boards members are elected". In USA or others developed countries school board is governance system of school district. School boards have the power, for the most part, to mobilize resources sometimes in the form of taxes or taxes on education and developing of curricula. While in most of African countries with school governance system, there are Local School Boards. One is type of School-Based Management and exercise power over the school management staff or committee. But, the local school boards don't have the power in school programs or curricula.\par
In many African countries such as RD. Congo, LSB is a local governance body of school. It is deliberative body and is still responsible of the management and administration of school resources. LSB is a governance body which is assumed the control of school resources management and school operation. Only the representatives of parents, students and teachers are elected as members of school Boards. The school management committee is appointed by the school law. LSB has been in charge of school resources management and is assuring the direct and indirect control of school operation. Data from a survey conducted in 2011 and 2012 highlighted the presence of a LSB as School-based Management Committee (SBMC) in 96\% of schools. In schools where a LSB existed, 83\% of those had approved the budget (DRC-RESEN, 2014). 
\section[{c) Governance system of Local School Board}]{c) Governance system of Local School Board}\par
According to this sector or context, the term governance has different meanings. The school governance is referred to a system of decentralized management where the joint regulation takes seat between the structures of the various levels, including national, provincial and the local \hyperref[b23]{(Kokouvi, 2012)}. It, therefore, allows a balance between the effectiveness and participation in management system. School governance claims the sharing power and the accountability of all local school actors involved. It directs the school in accordance with the ethics of management, participation of the community, to equity and the transparency, to innovation as well as sustainable development \hyperref[b25]{(Lalancette, 2014)}.\par
The school governance makes possible the achievement of school goals as a basis of common mission related to the system of education in order to meet the needs of the pupils according to the specifics of the school environment. Thus, the school board governance is that which, school democratic support on the evaluation, encourages the innovation, and increases the performance of the schools and its students. It supposes that the various and motivated actors, put themselves in link in a collective project in school. In this perspective, the effectiveness of LSB is relating to the capacity of initiative of all school actors, to their competences and the effective attitude which they have in definition and in achievement of their objectives \hyperref[b2]{(Bouvier, 2007;}\hyperref[b24]{Lachmann, 2001;}\hyperref[b23]{Kokouvi, 2012)}. This study considers the governance system of LSB by analysis of LSB characteristics, LSB leadership and control and LSB competences. 
\section[{d) About LSB characteristics}]{d) About LSB characteristics}\par
The conclusion of \hyperref[b7]{Deckman (2007)} supported the importance of gender issues of school board. It finds the basic differences in the arguments men and women engage in as school board members. It is, by the way, important to emphasize that the presence of independent external members is particularly important, because they are primarily guided by the protection of the interests of the recipients.\par
From the theoretical perspective, it is possible to distinguish two groups of school board members: (i) on the one hand, internal and dependent members. These are the persons who are responsible of overall operation of the school, considered to be affiliates with school leaders. (ii) In addition, the independent and external members. These members are in the interests' relationship or affairs with the school or with presidents of the committees of parents who sit on the school board \hyperref[b11]{(Fama et Jensen, 1983}\hyperref[b0]{et Baysinger et Butler, 1985)}.\par
The study of \hyperref[b34]{Pont et al, (2008)} state that in many OECD countries, generally, the school boards consist of the parents of students, school employees or school professionals (school principals and teachers), probably students, representatives of the community and sometimes representatives of public authorities. Many authors estimate the dependence of the members of the school board gives them much flexibility or freedom to exercise effective control of the head of the school. However, specialists believe that the presence of external and independent members is particularly important, because they are mainly guided by the protection of interests of the beneficiaries of educational services or stakeholders. \hyperref[b17]{Hess (2002)} estimated that the average school board has five to eight members in USA. They are, for the most part, lay people who have no experience as professional educators.\par
In African countries, Senegal and Mali, for example, the LSB is composed of the parents, teaching staff, the school management committee (school principal and deputy school principal) and the representatives of the local community. In Senegal for example, the LSB is composed of two pupils' representatives, two parents of pupils, the teachers, and the principal who hold the position as the secretariat and finally the chief of district who takes the presidency of the council \hyperref[b6]{(Lugaz and De Grauwe, 2006)}.\par
In the DR. Congo, the LSB (SBMC) is composed of the school principal and collaborators (members of school management Committee), the representative of teachers; three representatives of parents (with at least one woman) and a representative of the Committee of students without voting rights (DR Congo-Ministerial decree N°Minepsp/Cabmin/0311/ 2007, articles 3, 4, 5 and 6).\par
The study of Leithwood, (2011) and Bédard and Mombourquette, (2013) conducted in Ontario and Alberta provide a rich description of the nine characteristics of the School board, including: (i) a mission, a shared vision and goals based on high expectations in terms of the profile of an educated person. (ii) a coherent educational guidance; (iii) use conscious and systematic data from multiple sources to guide decisions; (iv) organizational process focused on improving learning; (v) opportunities of professional development in-service for all members; (vi) budgets, structures, policies and procedures, staffing and use of time; aligned with the mission, the vision and the objectives of the School Board (vii) an overall approach to leadership development; (viii) an approach of governance of the school board and school board policies and (ix) a productive with staff and other practitioners and stakeholders working relationship. These characteristics are defended from district school boards. The LSB characteristics could be measured by the variables such as the composition, mode, size, frequency of participation, the type and frequency of meetings, the working conditions, and availability of official documents and control of its content, the priority activities. 
\section[{e) About LSB leadership and control power}]{e) About LSB leadership and control power}\par
Several dimensions are consisted of responsibilities of a governing board. It is about mission, policy, administration, management and control of LSB activities. The fourth dimension is influenced by the governing board but it is not depending of LSB total responsibility \hyperref[b13]{(Ford, 2013)}. The control of school operation is also one of the educational inspectors mission.\par
The control is the most capital dimension. In theory, various control mechanisms limit the opportunist behavior of the leaders \hyperref[b40]{(Shleifer and Vishny, 1997)}. In particular, the LSB as a legal authority charged to ratify and control the decisions of the School leaders, plays a significant role in the resolution of these conflicts of interests \hyperref[b11]{(Fama and Jensen, 1983)}. It constitutes an internal governance mechanism, whose effectiveness is probably not without incidence on the creation of value and, consequently, on the satisfaction of the recipients. Ford (2013) divides more specific the control activities of school board into three categories: (i) the activities which are controlled and commanded directly by the governance system of school board commands and controls directly; the activities which are controlled and commanded no directly (no obligation) and the activities which are controlled and commanded indirectly.\par
However, the school board leadership power come from its missions. The missions assigned to school boards are dependent to each country, geographical zone, and a continent. In 1959, Eliot state that school board has for role "to hire and support a competent professional as superintendent, defend the schools against public criticism, and persuade the people to open their pocketbooks" (p. 1033). Pont et al,  {\ref (2008)} indicated that in many European countries, the school governance bodies are setting in place. One is a democratic mode of participatory management and introduces the links between school and community. Generally, these school boards have four missions: (i) toYear 2019 Volume XIX Issue VIII Version I ( G )\par
mobilize parents of pupils, communities, teacher-staff and other partners for the development of education; (ii) to develop and implement the planning activities related to improvement of education access, teaching quality and school management; (iii) to control activities of teaching, financial, patrimonial and socio-cultural management of school and (iv) to be used as body of prevention, mediation and regulation of the conflicts between the various actors of school.\par
In some African countries, a certain number of research on the partnership school-parents, show that the role of LSB consists of participation in school budget development, school operation without leaving of dimension the maintenance of the school infrastructures, the pupils and the teachers recruitment \hyperref[b6]{(Lugaz and De Grauwe, 2006)}.  {\ref Ranson et al. (2005a)} concluded that the roles and mission of school boards are such as the reduction of the accounts, the promulgation of advices, the support or the mediation, the renouncement or the adversity, the club of supporters or the partnership.\par
In DR Congo, The responsibilities of LSB (SBMC) include providing guidance and control relative to school operations, monitoring pedagogical activities, assessing the management of students' disciplinary files and active engagement in financial and infrastructure management. It prepares and approves the school budget in consultation with the Parent Committee. LSB has the role of approving the school budget and the control of financial management, discipline, and teaching quality and of the school infrastructures. It also has the role to directly control school operations; to follow the teaching activities in the school and classroom; to examine the framing and the disciplinary files relating to the pupils and to imply themselves actively with the school financial management and school infrastructures (RDC-MEPS-INC, 2011).\par
The accomplishment of school board missions is possible by school board leadership. Leithwood and Menzies, (1998) estimate four models of school board leadership would be suf ficient to define who is invested with decision-making power in any school board reform: (i) Administrative Control (devolves authority to the school principal); (ii) Professional Control (devolves the main decision-making authority to teachers), (iii) Community Control (devolves their main decisionmaking authority to parents or the community) and (iv) Balanced Control SBM (balances decision-making authority between parents and teachers).\par
In the DR. Congo, according to the official guidelines, administrative control is requited as the mode of LSB leadership power. This leadership mode during LSB meeting is administrative control regarding to legal dispositions. By regulation the school director is the president of LSB while the teachers' representative is its secretary. There is also a treasurer named among the LSB members. In absence case, he is replaced by Deputy School Principal or the Supernumerary. In absence case, the representatives of the parents and the representatives of the teachers are replaced by their respective assistants (DRC-MEPS-INC, 2011, articles 3, 4, 5 and 6). 
\section[{f) About LSB competences}]{f) About LSB competences}\par
The competences of school boards are tested by the degree of achievement of school board missions. Most of school board reforms in many countries are initiated in order to improve the effectiveness of school through students' performance. Smyth (2005) reported that two-thirds of school board members indicate that school board made either a "moderate" contribution to supporting and caring of the students and to providing relevant and challenging learning. Indeed, the quality of education depends primarily on the way schools manage available resources (Jossey-Bass, 1994). It has also been shown that the capacity of school boards to improve teaching and learning is strongly mediated or facilitated. This impact is influenced through the quality of the leadership provided by the school principal \hyperref[b13]{(Ford 2013;}\hyperref[b32]{Murphy \& Beck, 1995)}. The study of governance system of LSB in the African context should analyze the characteristics of LSB, leadership and control power of LSB and competences of LSB.\par
The missions assigned to school boards are dependent to each country, geographical zone, and a continent. In 1959, Eliot states that school board has for role to hire and support a competent professional as superintendent, defend the schools against public criticism, and persuade the people to open their pocketbooks \hyperref[b10]{(Eliot, 1959)}. The more specific tasks of board members relate to their day-to-day work of serving on the local government board. This includes meeting with constituents, attending board meetings and committee meetings, and voting on district policies. Hill (2004) listed a multitude of oversight tasks of school boards : (i) learning conditions or school infrastructures; (ii) professional support to school staff and learning guide to pupils; (iii) adaptation of curriculum; (iv) transportation of pupils;\par
(v) school attendance; resolution of conflicts (vi); implementation of state and federal curriculum (vii); federal civil rights laws and vendor contracts (viii).\par
The evaluation of these missions and tasks seems possible in testing of nine dimensions of school boards competences. One is consisted of vision, standards, assessment, accountability, alignment, climate, collaboration, community engagement and continuous improvement of National School Boards Association of US. These keys have the possible relation with student academic performance or achievement \hyperref[b14]{(Gemberling, Smith, \& Villani, 2000;}\hyperref[b12]{Ford, 2012)}. bodies including on non-clarification of missions, roles and responsibilities of these bodies and the inability to effectively accomplish their missions.  {\ref Pont, et al., (2008, p.97}) mention the challenges of school boards. Among the mains, there are: (i) the board members are not many; (ii) the lack of clarity in the definition of the missions, roles and responsibilities of the school board and its members; (iii) tensions between members and sometimes a conflict climate exist between the members of school board and school principal and the lack of information, training and skills of the boards members.\par
In many African countries such as the DR Congo, tensions and conflict of power and financial issues between the members of the governance bodies are common. There are also the lack of training and incompetence of members. The bad working conditions and the unavailability of texts legislating the organization and functioning of the school boards and not control of its content are also on the list of the problems that destroy the effectiveness of these governance bodies \hyperref[b6]{(Lugaz and De Grauwe, 2006;}\hyperref[b23]{Kokouvi, 2012)}.\par
In DR Congo, the parents are the main source of school financing about 77\% (DRC-RESEN, 2015). The LSB is extremely important. It allows the parents to control their school financing and teaching quality. This control of school operation by parents is a source of many conflict cases between school principal and committee of parents in DRC. In his study in DRC, Mrsic -Garac, (20102010, p.46) also conclude that "the financial resources' management constitutes one of the main problems of LSB and sources of conflicts between the schools boards' members especially in the countries where the parents contribute financially to the schooling of their children". The schools principals often have a tendency of monopolizing all powers of LSB. Some of them oppose any sharing responsibilities with parents or LSB members. Sometime they limit or bloc the LSB controls power. This misconduct of school principals regarding to LSB legal missions causes conflicts between school management committee and local community. In DRC, some Chiefs of villages or president of parents committee isolated from management of school resources mobilize their population to against the school principal which they describe as "robber or thief", "usurper' and "dictator" (O'Donoghue and Dimmock, 1996; Mrsic -Garac, 2010).\par
Thus, in line with this literature review, the three components of LSB governance (figure \hyperref[fig_2]{1}) could be represented fallowing: 
\section[{III. Methodology a) Research Design}]{III. Methodology a) Research Design}\par
This study is classified in epistemological paradigm positivism. Referring to the research classification system in educational science \hyperref[b9]{(Ellis and Fouts, 1993;}\hyperref[b15]{Grossen, 1998a;}\hyperref[b16]{Grossen, 1998b)}, this study is classified among the second level studies (testing of the theoretical model). We used the survey method by questionnaire (Creswell, 2012). 
\section[{b) Characteristic of participants}]{b) Characteristic of participants}\par
The population of this study consists of all public pilot primary schools. We decided on a nonprobability sample taking into account the nature of this study. From the annual reports of the inspection of schools, we have, in the first level, extracted a sample with the judgement or purposeful intention. In the second level, we exploited the reports of school boards of these schools in order to constitute a typical random  sampling \hyperref[b5]{(Creswell, 2014)}. It acts, in this study, 224 LSB members of the 16 pilot primary schools in the three provinces of the DR Congo (Kinshasa, Bandundu and Kongo-Central). For each primary school, we sampled a School principal, a Deputy School principal, a Superintendent, six teachers, and five parent's members of the parents committee.\par
Concerning the demographic characteristics (figure \hyperref[fig_2]{1}), the school boards are composed by the Principals (7.1\%), Principals Assistant (7.1\%), Superintendents (7.1\%), Teachers (43\%) and Parents (35.7\%). They are not substantive different groups; the two groups consist of more males (65.6\%) than females (34.4\%). The Age mean of members is about 44.85 old (with 8,792 SD). There are no significant differences between two groups of schools (lower and higher performance). 
\section[{Figure 2}]{Figure 2}\par
The school board members are working in several professions. 65.6\% of members are working in the Educational sector; 7.6\% are Farmers (agricultures); 6.7\% work in Government/Public administration; 5.8\% relatively in the Professional Services and Transportation (personnel or companies); 4.9\% are working in the Business/Commercial activities and 3.6\% in the Construction sector. Though there are small differences between the two groups of schools, the average length of service for board members, 3-4 years with 3.55 mean. There are small differences between the two groups of schools, but the members qualified with high school diploma are the majority (52.2\%), essentially the teachers. The Under Graduate (20.5\%); Bachelor's Degree (18.3\%) and 4.5\% of LSB members (parents) have respectively Less than High School diploma or Advanced Degrees. 
\section[{c) Instruments of data collection and measurement of variables}]{c) Instruments of data collection and measurement of variables}\par
Three determinant variables are retained and exploited in the survey questionnaire.\par
The independent variables are the characteristic of LSB (figure \hyperref[fig_2]{1}). From these selected variables, we adapted the questionnaire of Ford (2013) and \hyperref[b43]{Traoré (2015)}. The questionnaire used refers on two scales. It is the Likert scale with five points (Strong agreement, Agreement, Neutral, Disagreement, Strong disagreement) and the binary scale (Yes or No). Of which here the extract of some items on LSB Competences:\par
My school board members frequently and consistently engage in board development activities. My school board has adopted a performance budgeting process.\par
My school board sets and tweaks school academic standards in response to student needs.\par
To check the constancy of the questionnaire, the first analysis related to the correlations between items pertaining to each one of these dependent variables. It indicates that the items (questions) of all the variables selected of our questionnaire comprise satisfactory levels of homogeneity. Because, the index of internal coherence relating to alpha of Cronbach varies for the under-scales between .72 and .80, with an average equalizes to .80, and reaches .89 for the total factor. It comes out from it just as the scale comprises an adequate temporal stability, since the correlation test-retest goes from .70 to .80 for the under-scales, with an average of .77, and is of .83 for the total factor. The second analysis shows a consistency slightly lower for the items of dimension knowledge of legal tendencies (Alpha = 0.67; Mean = 4, 12; OR= 0, 59). Lastly, concerning the dimension matters treated at the meeting time of local school boards, the fidelity of the items is low (Alpha = 0.68; Mean = 6, 25; OR. = 0, 60). The overall results show that our questionnaire is proven to be reliable and consistency.\par
The dependent variables selected are the scores obtained by the 16 pilot primary school sampled in the National Test of the End of Primary School of 2016. The controlled variables are estimated in terms of the socio-professional and demographic characteristics of the local school board members. It is the studies level, age, LSB experience working, LSB members function (figure1) and educational level. 
\section[{d) Collection, management and analysis of data}]{d) Collection, management and analysis of data}\par
The questionnaires were duplicated, codified and distributed to the schools. We managed our questionnaire on 224 subjects of the 16 targeted primary schools. The survey operation took approximately three months. The phase of pre-survey went from September 02nd to October 06th, 2016. And the survey phase went from October 15th to December 17th, 2016 for. The data collected were managed and analyzed by Using Statistical IBM SPSS (Version 22). We proceeded to the Cronbach's alpha, the ANOVA and Test Student (16 primary schools outcomes), the Correlation and Chisquare (compared between LSB governance of higher performance and lower performance). The alpha (?) = 0.05 (p < .05 or 5\%) was retained. 
\section[{e) Ethnic and confidential issues of study}]{e) Ethnic and confidential issues of study}\par
We took measures of ethics aiming at privileging the climate of trust, collaboration and honesty between the participants of this study. With an aim of putting the participants in confidence, we guaranteed the anonymity of participants in questionnaire and during the process of data management and analysis. All the participants had freedom of choice to take part into the investigation. 
\section[{IV. Results}]{IV. Results}\par
After the survey, management and analyses of data, the results are presented according to our research questions as follows: 
\section[{a) What are the components of Local School Board}]{a) What are the components of Local School Board}\par
Governance? Three components are considered as part of LSB governance (figure \hyperref[fig_3]{3}). It observed in term of general consideration of implementation level of LSB that there are no significant differences between higher performance school group and lower performance about LSB characteristics (73.6\% against 70.2\%, X2=3.762, p = .091) and LSB leadership and control power (80.6\% against 82.2\%, X2=3.762, p = .101). Concerning the LSB competences, there is significant different between two groups of school (76.5\% against 52\%, X2=53.062, p = .001). Here, we used the different means of each school in TENAFEP of 2015 in order to group 16 schools into the two groups. It is about the 7 Higher Performance Schools (43, 8\%) and 9 Lower Performance Schools (56, 2\%). According to the characteristics of pilot schools, we regroup the Pilot Schools with higher and normal performance (from 100 to 70\%); and the Pilot schools with lower performance: below to 69\% (Luboya, 2016). 
\section[{c) Difference between LSB Characteristic and two groups of school performance}]{c) Difference between LSB Characteristic and two groups of school performance}\par
It was realized that according to the LSB composition of the higher performance schools, the members are more complete (posts of school board are supplement occupied) whereas they are incomplete in the lower performance schools (76\% against 34.1\%). There is a strong correlation (.421, p =.000) and very significant difference (X2=39.762, p = .000). Concerning the affection mode (figure \hyperref[fig_4]{4}), in the local school board of higher performance schools, the members are more affected by the elections 52.1\% compared with 26.2\% with strong correlation (.304, p= .000). One is significant (X2=20.942, p= .000) whereas the members are more affected by appointments or delegation in the lower performance schools.\par
Concerning the availability of the legal documents, the control of knowledgeable legislation, roles and tasks, and work conditions, differences were also observed. In the LSB of higher performance schools, the working equipment of LSB operations and organizational climate are more available and accessible to all members (91.8\% against 45.2\%) with a strong correlation (.487, p =.000) and Chi-square is very significant (X2=53.062, p = .000). In the figure \hyperref[b4]{(5)}, it is noted that the LSB of higher performance schools works in very good conditions. It is about 92.8\% compared with 62.6\% with a strong correlation (.550, p =. 000) and Chi-square is very significant (X2=73.795, p = .000).   1\% of the LSB members of higher performance schools know and have control knowledgeable of the school board mission, the tasks and the roles whereas almost 84.9\% of the local board members of lower performance schools either know partially, or they do not know. This difference is established by a strong positive correlation (.547, p =.000) and Chi-square is also very significant (X2=67.140, p = .000).\par
The differences were also observed between the organization and the activities participation of the LSB members, the priority activities. The ordinary meeting frequencies are organized either less than one month (42.9\% against 0.8\%), or once a month (55.1\%) in the higher performance schools whereas the lower performance schools call the meetings frequencies is 2-3 times two month (34.1\% against 1\%), that is to say once two month (33.3\% against 1\%), once three Month (31.7\%). This difference is significantly established by a strong correlation (.844, p= .000) and one Chi-square very significant (X2= 212,091, p= .000).\par
In addition, the extraordinary meetings are often and regularly called (94.9\% against 29.3\%) by the LSB of higher performance schools while lower performance 0\% 50\% 100\% schools organize occasionally, seldom or never the extraordinary meetings (70.6\% against 5.1\%). This relation is positive statistically (p =.000) by a strong correlation (.434, p = .000) with the very significant difference (X2= 212,091, p = .000). Another positive relation (.456, p = .000) and a significant difference (X2=54.404, p =.000) also prove that about the duration, the meetings of higher performance schools last often Less than two Hours (50\% against 20.6\%), or Two Hours Exactly (39.8\% against 21.4\%) whereas those organized by the lower performance schools last More than Two Hours (57.9\% against 10.2\%).\par
Concerning LSB Participation Size and Mode, it should be stressed that often the LSB members of the higher performance schools take part in complete in meetings whereas in lower performance schools, members in the boards meetings participate in incomplete size. There is a very significant difference (X2=52.526, p = .000) and a strong correlation (.484, p =.000). In additional, the significant difference (X2=52.526, p =.000) and the positive relation (.484, p = .000) also shows (figure \hyperref[fig_6]{6}) that the modes of participation of the higher performance schools members are either more favorable and Activates Participation (60.2\% against 19.8\%), or more Unfavorable and Activates Participation (28.6\% against 17.5\%) whereas the participation modes of LSB members with lower performance are more Unfavorable and Inactivated Participation (27.8\% against 9.2\%), or Favorable and Inactivates Participation (34.9\% against 2.0\%). 
\section[{Figure 7: LSB Priority Activities}]{Figure 7: LSB Priority Activities}\par
Figure  {\ref 7} shows a very significant difference (X2=37.331, p .000) and finds that the higher performance schools privilege more Control of the teaching activities, quantity and quality (Pedagogical Unit 3 , Basis pedagogic Cell 4 and curriculum) (39.8\% against 17.5\%) and the Control of learning and the disciplinary files relating to the pupils (26.5\% against 8.7\%). 3 A grouping of the teachers of same level teaching in the purpose of discussing the problems and the methods, methodological approaches issues and evaluations of the exclusion of the program and the prevision of teaching matters and the learning difficulties of the pupils. 4 All Pedagogical Unit of one school make the Base cell in DR Congo. Control) as in legal dispositions in DR Congo (54.1\% against 54.0\%), the Figure (  {\ref 8}) also shows that the LSB leadership of higher performance schools is assured either by the Parents and community, Community Control (35.7\% against 8.7\%), or by the teaching-Staff and the parents (Balanced Control) (6.1\% against 4.0\%), or by the Teaching-staff, Professional Control (4.1\% and 33.3\%).\par
Concerning the process of decision-making, a positive correlation is noted (.155, p=.025) and a very significant difference (X2=34.049, p=.000). Figure \hyperref[b8]{(9)} shows that in higher performance schools, LSB decision-making procedure used is following practices such as analysis of problems, collection of membership opinions, deliberating and voting time then decision making (52\% against 23\%) and follows its established policies when making decisions process (16.3\% against 6.3\%). The lower performance schools privilege the practices such as decisions-making on base of committee recommendations (4.1\% against 33.3\%) and delegates and decisions-making authority to the school principal \hyperref[b23]{(22}  
\section[{d) Difference between LSB leadership and control power and two groups of school performance}]{d) Difference between LSB leadership and control power and two groups of school performance}\par
The results affirm a positive relation (.164, p=.014) and a very significant difference (X2=43.036, p=.000) between mode of LSB Governance and school performance.\par
Although the LSB leadership of the both groups of school is assured by the Principal (Administrative  Concerning LSB control Activities, a positive correlation is noted (.649, p=.000) and a very significant difference (X2=99.203, p= .000). The higher performance schools are different by regular control from the activities of the schools operation (94.9\% against 29.4\%). However in the lower performance schools control is occasionally made either (22.2\% against 5.1\%), or seldom or never (48.4\% against 0.0\%). Among the LSB control types of schools operation, the higher performance schools are different significantly (p=.000 for three types of control) about the LSB Direct Control of Activities (82.7\% against 52.4\%, is a strongly positive correlation .316 and X2=22.393 ); the LSB Indirect Control of Activities (75.5\% against 39.7\%, with a strongly positive correlation .358 and X2=28,633) and the LSB Non Control of Activities (75.5\% against 40.5\%, is a strongly positive correlation .350 and X2=27.433).  The most prominent set of best practices remains the key work of school boards created by the National School Boards Association of USA. Using nine key-works survey statement, the participants' responses were used to test the LSB competences (Table \hyperref[tab_4]{1}).\par
Firstly, three out of nine Key-works do not have positive correlation and significant difference with the two schools groups of performances. It is about Vision (school board engage in continuous strategic planning, our plan is frequently updated, .018; p = .790, and X2=1.219, p=0.888), Alignment (school board has adopted a performance budgeting process. Programs must show and document activities and levels of program success in order to continue receiving current levels of funding, 0,025, p= 0.717, and X2=1.148, p=0.897) and Continuous improvement (school board members frequently and consistently engages in board development activities, .120, p =.073 and X2 = 6. 648, p = .156).\par
Secondly, there are positive and significant relations between the more performance schools and the local school board competences (key-works) in particular Assessment (school board sets and tweaks school assessment policies in answer to student needs. for example, when we see our students struggling in mathematics we will increase the use of mathematical assessments, .245, p=.000, and X2=15.481, p = .005); Standards (school board standard sets and tweaks school academic in answer to student needs, .451, p= .000, and X2 = 53,942, p=.000); Accountability (Members take responsibility for past decisions and control decision-making implementation, .292, p=.000 and X2= 25,398, p= .000); Climate (Members open are about how they feel about other members' preferences and avoid the conflict situation, .370, p= .003 and X2= 39,072, p = .000); Collaboration (school board members look for a superintendent or principal that shares the values, and is willing to be a collaborator with, the school board, .266, p=.000 and X2= 21,083, p = .000) and the Engagement (school board members regularly listen to the ideas of organized interest groups and act on their input when we deem it appropriate, .314, p= .000, SE=0.059 and X2= 23,345, p= .000). 
\section[{e) Difference between local school board problem and two school performance groups}]{e) Difference between local school board problem and two school performance groups}\par
In the group of higher performance schools, the problems arise either occasionally, or seldom or never (46.9\% against 29.4\%) and the problems are regularly and often observed in the LSB of the lower performance schools (55.6\% against 7.1\%). This positive relation is significant (-.451, p= .000) and (X2 =64.677, p.000). Even if overall the types or natures of problems are not different between the higher performance schools and lower performance (.038, p=.583), it is necessary to note the presence of several types of problem in LSB governance (figure10). 
\section[{V. Discusion and Conclusion}]{V. Discusion and Conclusion}\par
a) What are the characteristics of effective LSBs?\par
Among the selected pilot schools, the higher performance schools have a local board which is composed of the members holding all the positions envisaged by the official or legal texts. In these LSBs, the members are affected by the elections for the eligible vacancy and legally for the non-eligible. The LSB members have the legal documents; they have knowledge of the school board mission, tasks and roles. They work under good conditions at the time as of school board meetings. Two types of meeting are often convened. The ordinary meetings are held either in an expiry of less than one month or once the month. The extraordinary meetings also are regular or often held in cases of need. These board meetings last less than two hours or exactly two hours and the members are often present and the absences are seldom recorded. And their meetings participation mode and the solved questions or problems are more "favorable and activates Participation" or more "Unfavorable and Activates Participation". The local school board meetings of the more performance schools privilege more Control of the teaching activities, quantity and   \hyperref[b26]{(Leithwood, 2010;}\hyperref[b24]{Lachmann, 2001)}. \hyperref[b7]{Deckman (2007)} found basic differences in the reasons men and women work in school board but these differences are no observed in other school board studies \hyperref[b12]{(Ford, 2012)}. In addition, the individual characteristics of the schools boards' members do not have significant relations between the higher performance and lower performance schools. In this subject Ford, (2013) found the similar results as there is very limited evidence of a general relationship between school board member demographics and backgrounds and district level attainment. For example, a connection between gender and higher district level outcomes, identified by the author in a previous study of Wisconsin, does not appear to exist when Wisconsin results are pooled with the five other states of interest in several school boards in USA.\par
In exception of the legal position of LSB leadership and control by the Principal, (Administrative Control), it is remarkable that the school boards of the more performance schools also resorts to other forms or modes such as Governance by the Parents and community, (Community Control) and by the teaching-Staff and the parents (Balanced Control). Concerning the process of decision making, the higher performance schools are differentiated from the lower performance schools in practices such as whole deliberates and decisions-making and follows its established policies when making decisions. And another difference is about regular control of the school operation and activities. Among the control types of school operations and activities, the higher performance schools are differenced to the lower performance schools in the sense that they use three of school board control, notably the LSB Direct Control, the LSB Indirect Control and the LSB Non-Control of Activities. However, the LSB leadership and control are affirmed as extremely important in the both group of school.\par
The higher performance schools privilege also six on nine LSB competences (key-works) in particular school board sets and tweaks school assessment policies to answer student needs. For example, when we see our students struggling in one teaching subject we work to solve that leaning difficulties (Assessment); sets and tweaks school academic in answer to student needs (Standard); the members take responsibility for past decisions and control decision-making implementation (Accountability); during LSB meeting the members open are about how they feel about other members' preferences and avoid conflicting situations (Climate); school board members look for a superintendent or principal that shares the values of, and is willing to be a collaborator with, the school board, (Collaboration) and regularly listen to the ideas of organized interest groups and act one to their input when we deem it appropriate, (the Commitment). This LSB component is more considered in higher performance schools. Similar results were found by \hyperref[b12]{Ford (2012;}\hyperref[b13]{2013)} with what relates to accountability, collaboration and commitment. In additional, standards, Assessment and climate are also found the same results by The Iowa Association of School Boards in US. It was found that after many years of intensive work with school boards, all district schools had an upsurge in state examinations scores and board members displayed has far greater understanding of how schools positively impact achievement student (Delagardele 2008).\par
In the group of the higher performance schools the problems arise either occasionally, or seldom or never. Even if overall the types or natures of problems are not different between the higher performance schools and lower performance but it is necessary to note several types of problems. It is about the conflict of financial controls (transparency); the conflict of power, responsibility and authority (Usurpation); interpersonal conflict and Intergroup (interest); the school Boards decisions-making and application follow-up; the work conditions and respect of the laws and the lack Resources problem and training set of Boards Members. 
\section[{b) What are the findings of this study?}]{b) What are the findings of this study?}\par
In several developing countries as RD Congo, parents are main source of school financing (77\%). The LSB is the governance strategic body where the parents have rights of decision-making in school governance and school resources management (financial, human and materiel) and control of pedagogic or teaching quality and quantity. The quality of LSB governance affects the school outcomes or pupils' academic performance. The effectiveness of LSB governance must be evaluated in order to maintain them, adjust them or to proceed by a new reform. This study generates double contributions to objective evaluation of LSB Governance (theoretical and practically).\par
In theoretical perspectives, firstly, this study elaborates the LSB Components and constructs the profile or characteristic of effective LSB governance in the context where the school operation is mainly supported financially and materially by the pupils' parents.\par
Secondly, this study forged the conceptualization of LSB as "Homeostasis of Machine Government of School as Body. LSB as one "head" of school machine of leadership and control of which has the vision, legality, mandate and power in decisionmaking, planning, control and expending of available school resources. LSB as "Laboratory" of school machine government (ordinary meeting) works by the search-action logic. One considers as priority, the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the school products (pupils) of the production unit (school) of the education system in search of effectiveness, efficiency, maintenance and balance of the school. LSB as "Alarm" of school machine government (extraordinary meeting) symbolizes an automatic and detective alarm of imbalance from non-normal school life to normal and to deal with the pupils learning difficulties. LSB as "quality circle" of school machine government comprise of educational experts (school principal, teachers, pedagogic advisers and discipline staff, the parents or members of committee of the parents) of school human, financial and material resources management. They work in order to transform the input to output (pupils). LSB symbolizes a "black box" which identifies and manages the several problems of the school organization and operations. They are able to diagnose, forecast and apply therapy in sense to solve all problems of school.\par
In practical and socio-political perspective, the findings of this study show that the higher performance schools focused more on the LSB Competences component than LSB Characteristics and LSB leadership and control. More attention should focus on these aspects when the stakeholders or lower performance schools of educational system should invest in effective way. The lower performance schools and stakeholders should be inspired from the findings of this study in order to evaluate the effectiveness of their local school board and make it effective. 
\section[{c) What are Study Limitations and research perspectives?}]{c) What are Study Limitations and research perspectives?}\par
This study surveyed 224 school boards members of 16 primary schools of three province of DR Congo and 960 pupils' academic achievement in the national examinations. The results of this study cannot be generalized in all schools in DR Congo. However this study produced the profile of effective LSB. National longitudinal studies on the impact of profile of Local school board governance on the pupils academic performances deserve to be carried out thoroughly and longitudinal perspectives. \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_2}Figure 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_3}Figure 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png}
\caption{\label{fig_4}Figure 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5}\includegraphics[]{image-5.png}
\caption{\label{fig_5}Figure 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6}\includegraphics[]{image-6.png}
\caption{\label{fig_6}Figure 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{8}\includegraphics[]{image-7.png}
\caption{\label{fig_7}Figure 8 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{9}\includegraphics[]{image-8.png}
\caption{\label{fig_8}Figure 9 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{10}\includegraphics[]{image-9.png}
\caption{\label{fig_9}Figure 10 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-10.png}
\caption{\label{fig_10}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5928290766208252\textwidth}P{0.11522593320235756\textwidth}P{0.14194499017681728\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Year 2019\\
Elaborate and control Strategic Budgetary Planning Control the teaching activities and quality Control of learning and the disciplinary files relating to the? Implication and control of financial management and? Lead and control of School operation 0\% 20\% 40\% 60\% 80\% 100\% 20.40\% 39.80\% 26.50\% 8.20\% 5.10\% 48.40\% 17.50\% 8.70\% 11.90\% 13.50\%\tabcellsep More Performance School Less Performance School\tabcellsep Volume XIX Issue VIII Version I G )\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep (\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Global Journal of Human Social Science -\\
\tabcellsep © 2019 Global Journals\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06141215106732348\textwidth}P{0.3070607553366174\textwidth}P{0.09351395730706076\textwidth}P{0.013957307060755337\textwidth}P{0.01954022988505747\textwidth}P{0.05722495894909688\textwidth}P{0.05722495894909688\textwidth}P{0.09072249589490967\textwidth}P{0.05722495894909688\textwidth}P{0.09211822660098523\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Vision\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{Assessment Alignment Standards Accountability Climate}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Collaboration Engagement}\tabcellsep Continuous Improvement\\
Corrél.\tabcellsep 0.018\tabcellsep 0.245***\tabcellsep 0.025\tabcellsep 0.451***\tabcellsep 0.292***\tabcellsep 0.266***\tabcellsep 0.314***\tabcellsep 0.314***\tabcellsep 0.120\\
(P-value\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{(p=0.790) (p=0.000) (p=0.717) (p=0.000)}\tabcellsep (p=0.000)\tabcellsep (p=0.000)\tabcellsep (p=0.000)\tabcellsep (p=0.000)\tabcellsep (p=0.073)\\
and SE)\tabcellsep \multicolumn{8}{l}{(V=0.066) (SE=0.062) (SE=0.066) (SE=0.042) (SE=0.061) (SE=0.063) (SE=0.059) (SE=0.059)}\tabcellsep (0.067)\\
Corrél.\tabcellsep 1.219\tabcellsep 15.481\tabcellsep 1.148\tabcellsep 53.942\tabcellsep 25.398\tabcellsep 21.083\tabcellsep 23.345\tabcellsep 23.345\tabcellsep 6.648\\
(P-value\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{(p=0.888) (p=0.005) (p=0.897) (p=0.000)}\tabcellsep (p=0.000)\tabcellsep (P=0.000)\tabcellsep (p=0.000)\tabcellsep (p=0.000)\tabcellsep (p=0.156)\\
and SE)\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{(V=0.074) (V=0.0263) (V=0.072) (V=0.491)}\tabcellsep (V=0.337)\tabcellsep (V=0.307)\tabcellsep (V=0.323)\tabcellsep (V=0.323)\tabcellsep (V=0.172)\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2019 Global Journals} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[ Progressive Policy Institute]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{Progressive Policy Institute}  		p. 21.  	 
\bibitem[ Century Schools Project]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		\textit{},  		 \url{http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED477345.pdf}  	 	 		\textit{Century Schools Project}  		 	 
\bibitem[Rdcongo-Epsp ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		\textit{},  		 			Rdcongo-Epsp 		.  		2011.  	 
\bibitem[Shleifer and Vishny ()]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		‘A survey of corporate governance’.  		 			A Shleifer 		,  		 			R Vishny 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Finance}  		1997. 52 p. 737784.  	 
\bibitem[Pont et al. (2005)]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		‘Améliorer la direction des établissements scolaires’.  		 			B Pont 		,  		 			D Deborah Nusche 		,  		 			H Moorman 		.  		 \url{http://www.oecd.org/fr/edu/scolaire/44374906.pdf34}  	 	 		\textit{politiques et pratiques},  				 			S Ranson,  			C Farrell,  			N Peim,  			P Smith 		 (ed.)  		2008. 2005a. September. OECD. 1 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bouvier ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		 			A Bouvier 		.  		\textit{La gouvernance des systèmes éducatifs},  				 (Paris)  		2007. PUF.  	 
\bibitem[Caldwell ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		 			B Caldwell 		.  		\textit{School-based management},  				 (Paris)  		2005. UNESCO/IEP. 3.  	 
\bibitem[Leithwood ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘Characteristics of school districts that are exceptionally successful in closing the achievement gap’.  		 			K Leithwood 		.  	 	 		\textit{Leadership and Policy in Schools}  		2010. 9 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bédard and Et Mombourquette ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Conceptualizing Alberta District Leadership Practices: A Cross Case Analysis},  		 			G Bédard 		,  		 			C Et Mombourquette 		.  		2013.  		 			University of Lethbridge, Alb 		 	 
\bibitem[Baysinger and Butler ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Corporate governance and the board of directors: performance effects of changes in board composition’.  		 			B Baysinger 		,  		 			H Butler 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Law, Economics, and Organizations}  		1985. 1 p. 101124.  	 
\bibitem[Creswell ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		 			J W Creswell 		.  		\textit{Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research},  				 (Boston)  		2012. Pearson Education, Inc.  	 	 (fourth edition) 
\bibitem[Lunenburg and Ornstein (ed.) ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		\textit{Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices, Sixth Edition},  		 			F Lunenburg 		,  		 			C A Ornstein 		.  		Wadsworth-Belmont: ed. Cengage Learning (ed.)  		2012.  	 
\bibitem[Sergiovanni et al. ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		\textit{Educational governance and administration},  		 			T J Sergiovanni 		,  		 			P Kelleher 		,  		 			M Mccarthy 		,  		 			F C Fowler 		.  		2011. Beijing, Pearson Education.  	 	 (6th ed.) 
\bibitem[Smoley ()]{b42}\label{b42} 	 		\textit{Effective School Boards: Strategies for Improving Board Performance},  		 			E R Smoley 		.  		1999. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  	 
\bibitem[Ellis and Fouts ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		 			A Ellis 		,  		 			J Fouts 		.  		\textit{Research on Educational Innovations},  				 (Princeton: NJ)  		1993. 1997. Eye on Education.  	 
\bibitem[Leithwood and Menzies ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		‘Forms and effects of school-based management: a review’.  		 			K Leithwood 		,  		 			T Menzies 		.  	 	 		\textit{Educational policy}  		1998. 12  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Deckman ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Gender differences in the decision to run for school board’.  		 			M Deckman 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Politics Research}  		2007. 35  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lalancette ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		\textit{Gouvernance scolaire au Québec: Représentations chez les directions d'établissement d'enseignement et modélisation},  		 			L Lalancette 		.  		2014. Québec: FQDE.  	 
\bibitem[Kokouvi ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		\textit{Intelligibilité des pratiques des acteurs et nouveau paradigme d'intervention},  		 			T Kokouvi 		.  		 \url{http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/63287/Tkt1de1.pdf;jsessionid=83BE2E04EA3660319B7647EECCA7D44D?sequence=1}  		2012.  		 			Université de Lleida 		 	 	 (Thèse de doctorat) 	 (Gouvernance scolaire au Togo) 
\bibitem[Traoré ()]{b43}\label{b43} 	 		\textit{La gouvernance locale dans le secteur de l'Education au Mali. Economies et finances},  		 			T M Traoré 		.  		 \url{https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01293937/documen}  		2015.  		 			Université de Toulon 		 	 
\bibitem[Mrsic-Garac ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		‘Le modèle participatif à l'épreuve du champ éducatif congolais (RDC)’.  		 			S Mrsic-Garac 		.  	 	 		\textit{Société civile et éducation. Le partenariat à l'épreuve du terrain},  		Academia Bruylant  		 			P Petit 		 (ed.)  		2010. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Anonymous ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		‘Management et leadership de la classe’.  		 			Anonymous 		.  	 	 		\textit{Papier de conférence scientifique à la Sous-coordination des écoles conventionnées catholiques de Ndjili},  				 (Kinshasa)  		2016.  		 			Université Pédagogique Nationale 		 	 
\bibitem[Ministériel (2011)]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		\textit{modifiant et complétant l'Arrêté N°Minepsp/ Cabmin/0311/2007 du 11/10/2007 portant organisation et fonctionnement du conseil de gestion au sein des établissements scolaires d'enseignement maternel, primaire},  		 			Arrêté Ministériel 		,  		 			N°minepsp 		.  		Cabmin/ 0827/2011 du 06/09/2011.  	 	 (secondaire et professionnel) 
\bibitem[Creswell ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches},  		 			J W Creswell 		.  		2014. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.  	 	 (4th ed.) 
\bibitem[Rd Congo and Resen ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		\textit{Revue des Dépenses Publiques du secteur de l'éducation en République Démocratique du Congo: Une Analyse d'Efficience},  		 			- Rd Congo 		,  		 			Resen 		.  		2014.  	 	 (d'Efficacité et d'Équité) 
\bibitem[Smith ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		‘Saving black boys’.  		 			R Smith 		.  	 	 		\textit{School Administrator}  		2005. 62  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lugaz and De Grauwe ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{School and centralization: experiences and challenges from French-speaking Africa},  		 			C Lugaz 		,  		 			A De Grauwe 		.  		2006. Paris: UNESCO/IIEP.  	 
\bibitem[Hess ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘School boards at the dawn of the 21st century. Conditions and Challenges of District Governance’.  		 			F M Hess 		.  		 \url{http://www.nvasb.org/assets/school\textunderscore boards\textunderscore at\textunderscore the\textunderscore dawn\textunderscore of\textunderscore the\textunderscore 21st\textunderscore century.pdf}  	 	 		\textit{National School Boards Association}  		2002.  	 
\bibitem[Hess and Meeks ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		\textit{School Boards Circa 2010: Governance in an Accountability Era},  		 			F Hess 		,  		 			O Meeks 		.  		2011. Washington D.C.: National School Board Association.  	 
\bibitem[Hill ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		\textit{School boards: Focus on school performance, not money and patronage},  		 			P T Hill 		.  		2004.  	 
\bibitem[O'donoghue et al. ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		\textit{School Development Planning and Classroom Teacher: a Western Australian Cas-stady. School Organisation},  		 			O'donoghue 		,  		 			.-A Th 		,  		 			C Dimmock 		.  		1996. 16 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Murphy and Beck ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		\textit{School-Based Management as School Reform},  		 			J Murphy 		,  		 			L Beck 		.  		1995. Calfornia: SAGE, Thousand Oaks.  	 
\bibitem[Jossey-Bass ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		\textit{School-Based Management, Organizing for High Performance},  		 			Jossey-Bass 		.  		1994. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.  	 
\bibitem[Fama and Et Jensen ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Separation of ownership and control’.  		 			E F Fama 		,  		 			M C Et Jensen 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Law and Economics}  		1983. 26 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ford ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{The Impact of School Board Gender Representation on K-12 Fiscal and Academic Outcomes in Wisconsin School Districts},  		 			M Ford 		.  		2012.  	 	 (Paper presented at the 175 Conference of the Urban Affairs Association) 
\bibitem[Ford ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘The Impact of School Board Governance on Academic Achievement in Diverse States’.  		 			M Ford 		.  		 \url{http://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334\&context=etd}  	 	 		\textit{Theses and Dissertations},  				2013. 2013.  		 			University of Wisconsin Milwaukee 		 	 
\bibitem[Gemberling et al. ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{The Key Work of School Boards Guidebook},  		 			K W Gemberling 		,  		 			C W Smith 		,  		 			J S Villani 		.  		2000. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.  	 
\bibitem[Delagardelle (ed.) ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		\textit{The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of School Board Leadership in the Improvement of Student Achievement},  		 			M Delagardelle 		.  		T. Alsbury (ed.)  		2008. Blue Ridge, PA: Rowman \& Littlefield.  	 	 (The Future of School Board Governance: Relevancy and Revelation) 
\bibitem[Ranson et al. ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		‘The Participation of Volunteer Citizens in School Governance’.  		 			S Ranson 		,  		 			M Arnott 		,  		 			P Mckeown 		,  		 			J Martin 		,  		 			P Smith 		.  	 	 		\textit{Educational Review}  		2005b. 57  (3) .  	 	 (Août) 
\bibitem[Eliot ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Toward an understanding of public school politics’.  		 			T Eliot 		.  	 	 		\textit{The American Political Science Review}  		1959. 53  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lunenburg ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		‘VA: National School Boards Association’.  		 			F Lunenburg 		,  		 			OrnsteinA 		.  	 	 		\textit{Hess},  				 (Alexandria)  		2009. 2010. 91 p. .  	 	 (Weighing the Case for School Boards) 
\bibitem[Lachmann ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		\textit{Vers des établissements scolaires autonomes},  		 			H Lachmann 		.  		2001. Lyon.  	 	 (Institut Montaigne) 
\bibitem[Grossen ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		\textit{What Does It Mean to be a Research-Based Profession?},  		 			B Grossen 		.  		 \url{http://personalweb.donet.com/\textasciitilde eprice/resprf.htm}  		1998a.  		 			University of Oregon 		 	 
\bibitem[Grossen (ed.) ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{What's Gone Wrong in American Classrooms},  		 			B Grossen 		.  		W.M. Evers (ed.)  		1998b. Hoover Press. p. .  	 	 (What is wrong with American Education) 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
