Facing an Uncertain Future: An Investigation of the Preparation and Readiness of First-Time Superintendents to Lead in a Democratic Society

The preparation of superintendents is a critical component, an essential element, of systemic education reform, although as (Cooper, Fusarelli, Jackson, & Poster, 2002) observed, “the process is rife with difficulties,” including synchronization of preparation and actual practice, the theory-practice disconnect, the need for life-long learning, and development of an adequate knowledge base (Cooper et al., 2002, p. 242). The vast majority of research on the efficacy of administrator preparation programs focuses on principals. Most doctoral programs in educational administration serve as de facto preparation programs for superintendents, even though some contain little coursework specifically tailored for the position (Andrews & Grogan, 2002). A number of scathing reports critical of university-based preparation programs for school administrators, coupled with increasingly conservative state legislatures, have produced some significant changes in licensure for school administrators. Licensing requirements for superintendents have been eliminated or lowered in a growing number of states. For example, 9 states no longer require a license; among the remaining 41 states, 54% grant waivers or emergency licenses and 37% allow or sanction alternative routes to licensure (Feistritzer, 2003). In addition, recommendations to make administrative licensing voluntary across all states (Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003; Hess, 2003) and to discontinue doctoral programs for practitioners (Levine, 2005) have received an inordinate amount of national media attention. Recognizing that efforts to lower the qualifications and stature of school superintendents are gaining momentum, Kowalski (2004) has recommended a concerted effort to improve the professional knowledge base on practice in this position. One purpose of this endeavor is to ensure that policymakers will at least have an opportunity to examine empirical evidence as they evaluate anti-professionist contentions and intentions. This study focuses on arguably the most relevant consideration in relation to preparation and licensure—the experiences of first-time superintendents. Subjects included novice public school superintendents employed at the beginning of the 2004-05 school year in four states: California, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio. The overarching objectives 3 were to (a) produce profiles of the novice superintendents, (b) produce profiles of the employing school districts, (c) identify the dispositions of novices toward their academic preparation, and (d) compare outcomes across the four states

Novice Superintendents and the Efficacy of Professional Preparation

The preparation of superintendents is a critical component and essential element of systemic education reform. However, Cooper, Fusarelli, Jackson, and Poster (2002) remind us that, ―the process is rife with difficulties‖ (p. 242), including synchronization of preparation and actual practice, the theory-practice disconnect, the need for life-long learning, and development of an adequate knowledge base. In light of these complexities, two facts are especially noteworthy: The vast majority of research on the efficacy of administrator preparation programs has focused on the principalship (Kowalski, 2006b), and most doctoral programs in educational administration have de facto become preparation programs for superintendents, even though some contain little coursework specifically tailored for the position (Andrews & Grogan, 2002)

Facing and Uncertain Future: An Investigation of the Preparation and Readiness of First-Time Superintendents to Lead in a Democratic Society

The preparation of superintendents is a critical component, an essential element, of systemic education reform, although as (Cooper, Fusarelli, Jackson, & Poster, 2002) observed, “the process is rife with difficulties,” including synchronization of preparation and actual practice, the theory-practice disconnect, the need for life-long learning, and development of an adequate knowledge base (Cooper et al., 2002, p. 242). The vast majority of research on the efficacy of administrator preparation programs focuses on principals. Most doctoral programs in educational administration serve as de facto preparation programs for superintendents, even though some contain little coursework specifically tailored for the position (Andrews & Grogan, 2002). A number of scathing reports critical of university-based preparation programs for school administrators, coupled with increasingly conservative state legislatures, have produced some significant changes in licensure for school administrators. Licensing requirements for superintendents have been eliminated or lowered in a growing number of states. For example, 9 states no longer require a license; among the remaining 41 states, 54% grant waivers or emergency licenses and 37% allow or sanction alternative routes to licensure (Feistritzer, 2003). In addition, recommendations to make administrative licensing voluntary across all states (Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003; Hess, 2003) and to discontinue doctoral programs for practitioners (Levine, 2005) have received an inordinate amount of national media attention. Recognizing that efforts to lower the qualifications and stature of school superintendents are gaining momentum, Kowalski (2004) has recommended a concerted effort to improve the professional knowledge base on practice in this position. One purpose of this endeavor is to ensure that policymakers will at least have an opportunity to examine empirical evidence as they evaluate anti-professionist contentions and intentions. This study focuses on arguably the most relevant consideration in relation to preparation and licensure—the experiences of first-time superintendents. Subjects included novice public school superintendents employed at the beginning of the 2004-05 school year in four states: California, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio. The overarching objectives 3 were to (a) produce profiles of the novice superintendents, (b) produce profiles of the employing school districts, (c) identify the dispositions of novices toward their academic preparation, and (d) compare outcomes across the four states

Changing Times, Changing Relationships: An Exploration of the Relationship Between Superintendents and Boards of Education

Historically in the United States, states have delegated much of their authority over educational policy to local school districts. However, reform and restructuring efforts as well as a weakening economy have placed enormous political and financial pressure on schools to do more with less, yet continue to demonstrate effective leadership at the district level. Research literature focused on district leadership indicates that the relationship between the superintendent and board of education has a significant impact on the quality of a district\u27s educational program. This conceptual paper explores the implications of three distinct trends on the relationship between superintendents and boards of education: (1) changing demographics; (2) changes brought about by school reform; and (3) changes in superintendents themselves. The heart of this paper explores the impact of these trends on superintendent-board relationships in the future. After examining current research on superintendent-board relations, the paper examines recent demographic trends and speculates whether changing demographics would alter, in any substantive way, relations between superintendents and boards of education. In a similar vein, how do reforms such as the development of more comprehensive accountability systems (often tied to performance or merit pay for administrators) and changes in school governance models (such as the Chicago model) impact the relationship between superintendents and their school boards? Finally, how do changes in superintendents themselves-in their training and work experiences-affect their relations with school boards? Essentially, we ask whether any of these changes will influence or alter relations between superintendents and school boards and, if so, in what ways? The essay concludes by posing a series of Interesting Questions meant to stimulate discussion and further research into board-superintendent relations