Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

(USC Thesis Other)

Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES SUPERINTENDENTS UTILIZE IN BUILDING
POLITICAL COALITIONS TO INCREASE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

by

Damian Ariel Kessler

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2012

Copyright 2012 Damian Ariel Kessler

ii

DEDICATION
I dedicate my dissertation to my beautiful and loving wife Carmen, who, for the
past 8 years, has always supported my pursuit of knowledge and encouraged me to
realize my dreams. To my mother Aida, my mother in law Carmen Costa, my aunt
Farideh, my uncle Saul and my brother Gabriel who encouraged me every step of this
incredible journey. To the loving memory of my father Enrique. To my colleagues,
classmates and friends Hilda Flores and Edd Bond who made sure that I “stay on the
track.” And to the wonderful students of the Compton Unified School District.
Without them, none of these words would have any purpose.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research would have never been completed without the support,
encouragement and efforts of several individuals. Sincere thanks to my dissertation
committee: Dr. Rudy M. Castruita, Dr. Pedro E. Garcia and Dr. Rudolph (Rudy) Crew,
all who provided me guidance and support. Dr. Castruita, as my dissertation chair, set
challenging goals, encouraged me and offered guidance along this journey. He is an
example of professionalism, dedication and leadership who has inspired me not only
with his lectures, but also with his example of integrity and commitment to the
fascinating field of education.
Finally, to the superintendents and board members who participated in this
study, especially to those who generously shared their knowledge and experiences
during the one-on-one interviews.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

ABSTRACT viii

CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 7
Assumptions of the Study 8
Limitations 9
Delimitations 9
Definition of Terms 10
Organization of the Study 11

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 12
Introduction 12
Contemporary Perspectives of the Urban Superintendency 12
Changes in the Roles of School Boards and Superintendents 14
Today’s Challenges for Urban School Superintendents 15
Changing Role Conceptualization of the Superintendent under NCLB 18
Superintendents and Interest Groups 21
Working with Stakeholders 23
Superintendents as Instructional Leaders 26
Conclusion 31

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 33
Introduction 33
Research Questions 33
Rationale for a Mixed Method Study 34
Research Design 35
Oral Interviews 36
Instrument Validity 39
Ethical Considerations 40
Data Analysis 41
Summary 41

v

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 43
Introduction 43
Research Questions 43
Organization of Data Analysis 44
Oral Interviews 47
Presentation of Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents 48
Research Question One 54
Research Question Two 68
Research Question Three 81
Summary 83

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS 86
Introduction 86
Purpose of the Study 87
Research Questions 87
Review of the Literature 88
Methodology 89
Findings 90
Limitations 93
Implications and Recommendations 93
Conclusion 94

REFERENCES 96

APPENDICES 100
Appendix A: Online Survey Instrument 100
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 105
Appendix C: Information Sheet 106
Appendix D: Online Survey Cover Email 108
Appendix E: Statement of Consent 109
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Gender of Superintendents and Board Members

49
Table 2: Superintendent and Board Member Ethnicity

49
Table 3: Superintendent and Board Member Age

50
Table 4: Superintendent and Board Members Educational Attainment

51
Table 5: Superintendent and Board Members Professional
Experience in Education

52
Table 6: Superintendent and Board Member Years of Experience in Office

53
Table 7: Superintendent and Board Member Ability to Speak a Language
Other Than English

53
Table 8: Superintendents’ Responses for Positive Working Relationships

55
Table 9: Superintendents’ Responses for Goal Setting Strategies

57
Table 10: Superintendents’ Responses for Clear Channels of
Communication

59
Table 11: Superintendents’ Responses for Board Roles and Responsibilities

60
Table 12: Superintendents’ Responses for Politically Astute

61
Table 13: Superintendents’ Responses for Ability to Communicate
with the Board

62
Table 14: Superintendents’ Responses for Strategies to Create
and Manage Teams

63
Table 15: Superintendents’ Responses for Political Nature of the
Superintendency

65
Table 16: Superintendents’ Responses for Leadership Skills

66
Table 17: Superintendents’ Responses for Knowledge of District
Management

67
Table 18: Board Members’ Responses for Positive Working Relationship 68
Table 19: Board Members’ Responses for Goal Setting Strategies 70
vii

Table 20: Board Members’ Responses for Clear Channels of
Communication

71
Table 21: Board Members’ Responses for Board Roles
and Responsibilities

73
Table 22: Board Members’ Responses for Politically Astute

75
Table 23: Board Members Responses’ for Ability to Communicate with the
Board

76
Table 24: Board Members Responses’ for Strategies to Create and Manage
Teams

77
Table 25: Board Members Responses’ for Political Nature of the
Superintendency

78
Table 26: Board Members Responses’ for Leadership Skills

79
Table 27: Board Members Responses’ for Knowledge of District
Management

80
Table 28: Positive Working Relationship Indicators

84
Table 29: Coalition Building Strategies 85

viii

ABSTRACT
Superintendents of public urban schools face tremendous pressure to increase
student achievement. Leadership at the district level, particularly the relationship
between the superintendent and the governing board of education, has a direct impact
on student achievement. The purpose of this study was to find strategies that school
superintendents utilize to create political working coalitions that lead to school reform
and student achievement.
Three research questions were used on the design of this mixed-methods study.
Data was collected though six designed standardized open-ended interviews and a self-
report online survey that was sent to superintendents and board members of 30
Southern California school districts with similar characteristics.
The research study provided several key findings. First, superintendents
identified that strategies to communicate with the board, to achieve goals and
understand the political nature of the position, are necessary for a successful
superintendency. Second, board members identified that strategies to communicate
with the board, strategies to establish positive working relationships between the
superintendent and the board, and knowledge of district management and leadership
skills, are necessary for a successful superintendency. Finally, superintendents self-
reported that a combination of traditional academic programs, prior leadership
experiences, and working with mentors and peers provided valuable experiences to
prepare them for the challenges of the superintendency.
1
CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
As the global economy develops and the job market needs highly educated
individuals, there is a huge demand for schools to supply a new labor force. In
response to this demand, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires that all
students reach high academic standards and attain proficiency levels in English
Language Arts and Mathematics by the 2013-2014 school year. This standards-based
legislation aims at closing the achievement gap between high and low performing
students. The cornerstone of The No Child Left Behind Act is a test-based
accountability system that includes policies, standards, assessments, rewards and
punishments based on set benchmarks (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003; Stecher, Hamilton
& Gonzalez, 2003). Under this framework, schools are responsible for meeting federal
and state regulations as measured by the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and the
Academic Performance Index (API).
A large number of urban schools serve a disproportionately large amount of
minority students from low socioeconomic status. These students have traditionally
underperformed on standardized assessments, and, consequently, most of the schools
they attend have been identified as Program Improvement under the No Child Left
Behind Act. One of the biggest challenges that education leaders face today is a
dysfunctional system that has not been designed to provide equal access to all students
(Elmore, 2002). There are isolated examples of urban minority-serving schools that
meet the No Child Left Behind Act requirements. These schools are usually referred to
2

as “pockets of excellence” and, even though their success is well documented, it has not
been possible to replicate their models on a large scale (Childress, Elmore & Grossman,
2006). Educational leaders, at all levels, have unsuccessfully looked for guidance to
comply with the federal mandate and to make their schools as effective as possible
(Stecher et al., 2003).
One of the reasons for this failure resides in the structural design of our public
educational system and the interactions that dictate how we operate and implement
school policy at the district and school levels (Childress, et al., 2006). The biggest
accountability issue facing educational leaders today is a dysfunctional system that has
not been designed to provide equal access to all students (Elmore, 2002). There is no
management model or clear guideline on how to enhance school performance, and
districts are complex structures where different interest groups have different ideas on
how to implement improvement (Childress, et al., 2006).
In order to comply with federal and state mandates, school districts must
introduce multiple structures intended to increase student achievement such as (a)
district-wide content area assessments; (b) district-wide pacing guides and aligned
curriculum that includes K-12 curriculum frameworks, maps, or guides and sample
instructional strategies with state standards; (c) grade-level expectations, and district-
wide course unit and lesson plans; (d) assessment and data management software
packages; (e) extended school day; (f) quarterly benchmark assessments for all content
areas; (g) support for new principals; (h) district-wide systems of interventions for
struggling students and English learners; (i) The California Beginning Teacher Support
3

and Assessment (BTSA); and (j) investment of considerable resources in professional
development workshops to support district-wide academic initiatives. When district
efforts are perceived as dismembered, they create conflicts between state and local
demands and might lead to the abandonment of any initiative for school reform
(Datnow, 2005).
As school districts face tremendous pressure to increase students’ measurable
outcomes, interest groups begin to play a dominant role in shaping educational policy
(Cibulka, 2001). At the same time, with the creation of district-wide standards,
measures and assessments, school superintendents and school boards are now held
accountable for the performance of students (Craig, 2009). Despite the overwhelming
amount of research that indicates that it takes years to turn a district around, urban
superintendents are under constant pressure to increase student achievement as soon as
they take office.
As superintendents perceive increased accountability, they also perceive a
decrease in autonomy to implement change because big urban school districts are
complex and unique entities that cannot be managed following the framework of
traditional business (Childress, et al., 2006). During the past two decades, a growing
number of interest groups trying to influence education policy at all levels of the system
have shaped the need to manage conflict among all participating groups within an
educational organization (Cibulka, 2001). Such interest groups influence decisions
made at the district and school level, forcing educators to maneuver within the broad
structures of urban political contexts (Mallen, 2001). According to Björk and Lindle
4

(2001), this is the democratic nature of the U.S public education system, and it is based
on a political foundation of competing interest groups which define a working
environment of participation, shared decision making, shared governance and
conflicting political interests which align with community expectations.
The ability to develop and sustain cooperative relationships that foment student
achievement among such influential educational organizations has become a formidable
task as school districts have become more susceptible to the influence of power groups.
Becoming an appointed official and holding legal authority is not sufficient to govern
successfully; urban superintendents and urban school boards are not often the central
actors in school reform coalitions (Shipps, 2003). Elected officials must seek support
from non-government parties such as business associations, local faith groups, unions,
foundations, and neighborhood groups, among others. Consequently, in the last years,
the role of the superintendent has become more complex and demanding (Kowalski,
2005).
The office of the superintendent was created in the 1840s, and superintendents
were charged with administering all aspects of the district, a role that emerged as a
tribute to the corporate values of efficiency (Björk & Lindle, 2001). However, as city
populations grew between 1820 and 1860, members of urban school boards became
overwhelmed by the enormity of their task (Björk & Lindle, 2001). From that day to
this, there has been a prevailing tense relationship between the boards and the
superintendents, resulting in both short superintendent tenure and an increased inability
to implement school reform. This tension has been characterized by a small group of
5

selected individuals who have access to the political power and do not tolerate
opposition, in particular during periods of educational reform (Björk & Lindle, 2001).
In today's reform-minded environment, citizens and educational leaders point,
with concern, to the high rate of turnover among urban superintendents and to the large
number of vacancies in city superintendencies that attract few candidates. Board
members and superintendents must face external and internal forces while dealing with
the day-to-day operation of schools, demands for specific school policies and pressure
from all political spectrums of the community. All these factors contribute to the
experienced high levels of conflict and unwillingness to collaborate between these two
factions.
Studying the internal political litigations that exist within an urban school
district might generate a better understanding as to how interest groups materialize,
sustain and can be formed to promote student achievement. In addition, it is imperative
to analyze the political influences, within each community, that dictate the interaction
between boards and superintendents.
Statement of the Problem
In the era of school accountability, there is a moral and political imperative for
improving the relationships between school boards and superintendents. Most of the
research involving school board-superintendent relationships tends to define their roles
in a rather simplistic fashion; the board develops policy and the superintendent
administers it. However, in reality, this definition is rather murky and tends to create
more confusion than understanding.
6

The relationship between the school superintendent and school boards directly
affects the quality of a district’s educational program, and their inability to work
together has adverse consequences. As a result, both parties must toil together to
promote change and reform. As school governance evolves, conflicts between these
parties will continue to obstruct implementation of significant school reform, as finding
the right balance of political power among stakeholders is a main challenge in
reforming schools (Desimone, 2002). In the midst of this political debacle, urban
minority districts face enormous challenges, such as intensifying levels of poverty, the
changing conditions of families, declining resources, increasing numbers of children in
poor health, low achievement among minority students, and escalating violence and
crime in and around schools. At a time of constant pressure, it is necessary to find
replicable models of collaboration for successful urban school districts.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to find strategies that school superintendents can
apply to create working coalitions that are compatible with school reform. In
particular, the study focused on goals, beliefs and actions that will determine the
formation of a civic coalition that positively affected student achievement. This study
highlights superintendents who utilized sustainable leadership skills to increase student
achievement in large urban school districts.
Research Questions
1. What strategies do urban superintendents utilize to effectively build political
coalitions that allow for increasing student performance?
7

2. What strategies do members of the board of education suggest superintendents
must utilize in order to build political coalitions to increase student
achievement?
3. What experiences do urban superintendents self-report led them to gain political
skills?
Significance of the Study
The No Child Left Behind Act has created a transparent system of
accountability and opened the debate for public scrutiny as to the performance of urban
school districts. NCLB has set ambitious expectations based on fixed and measurable
performance targets, which challenge the dynamics of the traditional indicators of
quality of instruction and, arguably, reflect academic improvement. Even though
teachers and school administrators are held accountable for improving student
achievement on standardized assessments at the school level, the state government,
local boards of education and community stakeholders hold school superintendents
responsible for the entire student and school body within their districts. As a result,
school superintendents need to take a greater role as instructional leaders and adopt
strategies, functions and practices that can positively affect student achievement.
The findings of this study can provide resources to California urban
superintendents in their quest for improving the quality of instruction and learning in
their districts. In addition, the relationship between school board members and school
superintendents is key in the process of policy implementation aimed at improving the
quality of all instructional programs within a district. Consequently, it was the goal of
8

this study to identify vital competencies that will foment a positive and cooperative
working relationship between the superintendent and the board of education before
reaching a dysfunctional stage.
This study can be a resource for boards of education, which, driven by pressure
to transform underperforming schools, must identify qualities of instructional
leadership when hiring superintendents. Since little is known about effective leadership
practices that improve student achievement in traditionally underperforming minority-
urban districts, the findings from this study can a better understanding of the knowledge
and skills superintendents need in order to be successful.
The results of this study can help boards of education develop and implement
instruments to measure and evaluate superintendent competencies in diverse areas such
as leadership, consensus building, school reform and student academic achievement.
Furthermore, candidates to the position of superintendent could gain further knowledge
on how to develop effective working relationships among key political stakeholders.
Finally, the conclusions from this study can add to the existing literature and
preparation programs in the areas of district leadership and positive superintendent
practices and their influence on student achievement.
Assumptions of the Study
The following assumptions guided this investigation:
1. The responses of the superintendents were honest and sincere.
2. Superintendents in this study responded with accurate descriptions of their
functions, practices and strategies.
9

3. Superintendents truthfully identified competencies and strategies responsible for
building positive working coalitions with board members and key stakeholders.
4. The survey questionnaire and the reviewed literature were a valid instrument to
ensure that the obtained data answered the research questions.
Limitations
The following limitations of the study are recognized:
1. The data for this study was gathered through a survey of California public
school superintendents and board members over a three-month period beginning
in June 2011.
2. The results of this study are limited to the chosen superintendents and board
members and might not reflect larger populations.
3. The researcher is not a superintendent or board member and evaluated the data
based on the design of the research methodology.
4. Since the data includes self-identified competencies, results from the study
could be restricted by the self-identified functions, practices and strategies those
superintendents engage in at the reviewed school districts.
Delimitations
The investigation is limited by the following factors:
1. This is a mixed methods study of the necessary strategies identified by
superintendents and members of school boards of education for building
coalitions that promote school reform and increase student achievement.
10

2. The results of this study are delimited to the specific competencies used in the
survey.
3. The selected superintendents and board presidents held positions in California
public school districts during the time of this study.
4. The public school districts selected were unified and served students from
Kindergarten to twelfth grade and with a total district Average Daily Attendance
(ADA) of between 20,000 to 30,000 students during the time of the study.
Definition of Terms
Civic Capacity: A group of educators and non-educators in pursuit of a change
agenda for public schools (Shipps, 2003).
Coalition: The action or process of joining together with another or others for a
common purpose (Merriam-Webster: On-line, 2011).
Competencies: The ability to perform specific actions related to a specific group
(Merriam-Webster: On-line, 2011)
Factions: A group within a larger group that has different ideas and opinions
than the rest of the group (Merriam-Webster: On-line, 2011).
Comprehensive School Reform: A popular approach to school improvement,
intended to foster schoolwide change that affects all aspects of schooling (Desimone,
2002).
Interest Groups: Dominant actors representing sometimes conflicting interests
whose cooperation is required to endure school reform in the communities they
represent (Malen, 2001).
11

Regimes: Political arrangements, coalitions and understandings necessary for
management (Merriam-Webster: On-line, 2011).
Urban School Reform: A steady process of improving empirical knowledge
about changes required to meet the needs of disadvantaged children (Shipps, 2003).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter I presents the introduction,
statement of the problem, research questions to be answered, significance of the study,
limitations to the study, and delimitations of the study. It also defines the terms used in
the study. Chapter II presents a review of literature and selected research related to the
nature of the study. Chapter III presents the research methodology and procedures that
were used to develop the instrument and to gather the data. Chapter IV provides an
analysis of the data and presents the findings from the research. Chapter V summarizes
the study, contains research findings and the conclusions reached from the analysis of
those results. Recommendations from the study and recommendations for future
research are also presented in this last chapter.
12

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The main purpose of this study was to understand and determine strategies that
California urban superintendents utilize in order to build political coalitions that can
lead to school reform and increase student achievement. The literature review is
divided into five sections. The first section provides a description of school districts
governance and the law with the intention of clarifying the lines for governance of
schools. The second section reviews the historical overview pertaining to school
boards and the superintendency. The third section summarizes the current challenges
that school superintendents must face. The fourth section is intended to highlight the
relationships between superintendents and interest groups. The fifth section examines
the role of the superintendent as an instructional leader to have an impact on student
achievement. The chapter ends with a synthesis of the findings.
Contemporary Perspectives of the Urban Superintendency
Education is a function of each state, and the laws governing education are
complex and difficult to interpret (Townley, Schmieder-Ramirez, Wehmeyer & Lane,
2001). Each state has its own constitution that includes a provision for education.
Since its approval in 1879, the California Constitution has had a history of constant
dissatisfaction with the political authority exercised by local school agencies, resulting
in a state document filled with obsolete items and insignificant details regarding
education (Townley et al., 2001).
13

California Education Code Section 35010 grants control of school districts to a
local governing board of trustees (California Department of Education, 2011). These
boards, commonly known as school boards, must follow an extensive series of rules
and regulations spelled out in sections in the 35000 series of the Education Code
(Townley et al., 2001). California Education Code Section 35160.1 acknowledges that
school districts, county boards of education, and county superintendents of schools
have diverse needs, and grants them the flexibility to find their own solutions and
initiate their own programs or activities, as long as these actions do not conflict and are
not inconsistent with the pre-existing law and serve the purposes for which school
districts were established (California Department of Education, 2011).
California Education Code Section 35026 indicates that any school district that
employs at least eight teachers might also employ a superintendent to serve specific
duties (California Department of Education, 2011). The superintendent is directly
employed by the School Board and is responsible for implementing the board’s policies
(Bird, 2010). California Education Code Section 35035 describes the primary duties of
a district superintendent:
 Be the chief executive officer of the governing board of the district,
 Prepare and submit the district budget,
 Assign all positions that require certification qualifications,
 Enforce district policy regarding transfers of teachers from one site to another,
 Monitor that all employees of the district hold the necessary certification and
credentials required by law,
14

 Be involved in the process of signing contracts on behalf of the district and
 Submit all required financial and budget reports (California Department of
Education, 2011).
Even though state legislation indicates that school boards are empowered to
legislate and school superintendents are trusted to execute and manage daily operations,
the lines for governance of districts have always been difficult to interpret, resulting in
misunderstandings, confusion and conflicts (Townley et al., 2001). Consequently, the
relationship between a board of education and its superintendent of schools is usually
delicate and might be one of the contributing factors to the superintendent’s tenure.
Changes in the Roles of School Boards and Superintendents
In 1837, Massachusetts established the first board of education and, since then,
each state has delegated the daily supervision and operation of schools to local school
boards, composed of ordinary citizens who represent the interests of their communities
(Kowalski, 2005). Traditionally, local school boards were considered as the link
between the professional world of educators and the needs of the local population, an
exercise on the democratic values of our educational system. Through the years, school
boards have become responsible for functions as diverse as balancing the budget,
complying with state and federal legislation, and selecting, hiring and evaluating the
school superintendent (Townley et al., 2001). Even though district boards vary in their
composition and dynamics, Land (2002) identifies the following common
characteristics to most boards in the United States: local control, focus on specific
needs of the local population, oversight of the legislation, democratic representation
15

and reliance on the local superintendent for daily operations, management and
instruction. Nowadays, school boards’ actions have a direct impact on student
achievement and are a target of much criticism rooted in the large number of
underperforming students, particularly in urban districts, raising questions of whether
the current system is an effective one (Land, 2002).
As local populations increased, school boards’ responsibilities and duties
evolved from local authority to governance of the education process, requiring the
services of professional educators with formal training (Land, 2002). The position of
the superintendent was created in the 1800’s as school boards felt the need to give up
their control in favor of a top executive (Kowalski, 2005). Originally, the
superintendent was responsible for supervising instruction, ensuring all students receive
education, and monitoring the adoption of a uniform curriculum (Kowalski, 2005).
This position evolved as a response to demands in a growing field of education rather
than as a result of academic or professional preparation for this role (Kowalski, 2005).
As a result, today’s superintendent requires skills as diverse as gathering and presenting
information, making policy decisions, serving as a public spokesperson for the district,
and holding responsibility in areas as varied as fiscal management, student achievement
and federal and state regulations (Townley et al., 2001).
Today’s Challenges for Urban School Superintendents
Public education serves a fundamental role in our society, not only because it
satisfies the individual’s needs for schooling, but also because it serves a basic service
of producing individuals who can participate in the civic, economic, political, cultural
16

and social activities of our democratic society. Reasonable arguments would support
the need for the billions of dollars of public funds spent on the K-12 education system
every year in this country (Rice, Monk, & Zhang, 2010). Public education is,
fundamentally, the responsibility of each state and, since each state is responsible for
providing public education, local agencies and communities are responsible for its
delivery (Townley et al., 2001). States are also responsible for regulating and funding
public education. Historically, families and communities raised resources to sustain
local schools so all children could acquire basic skills and become productive members
of society. However, as our society evolved, the benefits of education became evident
and states began to require children to attend school (Townley et al., 2001). Since the
1800’s, states set out to assemble a system to support local educational agencies by
collecting revenues through local property taxes (Townley et al., 2001).
In these times, states are trusted with the task of raising revenue, allocating
resources and using them by dictating formulas that allocate per-pupil expenditures,
determining tax rates, distributing revenues, and employing different strategies to
promote equity (Rice et al., 2010). In California, education is a big business.
According to the California Department of Education (2011), the sources of public
education are a combination of state funds (52%), local taxes (32%), federal funds
(14%) and state lottery funds (1.2%). In many communities, education constitutes the
main source of employment, and, in California, public education-kindergarten through
community college-represents 40.33% of the state budget (Townley et al., 2001).
17

The reliance on state tax revenues to sustain public schools promoted the surge
of local interest groups, such as local businesses, faith based organizations and
community groups, which demanded control of local resources to promote their own
agendas, and, ultimately, became leading forces in shaping, promoting and
implementing state policies (Cibulka, 2001). In an effort to protect schools from
corrupt politicians, the Progressive Movement of the late 19
th
century began to
institutionalize a model of trusting professional educators to represent the interests of
the local communities, but did not free education from politics (Cibulka, 2001). Since
the late 1960’s, a series of policy actions at all levels of government transformed the
traditional local control of educational agencies into scattered pockets of authority,
agencies, and levels of government (Timar, 2003).
In the last two decades, very sophisticated and well-organized macro-political
interest groups emerged as main actors in educational reform, exacerbating conflicts
and vexing the process of sustaining a reform agenda (Cibulka, 2001). In the past few
years, the politics of education emerged from the monopoly of professional bureaucrats
and transformed into a series of frictions between different interest groups who pursue
their own agendas to maintain the prevailing status quo (Cibulka, 2001). Paradoxically,
these new interest, or issue, groups resulted as the Progressive Movement intended to
undermine organized political coalitions that form on a prevailing issue rather than as
coalitions for a long-term commitment for a cause (Cibulka, 2001).
Most Americans would agree on what constitutes a great school, that teachers
deserve better compensation, that there is a necessity to reduce teacher-student ratios in
18

the class and that a reasonable portion of the collected taxes should be allocated to
support education (Cibulka, 2001). As the economy becomes global, there is greater
demand for knowledge workers or individuals who possess the skills to solve new
problems, adapt to changing market conditions, and can work with autonomy (Clark &
Estes, 2008). There is a new sense of urgency for inculcating children with higher
order thinking skills, but, ironically, even though there is not much information about
what constitutes education efficiency, public schools are viewed as inefficient.
Furthermore, the current California school system is perceived as a collection of rules
and activities that do not have any coherence, (Townley et al., 2001) and schools are
held accountable for student performance although they lack autonomy and
independence to make decisions (Timar, 2003). In the era of school accountability and
diminished resources, superintendents must face that education policy is a rather
conflicting issue confined to the demands of improvised and professional political
power coalitions.
Changing Role Conceptualization of the Superintendent under NCLB
Traditionally, states were trusted to choose standards and assessments, and
implementing instructional strategies along with hiring stakeholders to implement
policy. However, after the publication of the 1983 federal commission report, A Nation
at Risk, states gained greater influence in legislating educational leadership (Leithwood
Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Timar, 2003). The necessity to compete with the
rest of the world resulted in a new politics of education productivity or the passage of
regulation that ensured students could produce desired outcomes on standardized
19

assessments, which were designed to ensure the production of a competitive global
working force (Chibulka, 2001). Most studies recognize the importance of inculcating
students with problem-solving skills, which involve content understanding or domain
knowledge, domain specific problem-solving strategies and self-regulation skills
(O’Neil, 1999). Consequently, a new climate of scrutinizing curriculum content and
student learning started to demand schools spell out clear standards for assessing
student learning, allocation of resources for building teacher capacity and for reporting
strict measures for determining school and district accountability.
Implementing school reform has become extremely complex, and school
superintendents have been subject to very limited tenure to prove success (Cibulka,
2001). The biggest accountability issue facing educational leaders today is a
dysfunctional system that does not guarantee equal access to education for all students
(Elmore, 2002). There are no management models or clear guidelines on how to
enhance school performance, and districts are complex structures where different
interest groups have different ideas on how to implement improvement (Childress,
Elmore & Grossman, 2006). Today in the United States, any educational initiative or
reform would rely on the performance of students on standardized test assessments.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires that all students reach
high academic standards and attain proficiency levels in English Language Arts (ELA)
and Mathematics by the 2013-2014 school year. This standards-based legislation aims
to close the achievement gap between high- and low-performing students within a
framework of a test-based accountability system (Stecher, Hamilton & Gonzalez,
20

2003). A system of accountability includes policies, standards, assessments, rewards
and punishments based on set benchmarks (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003). This system
of rewards and consequences assumes that districts and schools have the flexibility and
knowledge to create high performing schools (Timar, 2003).
Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) define accountability as a contractual
relationship between two parties: a) the “provider” of a good or service, and b) the
“director” with the power to reward, punish or replace the provider. Within this
context, schools are responsible for meeting federal and state regulations as measured
by the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and the Academic Performance Index (API).
Schools that receive Title I funds that do not reach defined AYP for all its significant
subgroups of students must be identified as needing school improvement and face
consequences which vary from providing school tutoring services to complete school
restructuring (EdSource, 2005).
Drafted under the NCLB, the current methods of accountability are well
intentioned, but flawed (Linn, 2005). For example, NCLB assumes that highly
qualified teachers will help increase measurable student outcomes and sets the
requirements for teaching credentials, but it fails to identify the skills and
characteristics a teacher must have in order to be considered effective (Pelayo &
Brewer, 2010). Some of the difficulties that superintendents face with the current
legislation include 1) a fixed performance target that does not necessarily measure
academic improvement, 2) discrepancies on the definitions of proficiency levels across
states, and 3) the status quo and progress growth models that will most likely fail to
21

reach their goals for student achievement (Linn, 2005). Furthermore, low-performing-
urban school districts have difficulties attracting and retaining teachers (Hanushek,
Kain & Rivkin, 2004). According to the authors, teacher mobility is more related to
student characteristics than teacher salary. Since the passage of NCLB, the standards-
based reform movement has become a predominant force, installing an accountability
system that changed the role that superintendents play in trying to implement
educational change.
Superintendents and Interest Groups
Urban education is in urgent need of reform. School leaders have made
significant attempts to improve conditions, and some have succeeded. However,
excellence in public urban education is, arguably, an isolated event. One of the reasons
for this statement dwells in the failure of school superintendents to develop civic
capacity (Bjork & Lindle, 2001). Civic capacity can be defined as the ability to build
and maintain a broad social and political coalition across all sectors of the urban
community in order to reach a common goal (Ansell, Reckhow & Kelly, 2009). The
existence of conflicting interest groups is one of the attributes of public education
(Bjork & Lindle, 2001; Johnson, 2001). Failure to recognize that these political forces
are embedded in the communities and that they will affect the interactions between
boards and superintendents can be attributed to a series of apolitical decisions that have
shortened superintendents’ tenure. Despite the amount of research to support this
statement, superintendents continue to make naïve apolitical decisions (Bjork & Lindle,
2001).
22

Building civic coalitions involves a concert of different sectors of the
community-business, faith-based organizations, public officials and educators who are
willing to develop and implement a shared plan of action for a particular issue (Stone,
2001). The school board and superintendent must possess the necessary skills to
manage such an array of competing interests (Bjork & Lindle, 2001). Civic coalitions
are instruments of effective policy making, and the civic aspect recognizes the
importance of involving all community sectors (Ansell et al., 2009). It is difficult to
engage all stakeholders, particularly when dealing with issues that require broad and
long-lasting support. Dealing with social issues requires that a group of actors be
willing to set aside their own individual agendas in favor of pursuing the collective
good.
Ansell et al. (2009) analyzed the events that contributed to educational reform in
Oakland in 2006. The authors conclude that failing to recognize alliances and
relationships among interacting key political stakeholders endangers long-term success
of any reform agenda. When groups of diverse opinions try to collaborate, conflict will
become inevitable. Network analysis, or the study of the structure of alliance and
opposition, suggests that a mediated approach that takes into consideration focused
agendas can create a framework for dialogue and support for educational reform goals
(Ansell et al., 2009). Civic coalitions can emerge under conflicting circumstances, yet
they require managing fragile relationships between competing interest groups.
In education, members of the community, engaged in unorthodox interactions,
must take a proactive approach to initiate civic capacity (Stone, 2001). Sustainable
23

civic capacity requires the ability to engage not only strategic allies, but also a broad
base of participants motivated by a common principle. Since civic capacity centers
around community problems, public issues are emergent and can become abrasive.
Civic coalitions are fragile because traditional groups of influence do not tolerate
opposition (Bjork & Lindle, 2001). The consensus built to solve one issue might not be
transferable to solve another issue (Stone, 2001). Public schools are submissive to
existing control systems that are deeply rooted in our democratic values; consequently,
school reform is subordinate to institutional reform (Chubb & Moe 1988).
Mallen (2001) examined the micro-political dynamics of education as it relates
to interest groups. According to the author, these groups are motivated by the
allocation of large state and federal resources. Mallen (2001) considered four specific
dynamics that take place within this political framework: 1) the politics of interest
groups’ formation and maintenance, 2) the politics of group governance, 3) role and
subunit politics, and 4) the politics of ideologies. According to the author, the role of a
leader, in coalition building, is to mediate, to obtain a compromise from the different
political forces, and to monitor the balance of these dynamics. All interest groups have
a vital stake in defining educational problems and solutions a certain way. Well-known
organizations sponsor many of the transcendent educational reports; however,
establishments are not necessarily the advocates for social justice (Wray, 1991).
Working with Stakeholders
School districts are complex organizations with many different actors
representing diverse constituents with diverse objectives who need to be included in the
24

decision making process (Brazer & Keller, 2006). Today’s superintendents cannot
work in isolation and must be astute politicians, capable of assembling the needs of
conflicting interest groups while managing scarce resources in a field of unclear goals,
but strict consequences for disappointing performance. Most definitions of leadership
focus on two basic principles: providing direction and exercising influence (Leithwood,
Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004) and the theories of strategies for building
coalitions for organized forums do apply to the field of education (Eacott, 2008).
Avolio et al. (2004) affirm that authentic leadership has an impact on followers’
behaviors through a process of psychological and emotional identification that
ultimately leads to hope and trusting relationships. These concepts underline the ability
to make decisions that will affect the organization and individuals, but, fundamentally,
the ability to build and maintain collaborative teams to achieve a desired result. In fact,
it can be argued that, in most of the reported cases in which effective leadership
practices were associated with increased student achievement, they were credited to the
superintendents’ abilities to interact with the stakeholders and pre-exiting forces that
affected their school districts (Leithwood et al., 2004).
Interestingly, most of the political conflicts that originate in school districts find
their source in the struggle for allocating scarce resources (Bird, 2010). The district
budget is about managing money, but it has political connotations. The allocation of
resources will have a direct impact on all the significant stakeholders including
students, parents, teachers, community groups, public agencies, site administrators,
collective bargaining groups, and for- and non-profit organizations. For that reason,
25

superintendents should, for example, use the budget building process as not only an
opportunity to transform ideas into action, but as an opportunity to hear different points
of views and build consensus (Bird, 2010).
Regardless of the issue at stake, the strategies that superintendents adopt to
involve all stakeholders will have direct implications on any attempt to establish a
culture of collaboration. Superintendents make strategic decisions based on their
leadership styles and circumstances. However, superintendents who were able to
successfully involve multiple stakeholders did so by creating committees consisting of
representatives of all the political and influential forces in their districts (Brazer, Rich &
Ross, 2010). The goal of creating these committees is to reach consensus on crucial
issues that would directly affect one central issue, particularly if that issue is related to
student achievement (Brazer et al., 2010).
The ability to work with the school board is one of the most important
relationships a superintendent should develop. School boards are responsible for
overall policy and rely on the expertise of their superintendent for its implementation.
School boards are also influenced and pressured by stakeholders such as parents,
business leaders, community members, state and federal agencies and national and
regional associations (Brazer & Keller, 2006). Conflicts, misunderstandings and
miscommunication between the board and its superintendent can cause failure on policy
implementation and can have a negative effect on student achievement.
In sum, developing a vision for a well-integrated plan for instructional
improvement is at the core of the superintendent’s tenure and, in order to implement it
26

successfully, superintendents must create a forum where all stakeholders can interact
and communicate.
Superintendents as Instructional Leaders
The framework of the accountability system developed under NCLB has
disrupted the traditional strategies of ideologists and partisans, creating a diverse and
complicated environment for school reform (DeBray-Pelot & McGuinn, 2009). This
system has substantially changed the demands placed on educational leaders by asking
them to perform duties and roles outside their area of expertise and comfort (Elmore,
2005). In the last decade, district reforms were heavily influenced and guided by the
accountability implications of the NCLB (Hentschke, et al., 2009). However, most
educational strategies have failed because they were focused on one specific solution,
often structural, but not did not embrace all areas of the district, in particular classroom
instruction (Childress, Elmore & Grossman, 2006).
Educational issues are very complex. Educators need to be attuned to the latest
pedagogical developments and improvement requires different knowledge at different
stages of the process (Elmore, 2005). However, according to Cohn (2005), urban
superintendents are strongly committed to the goals set by NCLB, including 1) holding
schools accountable for student academic achievement, 2) analyzing data by subgroups,
and 3) complying with the legal requirements for hiring highly qualified teachers.
Waters and Marzano (2006) analyzed the influence of superintendents on student
achievement. The authors concluded that leadership at the district level has a direct
impact on student achievement, effective superintendents establish strategies for
27

achieving concrete goals, and superintendent tenure has a positive impact on student
achievement (Waters & Marzano, 2006). In a study that focuses on small, well-
performing urban districts in California, Hentschke, Nayfack and Wohlstetter (2009)
indicate that those superintendents reported that the legislation helped them to plan and
develop strategies for student success. Some of the common strategies adopted in the
studied districts include a focus in the academic achievement of all subgroups of
students, adoption of a new curriculum, development of a strategic plan, involvement of
all stakeholders, identification of low performing students, and a system of decision
making based on data analysis (Hentschke et al., 2009). One of the main characteristics
that distinguished small districts from large ones was the superintendents’ hands-on
approach and personal investment to the cause of improving student achievement
(Hentschke et al., 2009).
NCLB has not only uncovered the politics that have always existed behind
education reform, but has also created new politics in education, forcing the
mobilization of traditional and non-traditional interest groups and the creation of new
coalitions (DeBray-Pelot, 2009). From the economic point of view, the implementation
of NCLB has altered the traditional distribution of cost and benefits and, consequently,
the dynamics of traditional political groups (DeBray-Pelot & McGuinn, 2009). Cost-
benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) are two methods
conventionally used by economists to evaluate educational investments and to decide
on the planning and supplying of public resources (Levin & Belfield, 2010). CBA and
CEA evaluate educational investments in monetary and educational results with the
28

intention of determining which educational program can achieve results at the lowest
and most efficiently possible cost (Levin & Belfield, 2010). The authors argue that,
under the current conditions, local educational officials are in an advantageous position
to influence policy that would affect student achievement at the national level.
The school superintendent is the chief administrative officer for a district
(Townley et al., 2001). In order to be effective, he or she must implement educational
policies that will positively influence student achievement while complying with state,
district and school mandates. Policy implementation can be obtained through power
mechanisms such as rewards and punishment or through persuasive mechanisms. In
order to support any reform initiative, educational leaders should choose a
comprehensive school reform design and create systems to support such reform
(Desimone, 2002). Finding a balance between power and authority involves
establishing clear channels of communication to build support from all stakeholders.
School reform cannot be obtained without the support of all the participating political
entities. Paradoxically, one of the main challenges to implement school reform is
managing all the conflicting forces that interact in the organization. School reforms
must be specific to the needs of the organization, consistent with previous school
reforms, respectful of the preexisting organizational and community culture, and
performed within a context of stability (Desimone, 2002). Reform cannot be sustained
in districts where the political environment is unpredictable or where the social or
contextual issues are not addressed.
29

Leithwood et al. (2004) identify twelve instructional strategies utilized by
highly effective districts:
1. District-wide sense of efficacy.
2. District-wide focuses on student achievement and the quality of instruction.
3. Adoption and commitment to district-wide performance standards.
4. Development/adoption of district-wide curricula and approaches to instruction.
5. Alignment of curriculum, teaching and learning materials and assessment with
relevant standards.
6. Multi-measure accountability systems and system-wide use of data to inform
practice, to hold school and the district leaders accountable for results and to
monitor progress.
7. Targeted and phased focuses of improvement.
8. Investment in instructional leadership development at the school and district
levels.
9. District-wide job-embedded professional development focuses and supports for
teachers.
10. District-wide and school-level emphasis on teamwork and professional
community.
11. New approaches to board-district and in district-school relations.
12. Strategic engagement with state reform policies and resources.
In the report Similar Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do
Better, Williams et al. (2005) analyzed the disparity on the API test scores - more than
30

250 points among the sampled schools - in more than 257 California elementary
schools (ranked between the 25
th
to the 35
th
percentile) and 5,500 teachers and 257
principal surveys. The report focused on the intensity of instructional practices and
instructional policy implementation. The report concluded that there is not a uniform
model, program or curriculum that can guarantee increasing schools’ API scores.
However, the report found skillful school districts, administrators and educators
engaged in replicable sets of practices and behaviors. Such activities include:
 Prioritizing student achievement,
 Implementing a coherent, standards-based curriculum and instructional
program,
 Using data to improve student achievement and instruction and,
 Ensuring availability of instructional resources (Williams et al., 2005).
In a very similar report, Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some
Schools Do Better, Williams et al. (2010) conducted a large-scale study of 303 middle
schools in California, surveyed 303 principals, 3,752 English-language Arts and math
teachers in grades 6-8, and 157 superintendents of districts and charter school
organizations. The authors underlined the importance of instructional leadership to
improve student achievement and several policies and practices that correlate with
improving student achievement. These practices include:
 Intense focus on academic outcomes,
 Standards-aligned instruction and curriculum,
 Use of data to improve instruction and learning,
31

 Proactive academic interventions,
 Teacher competencies, evaluation and support,
 Principal leadership,
 Superintendent leadership and district support,
 School environment,
 Organization of teaching and instruction, and
 Attention to student transition (Williams et al., 2010).
These two reports become significant because they underline the importance
that educational leaders, at the district and school level, play in demonstrating
competence supporting the core task of teaching and learning, particularly considering
that all of the participating schools served predominately low-income and middle-
income populations.
Conclusion
The superintendency is a very complex position that requires instructional
knowledge, management skills and strategies to build collaborative coalitions that can
help to improve student achievement. Superintendents are expected to perform tasks
beyond their areas of expertise, but there is no patience for negative results. The
current accountability system provides little guidance on how to close the achievement
gap and assumes that the forces of rewards and punishments will have a positive impact
on school reform.
However, schools districts are very intricate organizations and cannot be
managed like a business (Elmore, 2002). Above all, today’s superintendents must
32

understand that, in order to advance and implement their agendas, they need to be able
to create a democratic environment where all voices can be heard. The school board-
superintendent is one of the most important relationships in a school district. The board
relies on the superintendent for the daily management and operation of the district, but
when there is tension or disagreements between them, the superintendent is usually
replaced (Townley et al., 2001). The review of the literature highlights how important
it is for superintendents to understand, respect and organize all the internal interest
groups that, even though they might have different goals and agendas, operate within
the same district.
33

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Under the prevailing educational accountability system, school boards and
school superintendents are held accountable for increasing student achievement.
School districts are complex systems where diverse interest groups wield their
influence to participate in the decision making process and, ultimately, affect student
achievement. As a result, the effective management of complex relationships has
become a determining factor for superintendents’ success and tenure. This chapter
describes the design, sample, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis of this
study. The purpose of this investigation was to identify effective strategies that
California superintendents utilize to build coalitions that lead to increasing student
achievement in their districts. As part of the study, the perceptions of presidents of
boards of education, board members and superintendents regarding those strategies
were gathered and analyzed.
Research Questions
Utilizing the research methods presented below, the investigation sought to
answer the following research questions:
1. What strategies do urban superintendents utilize to effectively build political
coalitions that allow for increasing student performance?
2. What strategies do members of the board of education suggest superintendents
must utilize in order to build political coalitions to increase student
achievement?
34

3. What experiences do urban superintendents self-report led them to gain political
skills?
Rationale for a Mixed Method Study
After the review of the literature was completed and the problem was defined,
the researcher concluded that a mixed method model was the most appropriate
methodology for this study. Quantitative and qualitative research approaches are
complimentary methodologies utilized to make sense of data (McEwan & McEwan,
2003). Quantitative research uses statistics and numbers to show relationships among
variables, and qualitative research uses observations and descriptive narratives
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003). According to Gay, Mills and Airasian (2006), qualitative
research is the process of collecting and analyzing non-numerical data with the purpose
of gaining new knowledge of an existing phenomenon. Qualitative research methods
are used when researchers want to understand different perspectives of the world
gathered from different people with different opinions. While quantitative research
tests a specific hypothesis, qualitative research has no guiding question and does not
manipulate the context around the investigation (Gay, et al., 2006). Qualitative
research aims at understanding the participants’ own perspective in order to describe
the way things are and, consequently, requires a more intimate interaction with the
participants in the study. Quantitative methods require the use of standardized tools
that are designed to match ideas, categories and numbers, while qualitative methods are
used without constrictions to allow a comprehensive analysis (Patton, 2002). Research
is a creative activity, and researchers should combine methodologies that are suitable to
35

the needs of the study (Gay et al., 2006). Since this study aimed at explaining
relationships, themes, feelings and thoughts, not all the gathered data could be
quantifiable. Consequently, the researcher selected a mixed research design that
combined quantitative and qualitative data in a single study.
Research Design
The nature of this study required the collection of qualitative data through
standardized open-ended interviews and a self-report online survey. Participants in the
study were selected from California urban public school districts located in the Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego and Orange County areas. The selected
districts had similar demographic and student enrollment characteristics. All
participants were volunteers for this study and were informed that the data would
remain confidential and not identify them. In order to ensure that all participants met
the same criteria or had similar characteristics, the researcher selected participants using
criterion sampling. Selected participants were those who could add to the
understanding of the study and had experience within the research topic and setting. In
order to obtain comparable data, oral in–person interview question and answer sessions
between the researcher and individual respondents were conducted. Personal
interviews followed a semi-structured protocol prepared in advance that allowed for
more detailed and in-depth responses. The research questions presented above were
used to develop an interview protocol. This protocol was, in fact, based on previous
research found in the literature review, which was used and developed collaboratively
with two other doctoral candidates. Interviews were appropriate for questions that
36

could not be presented in a multiple-choice format and questions that required detailed
responses. All interviews were prepared with the same questions in the same order
within the open-ended format. The researcher followed up unclear or incomplete
responses with probing questions. This methodology allowed the researcher to
compare responses, to gather data that could help answer the research questions and to
organize data for analysis. The researcher selected to interview three board of
education members and three superintendents with a record of success in their districts.
The interviewees were selected based on their receptivity from a preliminary check of a
few potential respondents. All interviews were tape-recorded to ensure accuracy.
Participation and the data obtained were kept strictly confidential. Participation was
voluntary and the selection process was not revealed. Participants were selected from
districts in which the researcher was not employed.
Oral Interviews
A total of six interviews were conducted in order to gain more information and
deeper understanding, probe for more detail and seek reflective answers from
superintendents and board members. The three interviewed superintendents were
White males who had a record of success in urban school districts and a minimum of
five years of experience as superintendents in urban school districts in the state of
California. These superintendents had anywhere from five to twenty-six years of
experience in the superintendency. All of them followed a traditional path to their
positions, starting as classroom teachers and moving to school administrators, a district
office position and the superintendency. All superintendents were interviewed in their
37

offices. The three interviewed board members represented diverse gender, ethnic,
social and educational spectrums. These interviews took place in coffee shops and
restaurants, respectively. All six interviewees were extremely generous with their time;
the interviews lasted anywhere from forty-five to ninety minutes, approximately.
The interviews provided key information on the personal aspects of the
superintendency, but also on vital aspects that describe the interaction between the
superintendent and the board of education. Superintendents and board members were
asked a series of ten questions (Appendix B), designed to add depth to the survey
sections. Their answers and comments allowed the production of data that could not be
gathered with the survey questionnaire, could not be structured in a multiple-choice
format or required lengthy explanations.
Even though the questions were structured and followed a pre-designed
protocol, the researcher was flexible and adapted to the questions to fit the needs of
each participant. Answers that did not address the research questions, were incomplete
or unclear were followed up with additional probing questions. All interviewees
granted authorization for recording, and a digital recording device was utilized during
each session. The different perspectives were analyzed within the context of the
previously mentioned research questions that guided this study.
This research was inspired and based on previous studies conducted on similar
areas of interest. For that reason, the instrument used for the survey process was
designed to gather information from superintendents and boards of education members,
and was based upon a number of surveys found in the process of the review of the
38

literature and written on earlier studies about the superintendency. All of the survey
participants were informed that this was a voluntary study and that their decision to
participate or not would involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which they were
otherwise entitled. Furthermore, participants were informed that, if they decided to
participate, they would be free to discontinue participation at any time without penalty
or loss of benefits to which they were otherwise entitled.
An on-line survey was designed to gather additional information from members
of the boards of education and superintendents. This online survey was designed to be
completed in 15 to 20 minutes. The survey consisted of four parts: (a) general
demographics, (b) positive working relationship indicators, (c) coalition-building
strategies and skills and (d) open-ended questions. A Likert-type rating scale was used
to determine the respondents’ attitudes towards self, others, interactions and context.
Individuals were asked to self-report and to rate performance or preferences.
Participants were presented with options that had labels with which they had to agree or
disagree to varying degrees.
This descriptive data assesses attitudes, opinions, preferences, demographics,
practices and procedures (Gay, et al., 2006). This method added a quantitative
approach to an investigation by allowing the researcher to predetermine the variables
included in the survey (Gay, et al., 2006). The researcher planned the content and
format of the questionnaires to be engaging, brief and easy to respond to. All selected
items were related to the topic of study and structured in a manner that allowed
39

respondents to choose among the provided response alternatives. Additionally, open-
ended questions were included to acknowledge greater depth and insight of responses.
The process of selecting participants for this study was designed so that the
sample population represented the larger population from which the participants were
selected. The sample population was defined as unified school districts serving from
Kindergarten to twelfth grade and that (a) were located in the Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego and Orange County areas, (b) were located in an
urban area rather than a rural, small town, or suburban area, (c) had a relatively high
rate of poverty (30% or more) as measured by Free and Reduced Lunch data provided
by the California Department of Education (CDE), (d) had a relatively high proportion
of minority students (30% or more), (e) had a relatively high proportion of students
who are Limited English Proficient (15% or more), and (f) maintained an ADA of
approximately 20,000 to 40,000 students as reported by CDE.
Instrument Validity
Special attention was placed to the validity of this research to ensure that the
data collected accurately measured what the study was designed to measure. Patton
(2002) explains that validity in quantitative research depends on the careful selection of
measuring instruments and, in qualitative research, the instrument is the researcher.
Both, qualitative and quantitative data can be collected and analyzed for the same study
(Patton, 2002). The researcher took into consideration many of the complexities of the
study, identified problems that required in-depth analysis, included descriptive content-
relevant statements and ensured that the data collected was unbiased and not distorted.
40

In order to minimize the effect of any influence in an unfair way, the researcher
utilized triangulation, or the collection of multiple data strategies and sources (Gay et
al., 2006). According to Patton (2002), triangulation adds strength to the study because
different gathering data methods test for consistency and is one technique for testing for
validity.
The instruments used in this dissertation are modified variations of surveys
utilized in earlier studies. In this study, the researcher collected data through
comparing and analyzing similar interviews and surveys. Before conducting each
interview, the researcher debriefed with peers about the methodology and established
structural coherence. In addition, a panel of university professors examined the process
of data collection, analysis and interpretation.
Ethical Considerations
The IRB process was strictly followed according to the guidelines of the
University of Southern California for human subjects. An initial survey-participation-
electronic-invitation letter was sent to 30 superintendents and 70 board members of
school districts in the Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego and Orange
County areas who were specifically identified. Second and third follow-up emails were
sent as reminders of the importance of the participation and completion of the survey
for the success of this study. Respondents received a specific deadline date by which to
return the requested survey and were thanked for their participation and time.
Following the initial survey, three board members and three superintendents
were selected for personal interviews. Confirmation letters were sent explaining the
41

purpose of the study, its significance and importance. The interviews were scheduled
according to the participants’ availability and convenience. Responses during the
interview were recorded manually by the researcher and by a recording device to ensure
objective interpretation and scoring. Participants were informed with certainty and
confidence that all the collected data and personal information would be kept secured
and confidential at all times.
Data Analysis
In order to find meaning in the data, the researcher aimed at finding connections
and categories. The researcher analyzed the interview transcripts and the data collected
through the surveys. This mixed method study analyzed data using Creswell’s (2009)
six-step process. Quantitative data was tabulated for the mean and mode of the survey
responses. Inferences from this survey support analysis of the qualitative data. Data
about where a superintendent gained knowledge was also quantified to support the
qualitative data. The survey instrument and the interviews were used to triangulate,
gather data, and to balance the self-reporting of the qualitative data with correlations
drawn from the surveys. The interview protocol and interpretation systems serve to
illustrate how the qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed.
Summary
This study aims to examine strategies that California urban superintendents
utilize to build political coalitions that lead to student achievement. In this chapter, the
researcher described the research design, methods, sampling, collection, and analysis
used in this study. A review of the validity and credibility, transferability, as well as
42

the limitations and assumptions of the study were also undertaken. The IRB committee
of University of Southern California accepted this research design and gave its approval
for the study. All of the participants in this study granted permission for the use of the
information gathered from surveys and interviews. The next chapter offers an analysis
of the collected data and research findings.

43

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present and analyze the quantitative and
qualitative data collected in this study and to report the findings for each of the research
questions presented in previous chapters. An analysis of the data collected and of the
findings for each research question is included in this chapter. This mixed method of
data analysis is arranged to identify strategies utilized by superintendents in public
school districts in order to build political coalitions that lead to increased student
achievement. The school superintendents and board members who participated in this
study identified these strategies through on-line questionnaires and in-person
interviews. The quantitative data was obtained through an online survey and the
qualitative data was obtained through a series of one-on-one interviews and open-ended
questions included in the survey. The survey questionnaire was designed to obtain
information concerning leadership skills, strategies utilized by superintendents and
knowledge necessary to build political coalitions that lead to student achievement.
Research Questions
The three research questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What strategies do urban superintendents utilize to effectively build political
coalitions that allow for increasing student performance?
2. What strategies do members of the board of education suggest
superintendents must utilize in order to build political coalitions to increase
student achievement?
44

3. What experiences do urban superintendents self-report led them to gain
political skills?
Organization of Data Analysis
This chapter reports the responses to the surveys based on the research questions
and the findings of the qualitative analysis of interviews of three superintendents and
three school board members about political strategies, skills and knowledge. The
findings are organized by research question. Respondents to the surveys were fifteen
superintendents and twenty-two board members representing urban school districts in
Southern California. The three interviewed superintendents and the three interviewed
school board members were working or serving in urban school districts in Southern
California at the time that the interviews were conducted. All participants represented
large urban school districts in Southern California serving populations of more than
20,000 students, districts, which also have a relatively high rate of poverty (30% or
more), a relatively high proportion of minority students (30% or more) and a relatively
high proportion of students identified as Limited English Proficient (15% or more) as
reported by the California Department of Education (California Department of
Education, 2011). The selected districts were located in the Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego and Orange County areas. Once the data was
collected, an open coding system was applied in order to retrieve similar passages or
ideas, to facilitate comparison-analysis and to identify patterns that would add depth to
the research or would require further investigation. The survey was sent to 30
superintendents and 70 school board members. Of the 30 superintendents surveyed, 15
45

responded, resulting in a return rate of 50%. Of the 70 school board members
surveyed, 22 responded, resulting in a return rate of 31%. Overall, of the 100 surveys
that were sent out, 37 were returned, resulting in a return rate of 37%.
The survey consisted of a total of forty-three questions and was divided into five
sections (Appendix A):
1. General Demographics: This section was presented to describe the statistical
characteristics of the population that participated in the study. Participants were
asked to respond to demographic items regarding their gender, age, years of
experience as a school superintendent or board member, highest educational
level obtained, past professional experience in the field of education and
whether or not they spoke a language other than English.
2. Positive Working Relationship Indicators: This section consisted of 13 items
asking respondents to rate the importance of each indicator as a strategy that
influences a positive working relationship between the superintendent and his or
her board of education. Participants rated each item using a 4-point Likert-type
scale (1 – Strongly Disagree; 2 – Disagree; 3 – Agree; 4 – Strongly Agree).
Positive working indicators were grouped in five categories for analysis:
I. Positive Working Relationship
II. Goal Setting Strategies
III. Clear Channels of Communication
IV. Board Roles and Responsibilities
V. Politically Astute
46

3. Coalition Building Strategies: In this section, participants were asked to rate 19
skills, strategies or knowledge necessary for superintendents to posses or adopt
in order to maintain positive working relationships with their board members.
Participants rated each item using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 – Strongly
Disagree; 2 – Disagree; 3 – Agree; 4 – Strongly Agree). After the
questionnaires were completed, each item or item response was analyzed
separately and computed to create a score for a group of items. Items were
grouped in five categories for analysis:
I. Strategies to Communicate with the Board
II. Strategies to Create and Manage Teams
III. Political Nature of the Superintendency
IV. Leadership Skills
V. Knowledge of District Management
4. Open-Ended Questions: This section consisted of four open-ended questions
that asked the respondents if there were additional strategies that could be
identified and were necessary for superintendents to acquire or adopt in order to
build political coalitions. Respondents were also encouraged to identify areas or
sources of conflict in the superintendency and to include any additional
comments that they considered would add knowledge to the study.
5. Interview Participation: In this final section, respondents were asked about their
intention to participate in a one-on-one confidential interview. Of the thirty-
eight returned surveys, twenty-five respondents (66%) indicated their interest in
47

participating in a confidential interview. Three superintendents and three board
members were selected based on the criteria previously described and based on
their availability within the time frame for completion of this study.
Oral Interviews
A total of six interviews were conducted in order to gain more information and
deeper understanding, probe for more detail, and seek reflective answers from
superintendents and board members. The three interviewed superintendents were
White males who had a record of success in urban school districts and a minimum of
five years of experience as superintendents in urban school districts in the state of
California. These superintendents had anywhere from five to twenty-six years of
experience in the superintendency. All of them followed a traditional path to their
positions, starting as classroom teachers and moving to school administrators, a district
office position and the superintendency. All superintendents were interviewed in their
offices. The three interviewed board members represented diverse gender, ethnic,
social and educational spectrums. These interviews took place in coffee shops and
restaurants, respectively. All six interviewees were extremely generous with their time;
the interviews lasted anywhere from forty-five to ninety minutes, approximately. The
interviews provided key information on the personal aspects of the superintendency, but
also on vital aspects that describe the interaction between the superintendent and the
board of education. The different perspectives were analyzed within the context of the
previously mentioned research questions that guided this study. The data from the
48

survey and the interviews was collected and analyzed between June and October of the
year 2011.
Presentation of Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents
The initial population of this study consisted of 30 superintendents and 70
school board members. The demographic data included gender, age, ethnicity, highest
degree of education obtained, present experience and past experience in the field of
education, and ability to speak a language other than English. Most fields were
completed in the surveys and responses were analyzed and reported in both, narrative
form and tables.
In order to honor the agreement presented in the initial survey and to maintain
the confidentiality of this study, all superintendents and board members who
participated in the anonymous survey are identified as either Surveyed Superintendent
or Surveyed Board Member, respectively, throughout the presentation of this study’s
findings. All superintendents and board members who participated in the one-on-one
interviews are identified as Superintendent or Board Member followed by a number
(e.g. Superintendent 1 or Board Member 1).
The data provided by the completed surveys revealed that 11 of the
superintendents were male and 4 were female. In contrast, 11 of the board members
were male and 11 were female. The total data represents that 22 of the respondents
were male and 15 were female. This data was not analyzed as a possible factor that
might influence the ability of superintendents to build political coalitions.

49

Table 1: Gender of Superintendents and Board Members
Male Female

Superintendents 11 4

Board
Members

11

11

Response
Percent
61% 39%

Superintendents identified themselves under the following ethnic groups: 13
White, 1 Hispanic American and 1 African American. Board members did the same:
12 White, 6 Hispanic American, 2 African American, 1 Native American and 1 (listed
as) Other. Combined, the ethnic groups were 25 White, 7 Hispanic American, 3
African American, 1 Native American and 1 (listed as) Other. Even though it was clear
that the majority of the respondents identified themselves as White, this factor was not
taken into consideration for the purpose of this study.
Table 2: Superintendent and Board Member Ethnicity
White African
American
Hispanic
American
Native
American
Asian
American
Other
Superintendents 13

1 1 0 0 0
Board
Members
12 2 6 1 0 1
Response
Percent
66%

8% 18% 4% 0% 4%

Superintendents reported the following age range: 4 between the ages of 40 and
49, 5 between the ages of 50 and 59 and 5 between the ages of 60 and 69. One
50

superintendent did not did not respond to this item. Board members reported the
following age range: 2 between the ages of 30 and 39, 7 between the ages of 40 and 49,
7 between the ages of 50 and 59, 5 between the ages of 60 and 69 and 1 reported to be
70 years old or older. One board member did not respond to this item. Combined, the
total responses indicated that the participants of this study fell under the following age
range: 2 between the ages of 30 and 39, 11 between the ages of 40 and 49, 12 between
the ages of 50 and 59, 10 between the ages of 60 and 69, 1 between the ages of 70 or
older and 2 declined to indicate their age.
It was not the intent of this study to analyze the relationship between
superintendent/board member age and effective strategies to build political coalitions.
However, as the study developed, it became evident that there were similarities in the
distribution of the age range between these two groups. This information revealed that
professional experience and a degree of maturity are necessary to confront the
challenges that superintendents and board members face.
Table 3: Superintendent and Board Member Age
29 or
under
30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 or
older
Superintendents 0

0 4 5 5 0
Board
Members
0

2 7 7 5 1
Response
Percent
0%

7% 28% 33% 28% 4%

51

All superintendents who responded to their educational background reported the
completion of advanced academic degrees: 4 held a master’s degree and 10 held a
doctoral degree. Since there are no specific academic requirements to become a school
board member, the study found that the majority of board members are not likely to
hold high degrees of education. This observation was validated by the following
highest degree of education reported by board members: 2 obtained a high school
diploma, 1 obtained an associates degree, 11 obtained a bachelor’s degree and 8
obtained a master’s degree. The total response count indicated the following: 2 had
completed a high school diploma, 1 had completed an associate’s degree, 11 had
completed a bachelor’s degree, 12 had completed a master’s degree and 10 had
completed a doctoral degree. This data was not analyzed as a possible factor that might
influence the ability of superintendents to build political coalitions.
Table 4: Superintendent and Board Members Educational Attainment
High
School
Associates
Degree
Bachelors
Degree
Masters
Degree
Doctoral
Degree
Superintendents 0

0 0 4 10
Board
Members
2 1 11 8 0
Response
Percent
5.6% 2.8% 30.6% 33.3% 27.8%

Professional experience was analyzed as a factor that might contribute to the
acquisition of strategies necessary for building political coalitions. All superintendents
reported that they had held a teaching, school administrative and senior administrative
52

position prior to becoming superintendents. Of the 15 respondents, only 2
superintendents reported that they had held a classified position and 2 superintendents
reported that they had held other certificated position prior to becoming
superintendents. This information reveals that most superintendents follow a very
traditional path to the superintendency: teacher, school administrator, district
administrator and superintendent.
On the other hand, board members who reported professional experience in the
area of education indicated the following: 13 held the position of board members only,
3 had experience as school administrators, 8 had experience as school teachers, 5 had
experience as classified personnel and 1 had experience as certificated personnel.
Table 5: Superintendent and Board Members Professional Experience in Education
Superintenden
t
Board
Member
Senior
Adm.
School
Adm.
Teacher Other
Cert.
Class.
Response
Count
15 22 15 18 23 3 7
Response
Percent
41% 51% 35% 38% 54% 11% 19%

Most of the participants responded that years of experience as a superintendent
or board member should be taken into consideration as a factor for a successful
superintendency. In their responses, superintendents indicated the following: 5 had 3 or
fewer years of experience, 4 had between 4 and 10 years of experience, 2 had between
11 and 15 years of experience and 2 had more than 16 years of experience as
superintendents. Two superintendents did not answer this question.
53

Board members reported the following: 8 had between 3 or fewer years of
experience, 7 had between 4 and 7 years of experience, 3 had between 11 and 15 years
of experience and 3 had 16 or more years of experience as board members. Two board
members did not answer this question.
Table 6: Superintendent and Board Member Years of Experience in Office
3 years or
less
4-10 Years 11-15 Years 16 or more
Years
Response
Count
15 11 5 6
Response
Percent
40.5% 29.7% 13.5% 16.2%

The ability to speak another language was also analyzed as part of the
disaggregated demographic data, but not as a factor that might influence the ability of a
superintendent to build coalitions. Only 1 out of 16 superintendents and 9 out of 22
board members reported to speak a language other than English.
Table 7: Superintendent and Board Member Ability to Speak a Language Other Than
English
Ability to speak
a language other
than English
Yes No

Superintendent 1 14

Board Member

9

13
Response Count

10 27
Percent Count 27% 73%

54

Research Question One
What strategies do urban superintendents utilize to effectively build political coalitions
that allow for increasing student performance?
Positive Working Relationships Indicators
Positive Working Relationships
Positive working relationships were analyzed within the context of collaboration
between the superintendent and the board. In order to build positive working
relationships, superintendents reported the importance of understanding the political
environment and being able to articulate a vision that is understood by all stakeholders.
One superintendent defined collaboration between the superintendent and the board as
building a base of support that includes parents, teachers and the rest of the community.
Most superintendents highlighted the importance of building trusting relationships with
their boards and communities:
Ultimately it comes down to trust. Do they trust you as the superintendent to
lead them? If you trust me, then you’re going to be supportive and work with
me. If you don’t trust me, it doesn’t matter what I do. Right? I don’t know if
it’s a political strategy, but it’s how you get people to come on board.
(Superintendent 3)

In their written responses, superintendents identified important attributes for a
positive working relationship between superintendents and their boards which included
clear communication, political awareness, the ability to work with diverse constituent
groups, participation in the civic and community life, knowledge of the history of
district, knowledge of the city of the district, knowledge of the board-superintendents’
roles, educating board members, being familiar with statutory duties outlined in the
55

Educational Code and working with board members to abide with the Brown Act. At a
more personal level, three superintendents identified self-reflection, having a sense of
fairness and having respect for all board members as important attributes for the
superintendency:
A superintendent, as well as a board member, must remain committed to doing
what is right, lawful and fair, irrespective of the consequences to his or her
career. The guiding focus should always be what is good for the students and
the district, not what is expedient for any individual. (Surveyed Superintendent)

One thing that has helped me is to remember that the district belongs to the
board members. They are the ones who live in the district, they are the ones
who represent the constituencies in the district, and I might have strong opinions
about how something should or could be done but, at the end of the day, the
district belongs to them. (Superintendent 2)

You have to have respect for, not only the staff, of which you are the leader but,
also to the board and you have to treat people with equal respect. And, I think
that’s really sort of, if you want to generalize, that’s what it kind of comes down
to. (Superintendent 1)

Table 8: Superintendents’ Responses for Positive Working Relationships
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Board members
and
superintendents
work
collaboratively
0 0 3 10 3.76 13
Superintendent
works with the
board to assess
the strengths
and weak-
nesses of the
district
0 0 6 7 3.53 13

56

Goal Setting Strategies
Goal setting was analyzed as the superintendent’s strategies to establish
measurable specific objectives and to organize the district’s surrounding environment
in order to achieve these goals. By their responses, it became clear that
superintendents agreed that, in order to achieve their goals, it is necessary to create a
sense of urgency and focus for improving student learning. In addition, they also
emphasized the necessity to create a goal setting agenda while building consensus
among all stakeholders. One superintendent highlighted the importance of making
sure that the board understood the significance of the issue being discussed. “In my
experience, if people understand what the issue is, they are much more accepting of
the decision” (Superintendent 2).
All three interviewed superintendents admitted that they had faced situations in
which they had to organize and mobilize their stakeholders in order to build political
coalitions to support district initiatives. Some of these situations included closing a
school, drawing new district boundaries, the passage of city bonds, lawsuits and
holding sensitive meetings with packed boardrooms. A common strategy that emerged
from their responses was organizing and stage-managing before making decisions:
It’s hard to convince someone to do something that they don’t believe in or that
they don’t have buy-in. We do a lot of the potential problem analysis,
situational appraisal, and a process in which we lay out, ahead of time, all the
different issues, probable actions and possible responses to address them. So,
good planning, ultimately, trumps everything else on big issues.
(Superintendent 3)

57

Strategies to include all stakeholders were also cited within the context of goal
setting. All three interviewed superintendents agreed that certificated and classified
unions, the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) as well as parents are the major
coalitions that need to be included in order to achieve district goals. Superintendent 1
referred to the teachers union as “the big kid on the block.” Other important
stakeholders that need to be involved while building coalitions, and were mentioned in
the interviews included city mayors, the local business community, the local chambers
of commerce, and organizations such as The Rotary Foundation, The Lions and The
Kiwanis:
Typically, some of the board members are closer than other board members to
certain ethnic coalitions in the District. You need to recognize that, if you have
a board member that is active in an ethnic coalition, you want to support him in
that prospect. You attend those cultural events, you look at publications and
resources, and of course, you always praise the board member in their
supportive community. (Superintendent 1)

Table 9: Superintendents’ Responses for Goal Setting Strategies
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Superintendent
establishes
public
understanding
and community
support for
achieving
district’s goals
0 0 5 8 3.61 13

58

Table 9: Continued

Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response

Superintendent
uses a goal
setting process
to build
consensus and
support

0

0

5

8

3.61

13

Superintendent
creates a sense
of urgency and
focus for
improving
student
achievement

0

0

2

11

3.84

13

Clear Channels of Communication
In order to establish clear channels of communication, superintendents indicated
that it was important that the board was not surprised by the superintendents’
recommendations and that the superintendent was not surprised by the board’s actions.
Communication was defined by a superintendent as “having respect for all board
members regardless of any power structure within the board or any board majority
situation.” Another superintendent said, “Communication is also a hallmark of strength
of character.” Superintendents 1 and 2 agreed that one of the most important personal
strategies they utilize for building coalitions was to build trusting relationships. “You
want to communicate with all your school board members, whether they agree with you
or not, and, hopefully, send them your message” (Superintendent 1).
59

Table 10: Superintendents’ Responses for Clear Channels of Communication
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Board members
are well informed
about district
issues
0 0 5 8 3.61 13

Board is not
surprised by
superintendent’s
recommendations
0 0 2 11 3.84 13

Superintendent is
not surprised by
boards’ actions

0

1

2

10

3.69

13

Board Roles and Responsibilities
In their responses, superintendents implied that an indicator of a positive
working relationship is when the board is not involved in the management of schools
with a percentage score of 3.76, but they did not consider it necessary to limit board
agendas and actions to budget development, educational goals, and accountability
issues with a percentage score of 3.07. Table 11 presents a numerical representation of
the respondents to the survey instrument indicating that a positive working relationship
exists when the board roles and responsibilities are clearly delineated as presented in
the survey.
60

Table 11: Superintendents’ Responses for Board Roles and Responsibilities
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Board agendas
and actions are
limited to
budget
development,
educational
goals, and
accountability
issues
0 3 6 4 3.07 13

Board
members do
not involve
themselves in
curriculum,
personnel, or
other district
issues

0

3

3

7

3.30

13

Board is not
involved in
management
of schools

0

0

3

10

3.76

13

Politically Astute
From the data reported on table 12 and the conducted interviews, it was
concluded that most superintendents agreed that it is important for a superintendent to
acquire knowledge about the district’s culture and politics while not becoming involved
in board members’ elections:
I think there’s an intuitiveness that’s important to understand people and
situations and being able to have a good understanding of the political
61

environment of how to move forward with decisions and when to retreat.
(Superintendent 3)

Table 12: Superintendents’ Responses for Politically Astute
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Superintendent
is knowledge-
able of the
district’s
culture and
politics
0 0 2 11 3.84 13

Superintendent
is not involved
in board
members’
election

0

0

3

10

3.77

13

Coalition Building Strategies
Strategies to Communicate with the Board
Superintendents indicated that a superintendent’s ability to communicate with
all members is one of the most important requirements for the superintendency.
Communication Skills received the absolute maximum score of 4.0, Visibility and
Accessibility, 3.80 and Receptive to New Ideas or Change, 3.66. Most superintendents
wrote that, in order to communicate with their boards, it is important to articulate a
vision in a clear and persuasive fashion. One superintendent explained that, “It is vital
to communicate to people in a sincere way. Then they feel like they’re not getting
jerked around.”
62

It is important to tell people, you know, I’m going to listen to you but, hard
decisions have to be made, and not everybody is going to be happy. So, what I
can promise you is that you are going to be listened to and considered but, in the
end, decisions still have to happen. (Superintendent 2)

You can communicate and, at the same time, build rapport even if you have to
engage in some kind of corrective behavior. Communication should always
strive for building rapport. The real strategy is not taking the relationship
negatively when you have to offer corrective influence. I think that’s an
important strategy to adopt, to be able to correct without destroying.
(Superintendent 1)

Table13: Superintendents’ Responses for Ability to Communicate with the Board
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Communi-
cation skills
0 0 0 15 4.00 15

Visibility and
accessibility

0

0

3

12

3.80

15

Receptive to
new ideas or
change

0

0

5

10

3.66

15

Strategies to Create and Manage Teams
Superintendents indicated that strategies for inclusion and managing conflict
were extremely important for building positive working relationships between both
parties. Remarkably, most superintendents agreed that a nurturing superintendent was
not an indicator of a positive working relationship. When asked to identify areas or
sources of conflict in the superintendency and strategies utilized to create teams to
manage conflict, one superintendent wrote, “Superintendents must not seek conflict but,
63

they must not avoid it either.” Three superintendents indicated that competition among
board members and their individual agendas or board members’ personal aspirations
contributed to the existing conflict between governance and management of school
districts. Two superintendents added that the board micromanagement of district daily
operation was an additional source of conflict.
Board members are often activists who are frustrated by how much they cannot
accomplish. The superintendent often becomes the person who tells them what
they cannot do and is held accountable for board decisions even though these
are votes of a political body over which he or she has influence but not control.
I believe, often superintendents become more concerned with keeping their jobs
rather than taking unpopular positions. (Surveyed Superintendent)

Table 14: Superintendents’ Responses for Strategies to Create and Manage Teams
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Respons
e
Inclusive or
democratic
0 0 3 12 3.80 15

Conflict
management

0

0

6

9

3.60

15

Agenda setting

0

0

7

8

3.53

15

Nurturing

0

1

7

7

3.40

15

Political Nature of the Superintendency
Most superintendents ranked the indicators presented on Table 15 as necessary
to be included on any strategy to build coalitions. Superintendent 1 defined politics as
relationships necessary to accomplish goals and objectives, adding that, “You better be
64

good at it and if you don’t master it or at least attempt to master it, it will master you
and that, that’s not a good thing.” Superintendent 2 stressed the importance of
“listening emphatically” to individual board members’ needs, but constantly uniting the
board behind district goals. Superintendent 1 explained the concept of co-opting as a
strategy to neutralize individual board members with divisionary issues by constantly
reminding them of the greater vision of the district.
What you want to avoid, as a superintendent, is somebody that has a single issue
or a few issues that a board member has narrowly defined. So co-opting
individual board members, seeing the greater vision of the entire board is
important because you create that as a touchstone. You now have the culture of
the board able to assist you in bringing the board member back. It stifles that
kind of diversionary behavior. (Superintendent 1)

One superintendent wrote that, “It is important to understand the political role of
the board and that the best tactic is to protect all board members in public, even while
disagreeing.” Superintendent 1 said that one strategy he utilizes to keep all board
members “inside the tent” and avoid personal revenge is to use phrases such as: “the
Board doesn’t agree with you” or “unless the Board directs me to do so, I’m not going
to follow up on this topic.”
Some of the best political moves I’ve ever made were when I decided not to do
anything. That can be a powerful tool. Sometimes opening your mouth,
because you want to get a word in edgewise is a mistake. So, listening is an
important political strategy. Not taking your turn to speak, but actually
listening. (Superintendent 1)

Superintendents 2 and 3 agreed that every issue has its own set of constituents
and that there are two steps to addressing controversial issues and forming coalitions.
The first one is to keep their boards informed to avoid unintended consequences. The
65

second step is to build coalitions issue by issue. Superintendent 3 explained how he
engages the board and the rest of the community in a process of setting an agenda.
So, much of what we do through our planning process and our goal setting is to
try to build that base of support. Build a base of support with parents, build a
base of support with teachers, and build it with community members. And then,
it doesn’t take many political skills. (Superintendent 3)

Table 15: Superintendents’ Responses for Political Nature of the Superintendency
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Networking
and forming
coalitions
0 0 2 13 3.86 15

Public
Relations
0 0 2 13 3.86 15

Mapping the
political
terrain

0

0

4

11

3.73

15

Leadership Skills
Leadership skills were analyzed within the context of the strategies utilized to
articulate a clear vision, to embody a sense of personal integrity and to transform old
mental maps or paradigms in order to promote unconventional strategies.
Superintendents implied that a clear vision is one of the most important attributes of
leadership; this indicator received a percentage score of 3.66. Some superintendents
talked about strategies that allowed them to persuade people to become part of their
team and accomplish the goals set by their boards. One superintendent said that, “The
66

best strategy you can have is to support each member of the team and the work they
do.” Superintendent 2 explained that, before presenting district budget cuts, he
developed a plan of action and spent considerable amount of time presenting it to
different stakeholders.
I took it (the plan for budget cuts) to every staff in the District, to the Chamber
of Commerce, to the Woman’s Club, Rotary Club, the Lions Club and PTA
meetings. It was very transparent. There was nothing that wasn’t available for
a comment or a question. And so, it turns out, the process of having done that
was very disarming to the people who were hearing the presentation. It takes a
lot of time, but then, people are not suspicious about what’s happening. And I
think that, part of what people don’t like about politicians is that they don’t
seem sincere. And so, I think, sincerity is a very good strategy. (Superintendent
2)

A superintendent, as well as a board member, must remain committed to doing
what is right, lawful and fair, irrespective of the consequences to his or her
career. The guiding focus should always be what is good for the students and
the district, not what is expedient for any individual. (Surveyed Superintendent)

Table 16: Superintendents’ Responses for Leadership Skills
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Visionary 0 0 5 10 3.66 15

Ability to
accomplish goals
set by the board

0

0

7

8

3.53

15

Apparent
sincerity

0

0

5

10

3.66

15

Transformational

0

1

7

7

3.40

15

67

Knowledge of District Management
Superintendents considered knowledge of curriculum and instruction, and
knowledge of school finance, as essential to manage a school district. All three
interviewed superintendents mentioned that their previous experiences as teachers,
school administrators and associate superintendents had helped them acquire an
understanding of curriculum and instruction, which, they agreed, is critical for any
successful superintendency.
Table 17: Superintendents’ Responses for Knowledge of District Management
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Knowledge
of bargaining
and
negotiating
0 0 8 7 3.46 15

Knowledge
of school
finance

0

0

5

10

3.66

15

Knowledge
of curriculum
and
instruction

0

0

4

11

3.73

15

Knowledge
of personnel
management

0

0

7

8

3.53

15

Knowledge
of policy
formulation

0

0

7

8

3.53

15

68

Research Question Two
What strategies do members of the board of education suggest superintendents must
utilize in order to build political coalitions to increase student achievement?
Positive Working Relationships Indicators
Positive Working Relationships
Board members highlighted transparency and honest communication as two of
the most important elements of a positive working relationship. One board member
responded, “It is very important that a superintendent establishes open channels of
communication with each member and has the ability to meet with each member and
discuss school business, and to always be prepared to answer questions.”
Table 18: Board Members’ Responses for Positive Working Relationship
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Board
members and
superintendents
work
collaboratively

0 1 7 14 3.59 22
Superintendent
works with the
board to assess
the strengths
and
weaknesses of
the district
0 3 6 13 3.45 22

69

Goal Setting Strategies
In general, board members underlined inclusion and consideration as an
important strategy for achieving goals. A board member indicated that it is important
for superintendents to “have a system to get the job done.” Another board member
responded that, “Superintendents must realize that board members can and should lead
and should not be looked at as a rubber stamp for the superintendent and the goals that
he has set.” The concept of leadership was also mentioned within the context of goal
setting. A board member defined leadership as the ability to understand that the
superintendent’s responsibilities are critical to the success and smooth running of a
district. Another board member described leadership as the ability to unite people
through well-researched goals and to be able to articulate a vision that is shared by all
stakeholders.
Of course, you must include the board, but also the community, you want to be
available to community service organizations. You want to be available to the
Chamber. You need to understand that there is a workforce investment board in
your town and that you’re connected to it. (Board Member 1)

You sort of have to learn where’s the heartbeat of the community and where are
the thought and action leaders in the community. Where’s that pulse? And,
connect with them because they know the community and because you want
them to know the schools. Parents are the best ambassadors, if you get parents
that are active not only within the schools, but also within the community, then,
they can sort of be the voice and the mouthpiece of what’s really going on in the
schools, but you have to sort of work on that. (Board Member 3)

70

Table 19: Board Members’ Responses for Goal Setting Strategies

Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Superintendent
establishes
public
understanding
and community
support for
achieving
district’s goals
0 3 11 8 3.22 22

Superintendent
uses a goal
setting process
to build
consensus and
support

0

4

7

11

3.31

22

Superintendent
creates a sense
of urgency and
focus for
improving
student
achievement

0

0

10

12

3.54

22

Clear Channels of Communication
Board members indicated that it was important for them to be informed about
district issues. The importance of communicating effectively and with balance with all
board members and the superintendent’s willingness to listen to dissenting views from
board members’ responses were also identified as recurring themes. Most board
members defined superintendents’ communication strategies as the steps taken to
71

articulate the message while listening to all board members. One board member said
that superintendents communicate successfully when they value each board member
without reacting to everything each board member wants. From their responses, it
became clear that board members appreciate superintendents who listen empathetically
and get good understanding of each board member’s goals, desires and priorities but, at
the same time, are able to work with the entire board to ensure that the district’s
priorities take precedent.
One thing that I like about our superintendent is that, I believe, he does listen to
what we have to say. And at times, yeah, there’s difference of opinions, but
we’re able to share a dialogue even though it’s different. And, even if he
doesn’t prefer that, I feel that I’m valued and that he listens. (Board Member 2)

Table 20: Board Members’ Responses for Clear Channels of Communication
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Respon
se
Board members
are well informed
about district
issues
0 1 6 15 3.63 22

Board is not
surprised by
superintendent’s
recommendations

0

2

10

9

3.27

21

Superintendent is
not surprised by
boards’ actions

0

2

13

7

3.22

22

72

Board Roles and Responsibilities
Board members implied that an indicator of a positive working relationship is
when the board’s agendas and actions are limited to budget development, educational
goals, and accountability issues, but for the board to be excluded from the management
of schools was not necessarily an indicator of a positive working relationship. Board
members expressed the need to have a clear understanding of the roles and
responsibilities of the board as an indicator of a positive working relationship, but also
echoed the importance of being included and informed throughout the decision making
process. In their responses, three board members denoted that the superintendent is the
expert with the responsibility to provide guidance, but criticized those superintendents
who change policy without having an open discussion with the board. Board Member 1
mentioned that it is important for superintendents to set protocols about the board’s
roles and responsibilities in order to avoid conflicts of interest and added that, “We
want the superintendent to run the show once we agree on the course, but it’s hard for
board members not to cross the line occasionally.”
73

Table 21: Board Members’ Responses for Board Roles and Responsibilities
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Respon
se
Board
agendas and
actions are
limited to
budget
development,
educational
goals, and
accountability
issues
0 14 4 4 2.54 22

Board
members do
not involve
themselves in
curriculum,
personnel, or
other district
issues

0

14

5

3

2.50

22

Board is not
involved in
management
of schools

0

4

11

7

3.13

22

Politically Astute
According to four board members, superintendents must be cognizant of the
district’s political environment. A board member recommended that, “Superintendents
should study the culture of the district, because that is the best strategy to break down
barriers.” Another board member suggested that strategies to establish a good, open
relationship with unions, acquiring sensitivity to the district’s cultural diversity and to
74

the needs of all students, parents, staff, and community are necessary for a successful
superintendency.
However, not all board members agreed that superintendents must adopt
political strategies to build coalitions and three board members indicated that
superintendents should not engage in politics. Board Member 3 called politics, the
“small p” and argued that respect for people is the best political strategy for success.
Board Member 1 held that, “Superintendents should not be over-political by allowing
board members to be more focused and concerned on personal ambitions than on the
duties of the board.” A board member indicated that, “Having public relation skills,
integrity, and love for children are more important to the position for superintendent
than any political strategy.” Two board members compared superintendents to private
corporate business people. “Any job, any corporation, any company, anytime you’re
working with people can be a political situation. I think you have to be skilled in being
able to accept people for who they are.” (Board Member 2)
I don't much care for the use of the word ‘political’. The skills that are
important are those that any large entity's CEO would require: integrity,
management, financial, etc. None of these skills needs to be wrapped in the
context of political. (Surveyed Board Member)

75

Table 22: Board Members’ Responses for Politically Astute
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Superintendent
is
knowledgeable
of the district’s
culture and
politics
0 1 7 14 3.59 22

Superintendent
is not involved
in board
members’
election

0

0

10

12

3.54

22

Coalition Building Strategies
Strategies to Communicate with the Board
Board members indicated that superintendents’ ability to communicate with all
members is one of the most important requirements for the superintendency. Two
board members mentioned that it was very important for a superintendent to be able to
articulate a clear vision or program for increasing student achievement. Visibility and
accessibility to all board members were also considered as essential for the
superintendency. Board Member 1 said, “People want somebody who answers phone
calls. One of the biggest complaints ever is, ‘I’ve called and I haven’t heard back’.”
Communication and the ability to work cooperatively with certificated and classified
associations, as well as superintendent’s willingness to listen to dissenting views were
also identified in this category.
76

The concept of “secrecy,” although not included in the survey, was mentioned
reiteratively. One board member referred to the strategy of avoiding secrets as
“transparency” by stating, “Not everybody’s going to always agree with you but, in a
public setting, everybody should know what’s going on, because, the minute that you
want to keep a secret on a difficult or hot topic away, I think is not good.” (Board
Member 2)
Secrets can quickly erode trust and undermine an effective superintendent-board
relationship, especially if board members are well connected with the
organization and the community. Board members resent being blindsided by
questions regarding issues they are unaware of, but should have known about
such as litigation, changes in policy implementation, serious personnel issues,
etc. (Surveyed Board Member)

Table 23: Board Members Responses’ for Ability to Communicate with the Board
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Communication
skills
0 0 3 19 3.86 22

Visibility and
accessibility

0

0

8

14

3.61

22

Receptive to new
ideas or change

0

0

8

14

3.61

22

Strategies to Create and Manage Teams
Board members referred to the perception of lack of fairness and respect as one
of the additional sources of conflict in the superintendency. One board member
responded that, “Superintendents must understand that the board president has no more
77

of a voice than other members of the board, and cannot answer for the board.” Diverse
personalities and self-consciousness were also mentioned as sources of conflict. Board
Member 2 said, “I think superintendents need to know that you’re going to have
different egos even on a Board.”
Superintendents must always treat each board member equally and they should
not massage their egos or show favoritism or special status to any particular
member. Information flow must include all board members. Creating a sense
of openness and fairness goes a long way to build a trusting relationship with
staff and the community. (Surveyed Board Member)

Most board members shared the concept of an inclusive superintendency; one
called it an “open door policy” and another called it “being on the same page.” Board
Member 1 said, “Some superintendents make the mistake of being ‘ahead of the board’
and start changing policy before they had a discussion with their boards.”
When there is a divided board, the superintendent must be a paragon of fairness,
respect for all board members, and adherence to the law. To give any advantage
or insider consideration to the board majority or to the board president is
improper and breeds conflict among the board, and in the superintendent/board
team. (Surveyed Board Member)

Table 24: Board Members Responses’ for Strategies to Create and Manage Teams
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Inclusive or
democratic
0 0 7 13 3.61 20

Conflict
management

0

0

9

12

3.57

21

78

Table 24: Continued

Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Agenda
setting
0 1 12 8 3.33 21

Nurturing

0

8

7

5

2.85

20

Political Nature of the Superintendency
Interestingly, board members’ responses were much lower in this area,
averaging 3.23 for Networking and Forming Coalitions, 3.47 for Public Relations and
3.10 for Mapping the Political Terrain. One board member defined the political nature
of the superintendency as the existence of issues that are important to individual board
members, but can become diversionary and do not speak of student achievement.

Table 25: Board Members Responses’ for Political Nature of the Superintendency
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Networking
and forming
coalitions
0 2 10 8 3.23 20

Public
Relations

0

2

7

12

3.47

21

Mapping the
political terrain

1

1

13

5

3.10

20

79

Leadership Skills
Board members viewed that one of the most important attributes of leadership is
the Ability to Accomplish Goals, an indicator that received a percentage score of 3.57.
Even though Apparent Sincerity received a percentage score of 3.47 from board
members’ responses, this attribute was mentioned both in the survey written responses
and during the one-on-one interviews.
I really think that if you’re a board member or if you’re a superintendent, or a
principal, you have to have a clear moral compass. And you have to be willing
to risk your position for doing the right thing. You have to do the right thing
based on what’s good for the kids and what’s good for your district even if it’s
not politically correct of even if it’s going to make somebody mad or if it is
going to make the person that could fire you, angry. (Board Member 3)

Table 26: Board Members Responses’ for Leadership Skills
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response

Visionary 0 0 11 10 3.47 21

Ability to
accomplis
h goals set
by the
board

0

0

9

12

3.57

21

Apparent
sincerity

0

2

7

12

3.47

21

Transfor-
mational

0

1

10

9

3.40

20

80

Knowledge of District Management
The role of the superintendent as a leader of the organization and his/her
position as a professional expert was mentioned, by board members, as two of the main
requirements for success.
You don’t hire somebody if he doesn’t have those things or at least a plan for
increasing his learning or putting the right people in places. For example, we’ve
had superintendents that have been really strong in the educational sphere but
not so strong in the business sphere. But, we’ve had other strong assistant sups
and department people in the finance, which still made a strong organization.
(Board Member 3)

It is a sad fact, but I have observed board members who lack commitment to
their office. Many also lack knowledge about education issues, budget issues,
governance best practices, etc. When that situation exists, I believe it is
incumbent on the superintendent, as the expert, to provide opportunities for -
and encourage - board members to learn and grow. This may not be a legal
obligation, but I believe it is a moral one because only when board members are
knowledgeable and committed to serving the district can the best decisions be
made. (Surveyed Board Member)

Table 27: Board Members Responses’ for Knowledge of District Management
Indicator Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Respons
e
Knowledge of
bargaining and
negotiating
0 1 9 11 3.47 21

Knowledge of
school finance

0

0

8

13

3.61

21

81

Table 27: Continued

Indicator

Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Response
Knowledge of
curriculum and
instruction
0 0 6 15 3.71 21

Knowledge of
personnel
management

0

1

8

12

3.52

21

Knowledge of
policy
formulation

0

0

7

14

3.66

21

Research Question Three
What experiences do urban superintendents self-report led them to gain those political
skills?
On the survey, superintendents were asked to indicate where they thought they
had acquired the necessary skills to build political coalitions for student achievement.
Almost half of them indicated that experience on the job, previous leadership roles,
mentoring and networking with colleagues proved to be most effective. Three
superintendents indicated that the Association of California School Administrators
(ACSA) provided a positive learning experience for them. One superintendent
documented that workshops attended with his board members at The California School
Boards Association (CSBA) resulted in a positive learning experience. Another
superintendent indicated that, “Superintendents must be versed in human motivation
82

and understanding behavior, these skills are not generally part of a credential or
advanced degree program.” Another superintendent responded, “This is a people skills
business where you are interacting with other people practically 24/7. You must be
accessible and able to listen carefully and assess quickly what is happening. It is all
about the touchy feely stuff coupled with informed reasoning.”
Since communication is a key in this area, I believe that coursework or seminars
in human communication are keys to having the understanding of what makes
for successful interactions. I especially believe that a class in non-verbal
communication is a must. It is important for superintendents to understand how
they are perceived and many times lasting perceptions are created without the
utterance of a word. (Surveyed Superintendent)

All three interviewed superintendents also agreed that their previous positions
either as teachers, school administrators or at the district level provided some of the
experiences needed for the job.
Superintendent 1 has over thirty years of experience in education and has been a
superintendent for almost two decades. He held different positions prior to the
superintendency, including teacher, department chair, mentor teacher, assistant
principal, principal, director of curriculum, director of schools, assistant superintendent
of business and deputy superintendent.
I think that having a large index for a superintendent in a comprehensive K-12
district is good. I can speak and have knowledge of almost anything. I can’t
speak eloquently or knowledgably, but I can usually fit it into a context.
(Superintendent 1)

Superintendent 2 also followed a very traditional path, from high school teacher
and coach, to assistant principal, principal, assistant superintendent, and then
superintendent, position that he has been holding for the past five years. He reported
83

that working as an assistant superintendent for more than five years, under a well-
known superintendent, had provided him some of the most important learning
experiences.
There were two experiences that prepared me for the job. Being a high school
principal, which was the closest thing to the superintendency and having a good
mentor who actively coached me and talked to me about what he was doing
with the board and why. (Superintendent 2)

Superintendent 3 has been a superintendent for twenty-six years. He started as a
teacher and soon became assistant principal, and then a principal for five years. After
becoming an assistant superintendent, he was promoted to the position of
superintendent within a year. Superintendent 3 does not believe that traditional
academies can prepare anyone for the superintendency.
I didn’t learn how to be a superintendent in school. I learned it in on-the-job
training. You know, my skills set, personality and my drive fits with this job.
It’s who I am – so it fits for me. I don’t know that you teach someone how to be
a superintendent. But, the question is: Are you superintendent material?
(Superintendent 3)

Summary
This chapter presented a review of the data gathered through a survey
instrument and a series of interviews for the research study. The quantitative findings
from the survey instrument and the qualitative findings from the six individual
interviews were evaluated and analyzed in this chapter and aligned with the three
research questions. The responses from superintendents and board members combined
indicate the importance placed by both groups on the identified positive working
relationship indicators. Superintendents’ responses averaged 3.64, board members
84

responses averaged 3.44 and, combined, the responses from both groups averaged 3.54
out of a maximum 4. Table 28 provides the numerical breakdown for Positive Working
Relationship Indicators.
Table 28: Positive Working Relationship Indicators
Indicator Superintendents Board Members Percent Response

Positive Working
Relationships

3.64 3.52 3.58

Goal Setting
Strategies

3.68 3.35 3.52

Clear Channels of
Communication

3.71 3.37 3.54

Board Roles and
Responsibilities

3.37 3.39 3.54

Politically Astute 3.80 3.56 3.68

Response Average 3.64 3.44 3.54

In order to identify plans of actions superintendents design to build coalitions
that lead to student achievement in their school districts, the survey instrument included
19 strategies, skills or knowledge. Responses revealed that Strategies to Communicate
with the Board received the highest average combined responses of 3.87 from the
superintendents and 3.69 from the board members. Knowledge of District Management
also received high marks from superintendents and board members, 3.59. Table 29
represents the numerical survey responses of superintendents and board members
regarding these five categories.
85

Table 29: Coalition Building Strategies
Indicator Superintendents Board Members Percent Response

Strategies to
Communicate with
the Board
3.87 3.69 3.77

Strategies to
Create and Manage
Teams

3.55

3.35

3.45

Political Nature
of the
Superintendency

3.78

3.26

3.52

Leadership Skills

3.53

3.47

3.50

Knowledge of
District
Management

3.59

3.59

3.59
Response Average 3.66 3.47 3.56

In the last section of this chapter, superintendents self-identified experiences
that helped them acquire or develop a set of strategies to build coalitions that lead to
student achievement. From their responses, it became evident that experiences at the
school site and at the district level, along with peer interactions, were the most
memorable.
Chapter V will present a summary, conclusions, implications and
recommendations gained from these findings.
86

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
Urban school superintendents face critical challenges: from a global economy
which demands workers with critical thinking skills and public schools that cannot
supply these skilled workers to an accountability system, the No Child Left Behind Act,
which focuses on increasing student achievement. In the midst of all these demands,
urban superintendents are expected to fulfill different roles: from managers of daily
operations and politicians to catalysts of change.
Research shows that leadership at the district level can directly affect student
achievement. Coordinated efforts between the central office and the school sites, focus
on student learning, adoption of a curriculum and instructional strategies that address
the needs of all students, data analysis and professional staff development that aims at
the success of teachers can all have a positive impact on student achievement
(Chrispeels, Burke, Johnson & Daly, 2008). By redefining leadership roles and
creating frameworks to improve instructional practices, school districts can positively
influence student achievement (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Alvorio et al. (2004) note
that, even though authentic leaders know who they are and act upon their deep
convictions with transparency, this is not enough to achieve desired goals. This
inability to implement change that leads to student achievement can be placed on the
eternal conflicts that surround the superintendency. According to Cuban (1985),
conflict is at the essence of the superintendency and has existed since the position was
first established in the nineteenth century. This conflict can be accentuated by the role
87

that diverse interest groups play in influencing the decision making process (Grissom,
2010).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify strategies superintendents utilize to
build political coalitions that lead to student achievement. The study provides critical
information on the political role of the superintendency, strategies and skills utilized by
superintendents, and how superintendents can learn or acquire those skills and
strategies. The goal of this study was to identify effective strategies superintendents
and board members indicate are necessary to build positive working coalitions that lead
to student achievement. In addition, this study provides research-based information
that identifies the existence of those strategies that lead to the formation of political
coalitions. This analysis provides information that may be beneficial to urban school
districts and superintendents interested in similar strategies to improve student
achievement. Although there is ample research available on urban superintendents and
leadership styles, there is a need to identify concrete steps that urban superintendents
take that allow them to succeed. This chapter restates the problem, purpose and
methodology, followed by findings and conclusions for each research question. The
last section of the chapter describes recommendations for practice and future research.
Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:
1. What strategies do urban superintendents utilize to effectively build political
coalitions that allow for increasing student performance?
88

2. What strategies do members of the board of education suggest
superintendents must utilize in order to build political coalitions to increase
student achievement?
3. What experiences do urban superintendents self-report, led them to gain
political skills?
Review of the Literature
A review of related and relevant literature on the history, legal functions and
sources of conflict of the superintendency was provided in Chapter II. The review of
the literature was organized into the following sections: school districts governance and
law, historical background, contemporary challenges to the superintendency, influence
of interest groups, and the superintendent as instructional leader. The literature reveals
that urban superintendents in California face critical challenges in their quest to
implement school reform. The California Education Code is viewed as a series of
unrelated and confusing statements resulting in the prevailing dissatisfaction with local
governing authorities and internal conflicts between the superintendency and its board
of education (Townley et al., 2001). Public education is funded by public funds and it
is this source of funding which creates the emergence of local interest groups that shape
public policy and directly influence the dynamics of the superintendency and the
relationships between key stakeholders (Cibulka, 2001). In California, public education
consumes 40.33% of the state budget (Townley et al., 2001) and in many communities;
school districts are the main source of employment (Cibulka, 2001).
89

With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and under an
accountability system focused on closing the educational achievement gap between all
subgroups of students, the role of the superintendent has become more complex and
demanding (Childress, Elmore & Grossman, 2006; Kowalski, 2005). The school
superintendent plays a fundamental role managing the district’s daily operations and
school improvement, but a successful superintendency is subordinated to the
relationship between the superintendent and the governing board. Throughout its
history, the superintendency has been plagued by conflict (Cibulka, 2001; Cuban, 1985;
Kowalski, 2005). These sources of conflict are deeply rooted in the demands of the
market, the socio-economic necessities of local communities, national and local interest
groups, individual political aspirations and murky policies that fail to define the roles of
the school superintendent and the board of education (Bjork & Lindle, 2001; Cibulka,
2001; Johnson, 2001; Townley et al., 2001). Ultimately, the relationship between the
superintendent with his or her governing board and the superintendent’s ability to form
political coalitions to implement school reform will have a direct impact on student
achievement.
Methodology
The study used a mixed method design, which included quantitative data gained
from a survey instrument and qualitative data from both the written response section of
the survey and from six one-on-one interviews conducted to three superintendents and
three board members. The survey was sent to 30 superintendents and 70 school board
members from districts located in the Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, San
90

Diego and Orange County areas. The survey included demographic data, 13 positive
working indicators, 19 coalition building strategies or skills, 4 open-ended questions
and willingness to participate in a one-on-one confidential interview. The survey and
interview instruments were designed based on previous similar research studies and in
alignment with the research questions to ensure validity of the findings.
Findings
The findings based on the three research questions were reported through the
data collected in this research study. A summary of these findings is briefly presented
below.
Research Question One: What strategies do urban superintendents utilize to
effectively build political coalitions that allow for increasing student performance?
In response to the research question one, the statistical analyses support the
following research findings:
1. Superintendents identified being politically astute, establishing clear channels of
communication, and goal setting strategies as the three most important positive
working indicators of a successful superintendency.
2. Superintendents ranked strategies to communicate with the board, political
nature of the superintendency, and knowledge of district management as the
three most important coalition-building strategies, skills or knowledge necessary
for a successful superintendency.
3. Even though most positive working indicators received high scores on the
Likert-type scale, as well as on the open-ended responses and interview
91

answers, it became clear that superintendents must be skillful and strategic
communicators. Communication skills received the highest possible score and
was identified as crucial to a successful superintendency. Superintendents
indicated that strategies to create effective channels of communication include
building trusting relationships, ensuring that all board members are involved in
the decision making process and ensuring that the board members are well
informed and not surprised or embarrassed in public.
Research Question Two: What strategies do members of the board of education
suggest superintendents must utilize in order to build political coalitions to increase
student achievement?
In response to the research question two, the statistical analyses support the
following research findings:
1. Board members identified being politically astute, establishing positive working
relationships and understanding board roles and responsibilities as the three
most important positive working indicators of a successful superintendency.
2. Board members identified strategies to communicate with the board, knowledge
of district management, and leadership skills as the three most important
coalition-building strategies, skills or knowledge necessary for a successful
superintendency.
3. Board members also indicated that communication skills are essential for a
successful superintendency. However, board members mentioned the concept
92

of secrecy, not included in the survey instrument, as an additional source of
conflict between the superintendent and the governing board.
Research Question Three: What experiences do urban superintendents self-report
led them to gain political skills?
In response to research question three, the qualitative analysis supports the
following research findings:
1. The interviewed superintendents agreed that traditional academic programs,
workshops, prior leadership experiences, working with mentors and professional
workshops provided valuable information; however, these activities were not
enough to prepare them for the challenges of the superintendency.
2. Superintendents reported that graduating from traditional academic programs
alone did not provide them with the necessary knowledge, skills or strategies for
a successful superintendency.
3. The superintendents agreed they learned leadership skills as they entered and
worked in the organization. They reported that, although not politicians, they
must become politically astute in order to manage conflict. Most of the
conflicts they experienced with their boards were rooted in the board member’s
personal level or political aspirations.
4. In addition, superintendents indicated that it was the process of understanding
the dynamics of the board which allowed for a better understanding of the
culture of the district and the development of their political leadership strategies
and skills.
93

Limitations
This research was based on the participation of superintendents and board of
education members who agreed to respond to the survey and meet for the interview
process. The participant interviewees were generous with their time; however, all
interviews were limited to a pre-agreed timeframe. The information gathered from the
interviews may not represent the opinions of other superintendents or other board
members. Although every effort was made for the study to be conducted without bias,
the validity of this study is limited to the design of the research instruments.
Implications and Recommendations
This study tried to add to the body of scholarly research that attempts to identify
strategies that urban school superintendents utilize to build political coalitions that lead
to student achievement. Even though further examination related to coalition building
strategies should be pursued, this study has identified positive working indicators and
coalition building strategies that contribute to a successful superintendency. In order to
gain further knowledge to this subject matter, the following recommendations are made
for future study:
1. The superintendents who participated in the one-on-one interviews for this study
represent successful superintendents who currently hold their positions despite
the demands associated with this job. However, a follow-up study should be
conducted within five years to determine if the coalition building strategies
highlighted in this study can, in fact, have a sustainable positive impact on
student achievement.
94

2. Future research is warranted to identify how verbal and non-verbal
communication strategies and skills may help develop professional dialogue
between superintendents and their boards of education.
3. As most superintendents reported that they had learned political leadership skills
primarily from networking with colleagues and previous professional
experiences, perhaps certification programs should consider restructuring their
curriculum in order to provide aspiring school superintendents with the
necessary skills and competencies that are necessary for a successful
superintendency.
4. Given that this study was limited to superintendents and board members serving
public urban schools districts in Southern California, an expansion of the
research base may add more information regarding coalition-building strategies
that lead to student achievement.
Conclusion
The study results emphasize and continue the work of previous findings in that
they recognize that one of the biggest challenges faced by superintendents today is to
find strategies that improve student achievement in urban schools. Increasing student
achievement requires a coordinated effort between the district’s central office and the
school sites. However, achieving desired results becomes extremely difficult if the
superintendent struggles in building coalitions with key stakeholders, particularly with
the members of his or her governing board. Consequently, it is necessary to identify
95

strategies that superintendents utilize to build coalitions that lead to student
achievement.

96

REFERENCES
Ansell, C., Reckhow, S. &; Kelly, A. (2009). How to reform a reform coalition:
Outreach, agenda expansion, and brokerage. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 717-
743.
Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F . & May, D. R. (2004).
Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact
follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823.
Bird, J., (2010). Building budgets and trust through the alchemy of superintendent
leadership. Management in Education, 24, 46-50. DOI:
10.1177/0892020610363083
Bjork, L. & Lindle, J.C. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational
Policy 15 (76), 76-91. doi: 10.1177/0895904801015001005
Brazer, S.D. & Keller, L.R. (2006) A conceptual framework for multiple stakeholder
educational decision making. International Journal of Education Policy and
Leadership,1(3), 1-14. Retrieved [March, 2011] from http://www.ijepl.org
Brazer, S. D., Rich, W. & Ross, S. A. (2010). Collaborative strategic decision making
in school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 48 (2),196-217. DOI
10.1108/09578231011027851
California Department of Education, (2011). Retrieved from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/index.asp
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school
districts. Harvard Business Review, 55-68.
Chrispeels, J. H., Burke, P.H., Johnson, P. & Daly, A. (2008). Aligning mental models
of district and school leadership teams for reform coherence. Education and
Urban Society, 40 (6), 730-750.
Cibulka, J. G. (2001). The changing role of interest groups in education:
Nationalization and the new politics of education productivity.
EducationalPolicy, 12-40.
Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
97

Cuban, L. (1985). Conflict and leadership in the superintendency. Phi Delta Kappan,
67(1), 28-30.
Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform.
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5, 183 –204.
Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform in changing
district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly. 41(1), 121-
153. http:///www.usc.edu/dept/education/cegov/publications/Sustainability.pdf
DeBray-Pelot, E. & McGuinn, P. (2009). The new politics of education. Analyzing the
federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy,
23 (1), 15-42. doi: 10.1177/0895904808328524
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully
implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72, 3, 433-479.
Eacott, S. (2008). Strategy in educational leadership: in search of unity. Journal of
Educational Administration, 46 (3), 353-75.
EdSource, Inc. (2005). The state’s official measures of school performance.
http://www.edsource.org/pdf/perfmeasguide05.pdf
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement.
Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from:
http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res-11-02elmore.html
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69: 2, 134-
142.
Gawlik, M. (2008). Breaking loose: Principal autonomy in charter and public schools.
Educational Policy, 22 (6), 778-804.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E. & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for
analysis and applications. New York: Prentice Hall.
Goldberg, B. & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Purpose, accountability, and school leadership.
In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive
school reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin-Press.
Grissom, J. A. (2010). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public
organizations: The case of California school boards. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 20(3), 601–627.
98

Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F. & Rivkin, S.G. (2004). Why Public Schools Lose
Teachers. The Journal of Human Resources, 39 (2), 326-354.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. USC
Urban Ed. Los Angeles, University of Southern California: Rossier School of
Education.
Hentschke, G. C., Nayfack, M. B., & Wohlstetter, P., (2009). Building budgets and
trust through the alchemy of superintendent leadership. Exploring
superintendent leadership in smaller urban districts. Does district size influence
superintendent behavior? Education and Urban Society, 41(3), 317-337.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school superintendent as communicator.
Communication Education, 101-117.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in
relation to students' academic achievement. Review of Educational Research,
229-278.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, G. & Wahlstrom K., (2004). How leadership
influences student learning: A review of research for the Learning from
Leadership Project. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Levin, H.K. & Belfield, C. (2010). Cost-benefit analysis and cost-effective analysis.
School finance: An overview. In D.J. Brewer & P.J. McEwan Ed.), Economics
of Education, 197-201.
Linn, R. (2005). Fixing the NCLB Accountability System. CRESST Policy Brief, 8, pp.
1-8. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Mallen, B. (2001), Generating interest in interest groups. Educational Policy,15 (1),
168-186. doi: 10.1177/0895904801015001010
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Merriam-Webster: On-line, (2011). Merriam-Webster, Inc.: www.Merriam-
Webster.com
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
99

Pelayo, I. & Brewer, D. (2010). Teacher quality in education production. School
finance: An overview. In D.J. Brewer & P.J. McEwan Ed.), Economics of
Education (178-182).
O’Neil, H. F. Jr. (1999). Perspectives on computers-based performance assessment of
problem solving: Editor’ introduction. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 255-
268.
Rice, J.K., Monk, D.H., Zhang, J. (2010). School finance: An overview. In D.J. Brewer
& P.J. McEwan Ed.), Economics of Education (214-220).
Shipps, D. (2003). Pulling together: civic capacity and urban school reform. American
Educational Research Journal, 40 (4), pg. 841-878.
Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Timar, T. B. (2003). The "new accountability" and school governance in California.
Peabody Journal of Education, 177-200.
Togneri, W. & Anderson, S. E. (2003). How high poverty districts improve.
Leadership; 33 (1), 12-16.
Townley, A.J., Schmieder-Ramirez, J.H., Wehmeyer, L.B., Lane, E.L., (2001). School
law, a California perspective. Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa.
Waters, T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: the effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver: CO: Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E. et al. (2005). Similar students, different results:
Why do some schools do better? A Large-scale survey of California elementary
schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E. et al. (2010). Gaining ground in middle grades:
Why some schools do better. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Wray, H., (1991). Schools and politics: a review essay. The Western Political
Quarterly, 44, (3), 762-780.

100

APPENDIX A
ONLINE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Instructions
My name is Damian Kessler and I am a student enrolled in the University of
Southern California Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Educational Leadership program.
You are invited to participate in a research study; which will analyze political strategies
used by superintendents to build coalitions to increase student achievement. You were
selected as a possible participant in this study because of your role in the district.
By participating in this research you will be assisting in the completion of my
dissertation requirement. The process will be limited to a completion of one survey.
Your participation in this study is approximately 15 minutes.
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will not be disclosed. All data will be
stored in a safe, locked environment that will be destroyed after three years. Your
participation is entirely voluntary.
Please contact me at dakessle@usc.edu and/or my advisor Dr. Rudy Castruita
at rcastrui@usc.edu if you have any questions regarding the research. If you have a
question about your rights as a participant in a research project, please call the IRB
Administrator, Research & Graduate Studies Office, Rossier School of Education,
University of Southern California (213) 740-4267.
By completing this survey you indicate that you have read and understand the
information provided above, that you willingly agree to participate, that you may
101

withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation at any time without
penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled, that you will receive a
copy of this form, and that you are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies.

Thank you for your time and participation,

Section 1: General Demographics

1. What is your sex?
a. Male
b. Female

2. What is your ethnicity?
a. African American
b. Asian American
c. Hispanic American
d. Native American
e. White
f. Other
3. What is your age?
a. 29 or under
b. 30-39
c. 40-49
d. 50-59
e. 60-69
f. 70 or over

4. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?
a. High School Diploma
b. Associates Degree
c. Bachelors Degree
d. Masters Degree
e. Doctoral Degree

5. How many years have you been a superintendent or board member?
a. 3 years or less
b. 6 to 10
c. 11 to 15
d. 16 or more years
102

6. Do you currently hold or have held any of the following positions during your
career? (Check all that apply)
a. Superintendent
b. Board Member
c. Senior Administrator / Assistant Superintendent
d. School Administrator
e. Teacher
f. Other certificate employee (counselors, etc.)
g. Classified employee (manager, clerical, maintenance, etc.)

7. Do you speak any language other than English?
a. Yes
b. No

Section 2: Positive Working Relationship Indicators

To what extent do you agree that the following indicators represent a positive working
relationship between board members and superintendents?

(1 – Strongly Disagree; 2 – Disagree; 3 – Agree; 4 – Strongly Agree)

1. Board members and superintendents work collaboratively

2. Superintendent is knowledgeable of the district’s culture and politics

3. Superintendent works with the board to assess the strengths and weaknesses of
the district

4. Superintendent establishes public understanding and community support for
achieving district’s goals

5. Superintendent creates a sense of urgency and focus for improving student
achievement

6. Superintendent uses a goal setting process to build consensus and support

7. Board members are well informed about district issues

8. Board is not surprised by superintendent’s recommendations

9. Superintendent is not surprised by boards’ actions

103

10. Board agendas and actions are limited to budget development, educational
goals, and accountability issues

11. Board members do not involve themselves in curriculum, personnel, or other
district issues

12. Board is not involved in management of schools

13. Superintendent is not involved in board members’ election

Section 3: Political Skills

To what extent do you agree that the following represent strategies, skills or knowledge
that are necessary for superintendents to possess in order to maintain positive working
relationships with their board members?

(1 – Strongly Disagree; 2 – Disagree; 3 – Agree; 4 – Strongly Agree)

1. Visionary
2. Transformational
3. Public Relations
4. Networking and forming coalitions
5. Apparent sincerity
6. Visibility and accessibility
7. Conflict management
8. Agenda setting
9. Communication skills
10. Mapping the political terrain
11. Receptive to new ideas or change
12. Inclusive or democratic
13. Nurturing
14. Ability to accomplish goals set by the board
15. Knowledge of bargaining and negotiating
16. Knowledge of school finance
17. Knowledge of curriculum and instruction
18. Knowledge of personnel management
19. Knowledge of policy formulation

104

Section 4: Open-Ended Questions

1. What other strategies or skills do you feel are important for superintendents to
embrace in order for them to maintain positive working relationships with their
boards of education?

2. Where do you think superintendents can acquire these strategies or skills?
3. What do you think are the areas or sources of conflict in the superintendency?
4. Are there any additional comments you would like share regarding this topic?
Section 5: Interview Participation

In order to complete this investigation, I would be very grateful if you spend an hour to
allow me to conduct a face-to-face interview. The time and date will depend on your
agenda. You can be assured that any information provided by you in the interview will
be kept strictly confidential and used solely for academic purposes. Your participation
will significantly contribute to the success of this research and your help would be
highly appreciated.

Would you like to participate in a confidential one-on-one interview?

 Yes (you will be contacted shortly regarding a convenient date, time and
location of your choice)
 No

Thank you for your kind attention and I am looking forward to receiving your reply
soon.
Should you have any queries, please feel free to contact me.

Respectfully,

Damian Kessler
Doctoral Student
dakessle@usc.edu
105

APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Background

1. Please tell me about your background. How did you become a board
member/superintendent?
a. What about this position appealed to you?
b. What previous experience do you have in school administration?

2. How long have you been in your current position?

3. Political Skills

4. What political skills could you identify that are necessary to become a
superintendent?
a. Why do you think these skills are necessary?

5. What political skills, do you believe, are necessary to build coalitions that lead
to student achievement?
a. What political skills are essential for success?
b. In your experience, what political skills have been more relevant?

6. What are the stakeholders that need to be included when building coalitions?

7. What political challenges or conflicts have you faced in the past?

8. What skills are critical for addressing these challenges?

9. How did you learn these skills?
a. How did you learn those skills?
b. Where did you get this training?

10. What question would you have asked if you were doing this interview?

106

APPENDIX C
INFORMATION SHEET

University of Southern California

Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

TITLE OF THE STUDY

Effective political strategies that superintendents utilize in building coalitions to
increase student achievement

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This is a research study on the superintendency-its political skills, challenges and
preparation. This research is being conducted by Damian A. Kessler. This study will
add to current literature on this topic, provide educational opportunities for current and
prospective superintendents, and contribute to superintendent-leadership programs.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

Participants will be asked to complete an online survey. Participants will be presented
with the reasons for undertaking the survey and how the results will be used. The
survey will be constructed to motivate respondents to answer, to facilitate recall and to
keep respondents interested. Each question will have an explicit rationale. The survey
will include four open-ended questions that will add depth and unbiased opinions.
Participants will be selected to complete a one-hour interview. Interviews will be audio-
taped. These tapes will be transcribed and the original tapes will be erased after
transcription is completed. Only the researcher will have access to the data associated
with this study. Participants will be asked to sign a consent form before their
participation in the interview.

1
Date of Preparation: April 27, 2011
UPIRB#:

107

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

Not applicable, participants will not be paid for their participation in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential
and will be disclosed only with the participants’ permission or as requested by law.
Only the researcher will have access to the data associated with this study. The data will
be stored in the investigator’s office in a password protected computer. The data will be
stored for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed. Unique
codes or dummy names will be used to ensure participants’ confidentiality. When the
results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be
included that would reveal the participants’ identity. The HSPP reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Damian A. Kessler
dakessle@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION

University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier
Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

108

APPENDIX D
ONLINE SURVEY COVER EMAIL
June 1, 2011

Dear Superintendent/Board Member,

You are invited to participate in a research study by Damian Kessler and Dr. Rudy
Castruita from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You were selected because of your district’s proven track record of student
achievement and your leadership in that area. I am currently in the dissertation stage of
my doctoral program and seeking assistance to complete my study. Your participation
is voluntary.

The purpose of this study is to analyze political strategies that superintendents utilize in
building coalitions for student achievement. Your responses and additional input will be
carefully reviewed, analyzed, and reported. If you agree to participate, you will be
asked to take to part in a face-to-face interview. I will supply the interview questions
ahead of time to maximize your time. Interview time should take between 45-60
minutes.

There are no anticipated risks to your participation. There are no direct benefits to
your participation; however your participation may help provide strategies educational
leaders can use to impact and improve student achievement in the future.

Online Survey URL: http://www.surveymonkey.com
Please submit the survey as soon as possible, latest by June 30, 2011

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding the participation in this study, you can contact me directly at
dakessle@usc.edu or Dr. Rudy Castruita at the University of Southern California.

Respectfully,

Damian Kessler
Principal Investigator

Dissertation Committee:
Dr. Rudy Castruita, Chair
Dr. Pedro Garcia, Member
Dr. Rudy Crew, Member
109

APPENDIX E
Statement of Consent
(Participant’s Copy)

I have read this consent letter and I fully understand the contents of the document
and voluntarily consent to participate in this research study. I acknowledge that I
have been informed of, and understand, the nature and purpose of this study, and
freely consent to participate. I acknowledge that I have received a copy of this
consent form.

Please check here if you consent to participate: ________

Print Name: ____________________________________

Signature: _____________________________________

Please check here if you would like a copy of the study results sent to you: ________

110

APPENDIX E (cont.)

Statement of Consent
(Researcher’s Copy)

I have read this consent letter and I fully understand the contents of the document
and voluntarily consent to participate in this research study. I acknowledge that I
have been informed of, and understand, the nature and purpose of this study, and
freely consent to participate. I acknowledge that I have received a copy of this
consent form.

Please check here if you consent to participate: ________

Print Name: ____________________________________

Signature: _____________________________________

Please check here if you would like a copy of the study results sent to you: ________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Superintendents of public urban schools face tremendous pressure to increase student achievement. Leadership at the district level, particularly the relationship between the superintendent and the governing board of education, has a direct impact on student achievement. The purpose of this study was to find strategies that school superintendents utilize to create political working coalitions that lead to school reform and student achievement. ❧ Three research questions were used on the design of this mixed-methods study. Data was collected though six designed standardized open-ended interviews and a self-report online survey that was sent to superintendents and board members of 30 Southern California school districts with similar characteristics. ❧ The research study provided several key findings. First, superintendents identified that strategies to communicate with the board, to achieve goals and understand the political nature of the position, are necessary for a successful superintendency. Second, board members identified that strategies to communicate with the board, strategies to establish positive working relationships between the superintendent and the board, and knowledge of district management and leadership skills, are necessary for a successful superintendency. Finally, superintendents self-reported that a combination of traditional academic programs, prior leadership experiences, and working with mentors and peers provided valuable experiences to prepare them for the challenges of the superintendency.

Conceptually similar

PDF

Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement

PDF

Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

The role of the superintendent in ensuring school board focus on student achievement

PDF

Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement

PDF

An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement

PDF

The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development

PDF

Effective strategies urban superintendents utilize that improve the academic achievement for African American males

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Successful communication strategies used by urban school district superintendents to build consensus in raising student achievement

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions

PDF

Strategies for relationship and trust building by successful superintendents: a case study

PDF

School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts

PDF

Strategies utilized by superintendents and mathematics district personnel that impact minority student outcomes in algebra

PDF

What key characteristics are seen as essential by board of education members that lead to a successful superintendency

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

Asset Metadata

Creator Kessler, Damian Ariel (author)

Core Title Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/12/2012

Defense Date 02/21/2012

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,political coalitions,student achievement,superintendents

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), Crew, Rudolph (committee member), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member)

Creator Email dkessler@compton.k12.ca.us,xelya7@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-4817

Unique identifier UC1113253

Identifier usctheses-c3-4817 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KesslerDam-595.pdf

Dmrecord 4817

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kessler, Damian Ariel

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA