University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in urban school districts: a case study

(USC Thesis Other)

Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in urban school districts: a case study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

1

LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS, PRACTICES AND BOARD PERCEPTIONS THAT
SUPPORT SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS:
A CASE STUDY

by

Abram Jimenez

________________________________________________________________________

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 2016

Copyright 2016 Abram Jimenez

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

2
DEDICATION
To my family, I owe you so much and I love you dearly. Chica, Bibi, Jules and Papa,
you have been patient, caring, sympathetic, and supportive throughout the my time at USC. You
are my inspiration. I could have not done it without all of your love. Each of you enriched my
life beyond my dreams and have provided all the space needed to complete the coursework and
writing of the dissertation. I hope we have collectively learned that anything is possible when
you are committed to accomplishing your dreams.
To my mother Susanna and father Javier, thank you. I appreciate the commitment and
sacrifice you made in coming to this country to provide my brothers and sister the opportunity to
have a better future. You were always very supportive of me pursuing my educational goals and
have been wonderful role models. I love you.
To the all of the individuals who supported, challenged, and encouraged me throughout
my experience at the University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education, thank you.
I would like to thank Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. Pedro Garcia, and Dr. David Cash for the
significant contribution to my dissertation and experience at USC.
To all of the superintendents who participated in this study, thank you. Your insight
shined a light on a very complex issue.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
List of Tables 5
Abstract 6
Preface 7
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 8
Introduction 8
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 14
Assumptions 15
Limitations 15
Delimitations 15
Definition of Terms 16
Chapter 2: Literature Review 18
Background of the Superintendency 20
The Superintendent and School Board of Education Perceptions 22
Challenges to Superintendent Longevity 26
Superintendent Leadership Characteristics and Practices 27
Superintendent Relationships with Stakeholders 31
The Role of the Twenty-First Century Superintendent 33
Chapter 3: Methodology 38
Research Questions 39
Research Design 40
Conceptual Framework 40
Sample 41
Population 41
Participants 42
Instruments 42
Protocol 43
Data Collection 44
Data Analysis 45
Validation 46
Reporting Results 46
Summary 46

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

4
Chapter 4: Findings 48
Background 48
Demographics of Participants 50
Process to Gather Research 53
Response Rate 54
Data Analysis and Findings 55
Research Question #1: What Personal Characteristics do Superintendents 61
with Above Average Tenure in Urban Districts Possess that Promote
Longevity in Their Career?
Research Question 2: What do Urban Superintendents, with Above Average 71
Tenure, Perceive as the Contributing Factors to the Longevity of their
Position?
Research Question #3: What Evaluation Tool/s are Used by School 82
Superintendents to Determine Their Effectiveness as it Relates to
Their Longevity?

Chapter 5: Conclusions And Implications 88
Introduction 88
Purpose of the Study 88
Research Questions 89
Results and Findings 89
Implications of the Study 92
Summary 95
Recommendations for Future Research 96
Concluding Remarks 96
References 98

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. District Demographics 51
Table 2. Superintendency: Gender, Years in Position and Ethnicity 52
Table 3. Superintendency Tiered Preparation 53
Table 4. Quantitative Survey: Response Rate 55
Table 5. Leadership Characteristics and Practices: The Mean from 5 Point Likert 57
Scaled Survey
Table 6. Leadership Characteristics and Practices: Combination of the Ratings Agree 58
and Strongly Agree
Table 7. Leadership Characteristics and Practices: From 5 Point Likert Scaled Survey 60
Table 8. Leadership Characteristics and Practices: From Open-Ended Interviews 61
Table 9. Leadership Characteristics: The Mean from 5 point Likert Scaled Survey 62
Table 10. Leadership Characteristics: Percentages 63
Table 11. Leadership Characteristics: Frequency 64
Table 12. Leadership Characteristics: Interview Frequency 65
Table 13. Leadership Factors: The Mean from 5 point Likert Scaled Survey 72
Table 14. Leadership Factors: Survey Percentages 73
Table 15. Leadership Factors: Survey Frequency 74
Table 16. Leadership Factors: Interview Frequency 75
Table 17. Evaluation Tools Used by Superintendents: From Open-Ended Interview 83

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

6
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research study was to identify urban superintendent leadership
characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that support superintendent longevity. there were five
urban superintendents interviewed for the study that have above average tenure of 3.18 years.
Additionally, 25 urban superintendents with above average tenure were surveyed to quantify
their perception of the characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that support superintendent
longevity. The design of the study was mixed method, leveraging both qualitative and
quantitative research. Creswell’s six step framework was the foundation of the research study,
which is designed to be a mixed-method research study using interviews and surveys. The
research study provides insight to urban superintendent leadership characteristics, factors and
evaluation tools which can provide insight to those seeking urban superintendent positions.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

7
PREFACE
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were co-authored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with two other doctoral candidates,
Bobbi Burnett and Mariana Ryan. We three doctoral students met urban, suburban and school
board members with the aim of helping educators understand the issue of low superintendent
longevity as genuine problem. However, the process for dissecting and resolving the problem
was too large for a single dissertation. As a result, the three dissertations produced by our
inquiry team collectively address the needs of urban, suburban, and school boards (see Burnett,
2016; Ryan, 2016).

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

8
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
1

Introduction
The need for strong leadership in schools is not a new concept. Effective leadership styles
have been researched over the past several decades to understand exactly what strategies strong
leaders utilize. Researchers in the 20th century spent ample time studying what leadership
strategies made specific individuals such great leaders (Northouse, 2007). Two particular
leadership models have surfaced from these studies, which are transformational leadership and
transactional leadership. A transformational leader is described as one who implements a process
that changes an individual and transforms them from within (Northouse, 2007). During the
transformation process, the leader and the individuals being led transform and become
interconnected from this binding connection (Northouse, 2007).
A transactional leader on the other hand is one that is more concerned with focusing on
that which is exchanged between the follower and the leader, than on the change taking place
within the individual (Northouse, 2007). The transformational leader makes a strong connection
with the follower while the transactional leaders offer some kind of compensation for their
loyalty (Northouse, 2007). An example of this would be a business owner who spends his time
building relationships of trust and comradery with his staff, while a different business owner
gains his followers’ respect through monetarily compensating them with a raise or promotion for
their allegiance.
Transformational leaders are also known to have charisma, motivation, intellectual
stimulation and individualized consideration (Northouse, 2007). Transactional leaders however,

1
This chapter was co-authored with Bobbi Burnett and Mariana Ryan.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

9
utilize contingent rewards, transactions that they construct and manage-by-exception with active
and passive corrective transactions (Northouse, 2007). They strategically provide rewards for
those that they perceive to be assets to the company, those that they consider to be doing a good
job (Northouse, 2007). Transactional leaders build their team with buy-in that includes exterior
rewards with interior motivation. People commit themselves to the individual and the
organization because of the transaction that will occur because of their efforts. This individual
may work for the boss and not even like him, but do it because of the reward that they will
receive. Transformational leaders have a strategy that includes a buy-in that is connected to the
individual and the relationship that has been built (Northouse, 2007).
A good leader may use a combination of both of these strategies to facilitate a productive
work environment and commitment to the organization. In the 1980s Bass (1985) looked at the
transformational work of both Burns (1978) and House (1976) to conclude that both
transformational and transactional leadership should be on a mutual continuum versus one that
was independent from the other (Northouse, 2007). His understanding is that one can benefit
from being led with strategies that promote positive self-reflection and belief in one’s own
abilities, which leads to motivation, as well as transactional leadership that promotes morale and
self-worth with the utilization of rewarding transactions that encourage positive membership and
buy-in with the leader in charge.
With the outstanding number of changes that educators and administrators are
experiencing with the new implementation of Common Core State Standards and technology,
Twenty-first century educational leaders need to strategically facilitate leadership strategies that
incorporate inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

10
contingent rewards for those doing an outstanding job, which are both transformational and
transactional leadership practices (Northouse, 2007).
The world of education is rapidly changing for everyone and the leadership
characteristics, along with the leadership practices that are being utilized to promote
superintendent longevity need to be studied to capture the heart and logic of the people with
whom they are serving.
School district leadership, specifically the superintendency, is a critical component to
increase student achievement. Waters and Marzano (2006) highlight the statistical significance
between the superintendent position and overall student performance. Since the relationship is
important, it becomes significant for school districts to have effective superintendents with
longevity that possess the skills to serve students, parents, and the local community for a
considerable amount of time. Consistent and effective superintendent leadership is at the center
of a school district overall success (Marshall & Ray, 2005), however, recent data indicates the
potential risks that superintendents take in becoming a superintendent with the average tenure of
superintendents being 3.18 years (Council of the Great City Schools, 2014).
The role of school superintendent has significantly changed from a traditional teacher
leader with limited political involvement to that of a chief executive officer responsible for
balancing the districts instructional program, operations, and public relations of the district
(Houston, 2006). The position of superintendent was originally developed in the late 1800s
during the common school movement, where children attended school for free despite their
socio-economic status, gender, religion, race or country of origin (Grieder, Pierce, & Jordan,
1969). By 1870, 30 large cities had school superintendents, which increased to over 35,000 by
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

11
the mid-1900s (Kowalski, 2003) and currently there are 14,000 superintendents in the United
States (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2010).
In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Initiative significantly changed the role of
superintendent. Superintendents became responsible for the oversight and accountability
measures associated with high stakes testing that was targeted by the Federal Government to
ensure that students were performing proficient and above on standardized assessments or face
sanctions. Superintendent behaviors shifted based on pressures to ensure students performed well
on standardized assessments and that teachers delivered effective instruction (Bjork & Kowalski,
2005). Superintendents continued to take on multiple roles with expectations that included, but
were not limited to, increased student achievement, board relations, hiring effective leaders,
maintaining a collaborative relationship with all community stakeholders, budget and finance
oversight, professional preparation, operations, and staying informed on incoming realities of
practice (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005).
Most recently, with the shift to Common Core State Standards, superintendents are now
faced with yet another shift in educational management and practice, which will require
additional skills to promote their longevity. There has not been sufficient research on the
characteristics that lead to superintendent longevity, which warrants an investigation of this
study. Superintendents need the flexibility, communication skills, knowledge capacity, and the
foresight to create a vision that promotes rigor, relevance, and relationships in the 21st century
while incorporating technology, and data into everyday practice. It is also their responsibility to
ensure safety for all students and staff, while providing the resources and services that ensure
high school students are graduating college and career ready (Finnan, 2014). With the new
Common Core State Standards initiative, superintendents are dealing with deep change versus
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

12
incremental change. A twenty-first century superintendent needs to exhibit more than the first
order change responsibilities centered around optimizing, affirmation, ideas/beliefs, situational
awareness, visibility, relationships, communication, culture, and input (Marzano, McNulty, &
Waters, 2005).
Due to the nature of change with the Common Core State Standards that encompass new
accountability measures, rigorous national curriculum for all students, College and Career
Readiness Standards, along with the implementation of technology, the twenty-first century
superintendent must exhibit second order change characteristics that require the district leader to
have knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment; be an optimizer, an intellectual
stimulator, a change agent, and a monitor and evaluator that is flexible with strong ideals and
beliefs (Marzano et al., 2005). This change requires new ways of thinking and behaving from the
No Child Left Behind era; it distorts the existing patterns in place, it means taking risks, and calls
for superintendents to surrender control of past practices and ideologies to support the new
educational political movement that comes with local control funding and Common Core State
Standards (Quinn, 1996).
Some of these risks that superintendents may need to take in this new role of the twenty-
first century superintendent can be supported by what Wagner and Kegan (2006) point out as
leadership styles and skills that are defined by Fortune 200 business leaders as being essential
leadership traits that have promoted longevity and continuous success over the changing times.
As superintendents continue to take on both new and old roles, they are essentially running an
enterprise much like the Chief Executive Officer of a corporation. Wagner and Kegan (2006)
describe a great leader that withstands time as one that is a critical thinker, a problem solver, and
a collaborator. They are also adaptable, creative, effective oral and written communicators that
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

13
are great at analyzing and using their imagination. Wagner and Kegan (2006) emphasize that
these are specific skills that are needed for a successful superintendent career with longevity and
for continuous learning in an ever-changing educational system.
Statement of the Problem
Superintendent tenure is the lowest in decades; the average tenure of superintendents is
3.18 years (Council of the Great City Schools, 2014), but is shorter in large urban school districts
(Cooper, Fusarelli, & Carella, 2000). Hoyle’s (2007) research found having high turnover for
district superintendents has a negative impact on student performance, stakeholder trust, and
organizational morale. Moreover, McKenna and Rooney (2007) indicate that it takes at least five
years to make sustainable impact to existing practice to show quality results. Since the average
tenure of superintendents is less than five years, it becomes difficult for districts to make
necessary shifts in policies and practices to positively impact student achievement given a new
leader comes and may have a different vision for the district.
Subpar superintendent leadership may be to blame for short tenure and underperforming
districts. Marzano et al. (2005) examined district leadership and its correlation to student
achievement and found that strong leadership characteristics significantly escalate student
performance and achievement. The report also demonstrated that there is a correlation between
effective district leadership characteristics and increased student achievement (Marzano et al.,
2005). Strong leadership, with regard to positive character traits, is ideally not a new concept
and the theories surrounding great leadership have been around for many years. Strong
leadership at the site level and the district level should promote equity and access of a quality
education to all students (Marzano et al., 2005). While there has been significant research done
investigating the importance of superintendent leadership to increase academic achievement,
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

14
there are few studies investigating the leadership characteristics that promote the longevity of the
superintendent position.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative and quantitative research study was to identify the
characteristics that successful superintendents possessed in order to maintain longevity in their
respective position as superintendent in urban and suburban school districts, as well as the
perception of school board members of successful superintendent characteristics that promote
longevity.
The research questions that guided this investigation are:
1. What personal characteristics do superintendents with above average tenure in urban
school districts possess that have promoted their career longevity?
2. What contributing factors do superintendents with above average tenure in urban
school districts perceive have promoted their career longevity?
3. What evaluation tool/s are used by urban school superintendents to determine their
effectiveness as it relates to their longevity?
This study identifies the characteristics that superintendents in urban and suburban that
have assisted in their longevity, as well as board members’ perceptions of superintendent
characteristics that promote tenure. The results of this study will provide a foundation where
aspiring superintendents can seek out necessary training in preparing for their careers. This study
is a comprehensive look at multiple components that affect superintendent tenure. By examining
superintendents’ characteristics and board members understanding of successful superintendent
characteristics, individuals seeking superintendent candidates for employment can utilize this
information in their hiring selection process.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

15
Assumptions
The study assumed that character traits which superintendents in both large and small
districts possessed played a key role in their professional longevity. Board members interviewed
were assumed to be able to identify successful superintendent characteristics that promoted
tenure. The study further assumed that the participants being interviewed and surveyed gave
truthful and accurate information. In addition, the literature that was used to support the
conceptual framework and the instruments that were utilized for data collection were assumed to
be valid tools that were also credible. Finally, it was assumed that the participants gave truthful
and accurate responses to their interviews and their surveys.
Limitations
Time was a restriction that led to a study that was limited to surveying and interviewing 5
urban superintendents, 5 suburban superintendents and 5 board members. Furthermore, due to
the limited numbers of superintendents in both urban and suburban districts that actually have
longevity of 3 years or more, the participant selection was limited for both participating
superintendents and board members. Potential bias may result due to the qualitative nature of the
study and the analysis that is interpreted through the lens of the researcher. Other variables
within a district may have an effect on the results of this study. The study was limited to
voluntary participation.
Delimitations
The study was delimited to the skills base and understanding of 5 superintendents in
urban districts as well as 5 superintendents in suburban school districts. In addition, the skills
base and understanding of 5 school board members. This study was delimited by examining and
providing evidence that supports leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

16
support superintendent longevity in urban and suburban school districts; a topic related to
educational management and instructional leadership.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are operationally defined and included
in the scope of this study:
Accountability: The obligation of schools to produce improvements in student academic
achievement. This is a system that holds districts, schools and/or students responsible for student
performance. Accountability systems typically consist of assessments, public reporting of results,
and rewards or sanctions based upon student performance over time.
Board members: Elected community representatives who are responsible for hiring the
superintendent and approving all policies within the district. They are elected every four years
and usually range between five to nine members.
Common Core State Standards: The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of
high quality academic expectations in English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics that define
the knowledge and skills all students should master by the end of each grade level in order to be
on track for success in college and career.
Conceptual framework: A lens through which research literature, theories, and other
pertinent information forms the basis for the analysis of findings within the study.
Longevity: The amount of time your service lasts; length of time spent in service or
employment.
No Child Left Behind Initiative: Is a United States Act of Congress that is a
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

NCLB supports standards-based
education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

17
goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop
assessments in basic skills. To receive federal school funding, states must give these assessments
to all students at select grade levels. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard.
Each individual state develops its own standards.
Professional development: Collaborative professional development aligned to student
learning and standards that prepares, trains, and recruits high-quality teachers, principals,
paraprofessionals, and other staff.
Suburban: A residential area or a mixed use area, either existing as part of a city or urban
area or as a separate residential community within commuting distance of a city.
Urban: A location characterized by high human population density and vast human-built
features in comparison to the areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities or towns.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

18
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2

According to A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983),
23 million Americans are considered functionally illiterate by simple tests in reading, writing,
and comprehension. In addition, 13% of 17-year old Americans are considered illiterate in basic
reading, writing, and comprehension. Today, the average score on most standardized test is
lower than it was 26 years ago (Orfield & Lee, 2006). With the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act in 2001, the federal government has spent more than 412 million
dollars in funding for assessment provisions to support the No Child Left Behind Act (U.S.
Department of Education [USDOE], 2002), the target goal of which was to improve student
achievement, close the achievement gap, and have every student at grade level in reading,
writing and math by 2014. Essentially, as noted in Orfield and Lee (2006), there has been no
significant improvements in student achievement, nor significant improvements to closing the
achievement gap for minority students. As a result, many states have adopted the National
Common Core Standards to assist in increasing the overall performance of student outcomes. In
California, the state legislature has also shifted its funding practices to give more local autonomy
to Local Educational Agencies (LEA) to support the shift to Common Core, but provide
equitable funding to historically disadvantaged students.
This shift in educational standards to Common Core will now require superintendents to
be prepared to make significant shifts to the systems, structures, and operations of their
instructional programs to fit another public education reform effort (Berlau, 2011). Today’s
urban and suburban superintendents, as compared to 15 years ago, are faced with more

2
This chapter was co-authored with Bobbi Burnett and Mariana Ryan.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

19
demanding roles (Berlau, 2011) and responsibilities tied to measurable state and federal student
performance outcomes. Student achievement accountability and increased public scrutiny,
amongst others, has placed increased examination into the superintendent roles and responsibility
that include, but are not limited to: district operations, facilities manager, curriculum
development, instructional leader, controller of budget, internal and external communications,
and liaison to the Board of Education and community. Each of these essential components to the
job of superintendent require tactful leadership characteristics and practices, to successfully
improve student achievement and superintendent longevity (Berlau, 2011).
The superintendent position is a critical component towards increasing student
achievement. Waters and Marzano (2006) highlight the statistical significance between the
superintendent position and overall student performance. Since the relationship is critical, it
becomes significant for school districts to have an effective superintendent that possess the
leadership characteristics and practices to promote longevity to serve students, parents, and the
local community for a considerable amount of time. Consistent and effective superintendent
leadership is at the center of a school district overall success (Marshall & Ray, 2005), however,
recent data indicates the average career longevity of urban superintendents as 3.18 years
(Council of the Great City Schools, 2014).
Superintendent longevity has been an issue for many years and even though the research
has shown the need for sustainability for district improvements, superintendent longevity has not
increased (Fullan, 2002). The job of superintendent has become the least stable and secure
position in education (Plotts, 2011). Urban and suburban superintendent turnover rates are at a
new high, which has created a revolving door for many districts. According to Berlau (2011), the
reasons most associated with urban and suburban superintendent turnover includes, poor
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

20
relations between the school board of education and superintendent, the lack of direct support
and assistance to the superintendent, the percentage of students that qualify for free or reduced
lunch, and the superintendent’s educational attainment. Furthermore, the roles and expectations
associated with the position of superintendent has transformed from a businessman to a
professional educational leader that must lead significant reform efforts, which has made the
position much more rigorous (Berlau, 2011).
Background of the Superintendency
The role of school superintendent has significantly changed from a traditional teacher
leader with limited political involvement to that of a chief executive officer responsible for
balancing the districts instructional program, operations, and public relations of the district
(Houston, 2006). The position of superintendent was originally developed in the late 1800s
during the common school movement, where children attended school for free despite their
socio-economic status, gender, religion, race or country of origin (Grieder et al., 1969). By 1870,
30 large cities had school superintendents, which increased to over 35,000 by the mid-1900s
(Kowalski, 2003) and currently there are 14,000 superintendents in the United States (NCES,
2010).
During the beginning of the school superintendent position, the primary role of a
superintendent was to manage the implementation of course curriculum and serve as supervisor
to classroom teachers. Superintendents were viewed as expert teachers that understood pedagogy
(Kowalski, 2003). However, as the country changed during the 1930s due to the crash in the
stock market and WWII, so did the role of the superintendent. Resources were scarce and
schools found themselves competing for government funding (Kowalski, 2003). This period
changed the role of school superintendents from manager to advocating for public funding and
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

21
becoming a political strategist (Bjork & Gurley, 2003). Another period that marked a change to
the school superintendency was after WWII, when the role of the superintendent became that of
a social scientist because of the public’s lack of confidence in public education. By the 1970s,
superintendents were expected to use research-based practices and devised plans for improving
the district’s instructional programs and outcomes for students (Fusarelli & Fusarelli, 2003). In
the early 1980s, the role of superintendent carried another responsibility; one of effective
communicator (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005). The need for superintendents to work collaboratively
with district and site administrators, teachers and staff, as well as, key stakeholders (parents,
special interest groups, politicians, and other taxpayers) became critical as America had moved
into the information age (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005).
During the eighties and nineties, the superintendent position became one of politician
filled with turmoil and pressure (Johnson, 2007). Urban and suburban superintendents became
targets of special interests groups based on their inability to meet federal and state laws and
regulations. These laws placed higher demands on public school systems for greater
accountability pertaining to overall student achievement, specifically with the passage of No
Child Left Behind in 2001 (Johnson, 2007). One such measure is a school’s Academic
Performance Indicator (API) that measures three categories; state assessments, school
completion (attendance rates, dropout rates) and graduation rates. Academic achievement levels
are included as well, including ACT scores, Advanced Placement (AP) scores and college
remediation via the Early Assessment Program. The public has access to every district’s and
school accountability report card (SARC) and it is utilized as a gauge to the schools level of
performance (Johnson, 2007).
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

22
Although the superintendent’s role originally began with a focus on the teaching and
learning (Kowalski, 2003), it is still expected today, but urban and suburban superintendents are
being held accountable for all other matters of the district (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000).
Superintendents are responsible for personnel and organizational management, political
leadership, collaborative practices, and public relations (Brederson & Kose, 2007). Despite
those internal district responsibilities, urban and suburban superintendents encounter external
challenges, such as, relational issues with the governing board of education, financial
responsibilities, demographic changes, high stakes accountability, and stakeholder influences.
In a study conducted by Fuller et al. (2003), superintendents from the 100 largest school
districts indicated that 61% of superintendents felt that school board micromanagement and/or
mismanagement was a hindrance to the effectiveness of their work. Moreover, 41% of
superintendents felt the school board’s lack of focus was an unnecessary obstacle (Fuller et al.,
2003). Jones and Howley (2009) research suggests this struggle with superintendents and school
boards is a significant challenge for many that regularly affect their overall performance. The
single most important factor for superintendent success is the interaction between the board and
the superintendent (Mountford, 2008).
The Superintendent and School Board of Education Perceptions
Some school board experts perceive that the most important job of a school board of
education is hiring superintendents and holding them accountable for the management of the
organization as governed by school board policies and supported by the state (Carol et al., 1986;
Goodman, Fulbright, & Zimmerman, 1997). Much of the power of a school board lies in their
authority to both hire and fire the superintendent which gives them indirect power over what
occurs within the district (Land, 2002). There is widespread agreement that a good working
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

23
relationship between the school board and the superintendent is essential to the governance of a
district (Anderson, 1992; Carol et al., 1986; Goodman et al., 1997; Goodman & Zimmerman,
2000; Grady & Bryant, 1991; Thomas, 2001). Therefore, it is important for urban and suburban
superintendents to ensure that they manage the perceptions of the school board because of its
impact on their longevity.
There are a number of resources to assist school boards in selecting, collaborating with
and evaluating urban and suburban superintendents, despite these resources, critics still discern
that there are several school boards that are still lacking the capacity to train and maintain
positive working relations with their superintendents (Danzberger, Kirst, & Usdan, 1992). Case
study and survey data of negative board-superintendent relationships have been marked as poor
due to the insurmountable workload, administrative situations, too much involvement by the
board, lack of superintendent resolution of issues, and lack of superintendent freedom from the
board (Carol et al., 1986). On the other hand, good urban and suburban superintendent-board
relations are characterized by shared respect, trust, support, confidence, and the ability to openly
communicate (Anderson, 1992; Carol et al., 1986; Goodman et al., 1997). In a two year study
conducted of 266 urban, suburban, and rural school boards spanning 16 states, a large finding
concluded that there are ineffective procedures in place to handle conflicts between school
boards and superintendents (Danzberger et al., 1992).
There are few studies that have shown a correlation between the relationship of the
school board of education and superintendent as it pertains to overall student academic
achievement. However, Goodman et al. (1997) found that districts who faced poor board-
superintendent relations, along with a lack of trust and collaboration, had lower student
achievement than districts that were not faced with the same problems (Land, 2002). According
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

24
to the Education Writers Association (2003), the relationship that urban and suburban
superintendents with the governing school board of education was a decisive element in
sustained superintendent longevity. Rausch (2001) found that conflict between a school board
and superintendent is a common reason why superintendents leave the district. Allen (1998)
noted that poor relationships with the school board was a second reason for involuntary contracts
that were non-extensions. In the same research study, board members perceived that the major
reason superintendents leave their positions is because of their poor working relationship with
the superintendent. Even if conflicts arise, Goodman and Zimmerman (2000) stated that it is
important for the school board, superintendent, and community to work together to connect the
needs and wants of all three stakeholders for the good for the district and the students it serves.
Many of the school boards and superintendents describe having cooperative working
relationships with each other, but have encountered issues regarding where the final authority
regarding district matters (Farkas, Johnson, Duffet, & Foleno, 2001). Farkas, Johnson et al.
(2001) stated that 65% of superintendents perceived that school boards wanted to work with
leaders that they would have direct control and influence over. In addition, 80% of
superintendents stated that they felt frustrated with the politics of the job (Farkas, Johnson et al.,
2001). School boards micromanaging and interfering with superintendent responsibilities was
also noted as a source of frustration for superintendents (Harvey, 2003). Two-thirds of the
superintendents stated that the board meddled in issues that were outside of their scope of
responsibility (Harvey, 2003). A quality working relationship between the school board and the
superintendent is key (Byrd, Drews, & Johnson, 2006).
Some school boards perceive urban and suburban superintendents as leaders who want to
control the direction that the school district is going in and the policies that are enacted by giving
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

25
information that is not sufficient in an attempt to put a stop to board deliberations. Also, some
urban and suburban superintendents have been accused of failing to put important information
and issues on the board agenda for public discussion. This can lead to a very stressful
environment where the board begins to lose trust and faith in the superintendents handling of
school business (Johnson, 2007). For this reason, it is important that the board and the
superintendent have a shared mission, vision, and goal. Nestor-Baker and Hoy (2001) conducted
a study that identified how successful superintendents openly support board decisions and work
to maintain unity (Johnson, 2007).
Positive relationships between an urban and suburban superintendent and their school
board play a critical role in the longevity of a superintendent. An experienced urban or suburban
superintendent understands how important the relationship for him/her to have with their school
board. In a study conducted amongst 24 superintendents in California, found that they felt the
most crucial component to their longevity and tenure is a positive relationship with their school
board. Eight of the 24 mentioned that a stable school board was directly responsible for their
longevity in the district (Chance, 1991). All the superintendents surveyed also stated that open
communication was the key to their longevity. The superintendents also mentioned the
importance of keeping the members informed and keeping the office door open (Chance, 1991).
A good relationship with the board of education should help with a superintendent’s longevity
and continuity in a district (Plotts, 2011). It is key that urban and suburban superintendents can
manage their relationship with various stakeholders politically correct. A successful
superintendent is one who accepts three simultaneous roles: the politician, the manager, and the
teacher (Chance, 1991).
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

26
Challenges to Superintendent Longevity
School finance fluctuates based on the state funding and the country’s economy. Changes
to school district budgets can prove to be extremely challenging for urban and suburban
superintendents because of their responsibility in funding district, state, and federal government
educational goals. Approximately 80% of a district’s budget is allocated to employee salaries
and benefits (Ellerson & McCord, 2009). Any decrease in funding will have huge implications
for staffing and what can be funded to support the instructional program of the district. Sixty-
seven-point-two percent of suburban district superintendents and 87.7% of urban district
superintendents felt their district is inadequately funded (Ellerson & McCord, 2009).
Urban and suburban superintendents face shifts in school demographics, including the
number of English language learners and students that qualify for free or reduced lunch. The
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2010) reported the percentage of white
students who are English Only Speaking (EOS) in public schools from 1989 to 2009 decreased
from 68% to 55%. During the same time period, Hispanic students whose primary home
language other than English increased from 11% to 22%. In the same study conducted by the
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2010), 22% of elementary students and 8% of
high school students attended public schools were categorized as high poverty.
The No Child Left Behind Act (USDOE, 2002) placed much higher levels of
accountability on urban and suburban superintendents and threatened sanctions for poor
performance, while placing stronger levels of scrutiny by ranking schools with chronically low
performance as “Program Improvement.” Districts were required to have continuous student
achievement for all subgroups (i.e. economically disadvantaged students, limited English
proficiency students, students with disabilities, racial groups, etc.). Members of the community,
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

27
local school boards, and other stakeholders began to view schools differently based on their
academic performance levels, which increased pressure on urban and suburban superintendents
to correct low performing schools. Although school accountability has not been defined by the
most states to address Common Core, new accountability discussions have added additional
measures to gain a holistic approach to accountability.
One of the primary focuses for a school superintendent is to ensure teachers are
delivering effective instruction and students learn, however, a new primary focus is navigating
and managing complex political situations at the local, state and federal level (Sergiovanni,
1990). At the local level, parents, unions, special interest groups, faith-based organizations,
board members, and district employees may have different perspectives about how the district
should conduct its affairs and cause conflict (Fuller et al., 2003). Farkas, Johnson et al. (2001)
found that 81% of superintendents surveyed felt handling public criticism is an integral
component of the job.
Superintendent Leadership Characteristics and Practices
Northouse (2007) defines leadership as a process by which an individual is able to
influence an organization or group of individuals to achieve a particular goal. Bolman and Deal
(2003) present a four-frame leadership model that represents four key leadership domains that
should be utilized as a leader to decode organizational complexity. The four leadership frames
are: the structural frame, the human resource fame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). The human resource frame is one that suits a twenty-first superintendent
due to their need to have a strong relationship with the school board of education and various
stakeholders. A strong human resource leader invests in their human capital for the greatest
return on investment (Bolman & Deal, 2003). With the implementation of the National Common
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

28
Core Standards and College and Career Readiness Technology Standards, teachers need support
and professional development to accommodate these new changes.
The political frame is important in the school board and various stakeholders relations
domain, and with the new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) it is imperative to build
public coalitions to dissolve potential conflict. The structural frame is essential to organize
instructional rounds, leadership teams, committees, and strong teams to increase district results.
Finally, superintendents need the symbolic frame to create a district culture that has purpose,
focus, vision, goals, and can function as a team (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Strong leaders have
character traits the come from each of these domains and that do not work independently from
one another.
Northouse (2007) points out that despite the multiple ways that leadership is discussed or
defined, there is no one real definition to describe it or set of characteristics to define it.
Northouse (2007) describes two different views on leadership; the trait definition of leadership
and the process definition of leadership. The trait definition sees a leader as an individual that
possesses a set of properties that resides within a select group of people, characteristics that
contribute to their ability to be a leader. The process definition sees leadership as something that
can be learned over the course of time and not necessarily something that a person already has
within. Throughout the 20th century, several scholars began to test the trait approach to see if
there was any validity to leadership traits making people great leaders (Northouse, 2007). The
theory was known as the great-man theory and leaders such as: Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and
Napoleon were seen as being born leaders with innate leadership traits (Northouse, 2007). This
time period was one whereby researchers clearly concentrated on linking specific character traits
with leaders (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Jago, 1982).
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

29
In the mid-20th century, researchers began to challenge the link between characteristics
of a leader and their leadership roles (Northouse, 2007). Stogdill (1948) reconceptualized the
theory that character traits were not directly linked to leadership roles, but rather leadership was
linked between the individual and the social setting that they were in. Stogdill (1974) conducted
a meta analysis, in which he analyzed 163 research studies and compared it to his original
findings. Stogdill identified the following characteristics as leadership traits: the need to be
responsible and task-oriented; persistent in goals; problem-solver; initiative; confident; accepting
of consequences; be able to endure stress, to tolerate frustration, to influence others, and to
structure social interactions (Stogdill, 1974).
Mann (1959) found that leaders had leadership characteristics that could be distinguished
from non-leaders (Mann, 1959). Lord, DeVader, and Alliger’s (1986) meta-analysis identified a
connection between the characteristics of leaders versus non-leaders. Finally Kirkpatrick and
Locke (1991) conducted a qualitative synthesis that determined how leaders have six traits that
non-leaders lack, which are listed as: drive; the want to lead; being honest and having integrity;
having self-confidence; cognitive ability, and finally having the knowledge of the industry. The
consensus of the five major studies listed above synthesized the key leadership characteristics
that constituted being a leader versus being a non-leader as: intelligence, self-confidence,
determination, integrity, and sociability (Northouse, 2007). Although the trait approach does not
point out what types of leaders are needed during different situations, it does point out that
having a leader with certain leadership characteristics is crucial to having an effective leader
(Northouse, 2007).
The role of urban and suburban superintendents has changed to meet the twenty-first
century needs of the educational population. These demanding changes and responsibilities of a
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

30
superintendent have shown that there are certain attributes, experiences, and knowledge that
promote superintendent longevity in today’s educational setting. The areas of knowledge that
have shown to have the most positive effect on the longevity of an urban and suburban
superintendent are relationships and communication with the school board, the school board’s
positive perceptions of the superintendent, district employees, the community, and knowledge in
the current curriculums/standards and finance, and a district vision.
Communication is another leadership characteristic experienced urban and suburban
superintendents keeps as important. A successful superintendent understands that communication
amongst all stakeholders is critical in his/her tenure in that district. In their relationships with
their communities, open communication was again the key to the success of a superintendent’s
longevity (Chance, 1991). The study done showed that superintendents credited the community
for their success and public relations was identified key as well (Chance, 1991). They also
asserted that open communication with school personnel was an important attribute. One
superintendent stated that involving a lot of people was the key and another felt that creating a
sense of belonging was the important factor (Chance, 1991).
Urban and suburban superintendents are faced with tough decisions daily. Since
superintendents facing these struggling issues, they are required to be knowledgeable in all areas
of education. Effective superintendents need to allocate the resources necessary such as time,
money, personnel, and materials to accomplish the district’s goals and sometimes making the
tough decisions of cutting back on certain initiatives that are not aligned with district goals
(Plotts, 2011). Along with these cuts backs, another big area the superintendent should be
knowledgeable in is the finances of your districts (Chance, 1991). Not only should a
superintendent understand areas such as finances and the appropriate allocations of these
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

31
finances, they should be fluent in the curriculum and professional development needed for the
staff and students in the district as a whole (Quinn, 2005). The role of the superintendent now is
as an instructional leader (Quinn, 2005).
Another key leadership characteristic that promotes longevity of urban and suburban
superintendents is having a clear and concise vision for their district and an effectively be able to
translate this plan. Effective urban and suburban superintendents focus their efforts on creating
goal oriented districts such as: collaborative goal setting, non-negotiable goals for achievement
and instruction, board alignment and support of district goals, monitoring goals for achievement
and instruction, and the use of resources to support achievement and instruction goals (Plotts,
2011). Key among the desired attributes of a successful superintendent is the ability to enunciate
a clear, shared vision, and the ability to inspire others to work toward realizing the vision (Quinn,
2005). The five district level responsibilities most used by superintendents in creating a goal
oriented district are: collaborative goal setting, non-negotiable goals for achievement and
instruction, board alignment and support of district goals, monitoring goals for achievement and
instruction, use of resources to support achievement and instruction goals (Waters & Marzano,
2006).
Superintendent Relationships with Stakeholders
Lere (2004) conducted a study in Colorado that researched three groups with an emphasis
on superintendent tenure. His study looked at the importance of the relationship between the
superintendent, the community, and the school board. Lere concluded from his study that there is
a connection between superintendent longevity and the three variables (community, school board
and superintendent leadership). When these three variables are aligned with a positive
correlation, the average years of service for the superintendent is just over 5 years. When the
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

32
community and the school board align or when the school board and the superintendent align, the
average tenure was also just over 5 years. However, if all three of them are not aligned, the
average superintendent tenure is only about 3.5 years (Johnson, 2007). There are a number of
reasons why this might be the case, but many researchers find the two prevalent factors are
superintendent/school board relations that “fit” with the community (Carter & Cunningham,
1997; Glass et al., 2000; Grady & Bryant, 1991; Johnson, 2007; Newell, 1997). It has been noted
that if there is a lack of compatibility between the school board, the superintendent, and the
community, a “revolving door syndrome” can occur with superintendents. Bryant and Grady
(1989) describe how the consistent turnover of superintendents can create difficulty in
establishing consistent policy and administrative rule. This can have a negative impact on a
district who is constantly being faced with internal uncertainty that can be distracting when
trying to handle school business. Goals can become unclear and lack credibility, employees
might lose faith in the direction of the district and loyalty to the organization as a whole, and a
crisis style of management can dominate the district (Grady & Bryant, 1991).
Additional studies have presented clear evidence that if there is not a positive working
relationship between the governing triad, the superintendent usually does not stay in their
position for very long (Carter & Cunningham, 1997; Copeland, 1993; Grady & Bryant, 1991;
Hess, 1994; Konnert & Augenstein, 1995; Lere, 2004; McCarty & Ramsey, 1971; Sharp &
Walker, 1997; Smith, 1998; Spring, 1984). For this reason, it is important for a school board to
find a superintendent that is a good fit for their district and fits their profile. The relationship and
alignment of the superintendent with the community and the school board really provides
stability and progress to a school system. Describing the compatibility of superintendents based
upon the community characteristics, school board type and leadership could really help school
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

33
boards with finding a good “fit” for their district (Johnson, 2007). This could also assist potential
superintendents with identifying a good match for their leadership style and reduce the disruption
in the educational system that results from having a constant turnover of superintendents and
enhance the initiation and implementation of educational programs needed to improve student
achievement. Hess (1994) concludes that there is a direct relationship between community,
school board, and superintendent leadership styles. His data also supported the idea that
community drives school boards, which ultimately drive the superintendent leadership style. He
also concludes, that if these three do not match up, the superintendent will not have a long stay in
that particular district (Johnson, 2007). Overall the research indicates that the degree of success
that a superintendent feels within their position relies heavily on the critical relationship between
the school board and the community (Nestor-Baker & Hoy, 2001).
The Role of the Twenty-First Century Superintendent
The role of a urban and suburban superintendent has changed and evolved in the twenty-
first century and even more dramatically in recent years. In the beginning of the superintendency,
many superintendents were in charge of writing their districts’ curriculums and day to day
operations in their districts. This meant that the role of the superintendent was to be a teacher to
the teachers and it was the beginning of the evolution of the superintendent as instructional
leader (Plotts, 2011). The twenty-first century superintendent’s responsibility is now to oversee
overall function of the school district, which has increased the average work week to about 60-75
hours (Plotts, 2011). The superintendents in charge of public education in the United States are
responsible for the education provided to over 45 million children and youth in nearly 15,000
school districts where they oversee teachers, administrators, and non-instructional staff totaling 5
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

34
million people. On top of managing all these professionals, they also direct annual education
expenditures around $300 billion (Quinn, 2005).
A job description requirement post for a suburban superintendent position in Vista,
California necessitates leadership characteristics defined in each of Bolman and Deal’s (2003)
leadership frame. The qualifications of this job description embody the structural frame that
describes a superintendent as having the skills to organize and structure groups to get results
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). Some of these structural qualifications of a superintendent that are listed
in this job description include shaping a purpose in response to a demand placed on the district
by the community, the board, the state, and the federal government (Bolman & Deal, 2003). In
addition, the qualifications as listed in the job description for a superintendent require the
leadership of a leader that can organize high-performing teams that create a common purpose
that translates into measurable outcomes (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Furthermore, the
superintendent job description fits into the structural frame as a superintendent is responsible for
developing the right mix of leaders with the right qualifications and expertise while developing a
team that is committed to having workable relationships with all stakeholders within the district
(Bolman & Deal, 2003).
The qualifications of the superintendent job description also include the frame of human
resources. The superintendent is responsible for hiring a diverse population of instructional
managers, teachers, and classified staff that will lead the district to success (Bolman & Deal,
2003). The superintendent will encourage autonomy and participation within their district while
fostering-self management teams that will assist with leading the district towards their mission,
vision, and goals (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The human resource component of the superintendent
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

35
job includes providing democracy, egalitarianism, training and security within a workforce that
leads to cohesion, trust and organizational satisfaction (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
According to the necessary qualifications that a superintendent must have, they too must
embody the elements outlined in the political frame. The superintendent is responsible for
creating a vision and for leading their organization towards obtaining this vision despite any
internal or external forces that impede this journey (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The superintendent
becomes the manager as a politician who is responsible for enacting policy, board relations,
community relations, fiscal spending, bargaining, negotiating, networking, and forming
coalitions (Bolman & Deal, 2003). In addition they must also adhere to state and federal
reporting and accountability measures that the organization must abide by in order to receive
necessary funding. The superintendent must also be aware in advance of individuals or
organizations that might resist their vision and be able to rationalize these challenges to come up
with resolutions (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Finally, Bolman and Deal (2003) discuss in their book the symbolic frame, and as listed
above in the job description of a superintendent. This frame is an essential component of an
individual in this particular career. The culture of the district is defined by symbolic frame. A
superintendent is responsible for creating a culture within a district where beliefs, values, and
practices are interwoven amongst stakeholders within the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
The organization needs to function as a team that shares the same basic assumptions and as a
group learns to solve problems, adapt, and integrate new members to have similar perceptions
thoughts and feelings in relation to the problems that may arise within the organization (Bolman
& Deal, 2003). The superintendent leads the organization to share common ceremonies,
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

36
traditions, rituals and protocols that are valued by members within the group (Bolman & Deal,
2003).
In addition to Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Organization Frames, Marzano et al. (2005)
define the 21 responsibilities of school leaders. These 21 categories of behaviors were the
findings of 69 studies in a meta-analysis that looked for specific behaviors that were related to
principal leadership. Many of leadership responsibilities can be listed under one of the four
Bolman and Deal (2003) organizational frame categories. These 21 leadership responsibilities
have been described as being characteristics that are beyond the scope of one human-being to
have and hence the reason why school leadership has been described as a shift from it not just
being an individual responsibility, but rather the responsibility of a team of individuals (Marzano
et al., 2005). As Bolman and Deal (2003) discuss the structural frame, the human resources
frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame, Marzano et al. (2005) use similar terminology
in their 21 necessary leadership characteristics identified as: affirmation; change agent;
contingent rewards; communication; culture; discipline; flexibility; focus; ideals and beliefs;
input; intellectual stimulation; involvement in curriculum, instruction and assessment;
knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment; monitoring and evaluating; optimizer;
order; outreach; relationships; resources; situational awareness; and visibility.
Superintendents utilize managerial influence over the principals and teachers in which
they serve. This means that they have direct influence and impact on student learning and
achievement (Cuban, 1984; Hoyle, Bjork, Collier, & Glass, 2005). Included in their roles is
selecting strong staff and recruitment, clear mission and goals, as well as financial planning that
supports instruction (Hoyle et al., 2005). Farkas, Foley, and Duffett (2001) found that more than
half of superintendents listed that their hardest job is that of increasing student achievement.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

37
Student achievement is recognized as being vital to the success of the superintendent even
though their job is different from that of the principal (Byrd et al., 2006). Superintendents are
instructional leaders not just for the sites that they serve, but for monitoring and regulating the
overall school system (Hoyle et al., 2005). It was also cited that superintendents of successful
districts do have a “hands on approach” with regard to instructional matters (Cuban, 1984).
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 in recent years has increased the demands that are
placed on superintendents (USDOE, 2002). Federal and state accountability standards that are
increasingly difficult to obtain have put stressful mandates on superintendents and the districts
that they serve. Not only is the superintendent responsible for supporting the overall running of
the district, but they are now too responsible for the success and failure of student performance
(Byrd et al., 2006). The twenty-first century superintendents must have managerial and financial
skills, but now they must also have instructional methods, and the ability to interpret assessment
data as well to explain how their district is achieving in comparison to other districts across the
state and the nation (Hoyle et al., 2005).

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

38
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3

School district leadership, specifically the superintendency, is a critical component
towards increasing student achievement. Waters and Marzano (2006) highlight the statistical
significance between the superintendent position and overall student performance. Since the
relationship is important, it becomes significant for school districts to have effective
superintendents (Quinn, 2005). These attributes have been identified as a leader who has the
ability to enunciate a clear shared vision and the ability to inspire others to work toward realizing
the vision (Quinn, 2005). Quinn (2005) asserts that superintendents that possess these skills are
genuinely successful superintendents that serve students, parents, and the local community for a
considerable amount of time. Consistent and effective superintendent leadership is at the center
of a school district’s overall success (Marshall & Ray, 2005); however, recent data indicates the
average tenure of urban superintendents as 3.18 years, down from 3.64 years in 2010 (Council of
the Great City Schools, 2014). In the same study, 100 randomly selected California school
districts reported that 43% of superintendents remained in their position for three years or less.
But 71% of those in districts with more than 29,000 student also left within that time frame
(Council of the Great City Schools, 2014).
One of the primary focuses for an urban school superintendent is to ensure teachers are
delivering effective instruction and students learn, however, a new primary focus is navigating
and managing complex political situations at the local, state and federal level (Sergiovanni,
1990). At the local level, parents, unions, special interest groups, faith-based organizations,
board members, and district employees may have different perspectives about how the district

3
This chapter was co-authored with Bobbi Burnett and Mariana Ryan.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

39
should conduct its affairs and cause conflict (Fuller et al., 2003). Farkas, Foley and Duffett
(2001) found that 81% of superintendents surveyed felt handling public criticism is an integral
component of the job.
The role of superintendent is vast and includes many duties, expectations and
responsibilities. The complexity and challenges of the position (board-superintendent
relationships, finance, demographic shifts, new accountability, and public relations) indicate why
there is high turnover in the position. Since the adoption of No Child Left Behind Act (USDOE,
2002), educational leaders have higher levels of accountability and greater scrutiny which have
placed significant challenges to suburban and urban superintendents that have been described as
impossible (Andero, 2000).
Urban superintendent turnover is a problem and there is a need for examining the factors
that influence superintendent longevity. It is important to determine how urban superintendents
with greater than average longevity have stayed in their positions despite all of the obstacles.
This information from the research study can provide insight to the leadership characteristics and
strategies that can influence individuals interested in the superintendency.
Research Questions
The following questions were used to guide the study:
1. What personal characteristics do superintendents with above average tenure in urban
school districts possess that have promoted their career longevity?
2. What contributing factors do superintendents with above average tenure in urban
school districts perceive have promoted their career longevity?
3. What evaluation tool/s are used by urban school superintendents to determine their
effectiveness as it relates to their longevity?
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

40
Research Design
The study called for an analysis of factors that urban school superintendents believed
contributed to superintendent above average job longevity. The research study used a mixed
method approach using qualitative and quantitative data to address the research problem. The
mixed methods approach included mixing both surveys and interviews in the data collection
process to answer the research questions (Creswell, 2014). According to Creswell’s (2014)
framework for qualitative research, the study used interviews and surveys to determine the
contributing factors related to above average urban superintendency. Integrating the quantitative
and the qualitative data assisted with triangulation, checking for accuracy of the other database
being utilized (Creswell, 2014).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework utilized for this study is based on Creswell’s (2014) six steps
of the research process. The six steps are: (1) identification of the research problem, (2) review
of the literature, (3) specification of the purpose for the research, (4) data collection, (5)
analyzing and interpreting the data, and (6) reporting and evaluating the research. This
conceptual framework is designed to be a mixed-method research study and was conducted using
both the use of interviews and surveys.
The qualitative aspect of this study was done with interviews that were done in person.
These interviews were done with five urban superintendents. The interviews ranged from about
one hour per person interviewed. They provided insight into superintendent perceptions about
what constitutes career longevity and the positive character traits that contribute to this longevity.
The data collected provided insight to answer the inquiry questions above while allowing the
researcher the opportunity togther an in-depth understanding of this information.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

41
The quantitative portion of this study was done with a survey instrument that is based on
a four-choice Likert scale that was completed by a total of 5 urban superintendents that fit the
above average tenure urban superintendent participant qualification guidelines. The five selected
superintendents represented in the research study took a 25 question survey. The data collected
from these surveys provided insight into the characteristics and qualities that are identified as
being important for successful urban superintendency that contribute to career longevity. Waters
and Marzano’s (2006) twenty-one leadership characteristics and Bolman and Deal’s (2003)
research on the four frames of leadership link strong leadership skills to superintendency
positions and inspired the survey questions created for inquiry.
Sample
Standing urban superintendents were selected for the study and are currently employed in
a California school district, have been in their positions with above average longevity, as defined
by The Council of the Great City Schools (2014), which reported the average tenure of urban
Superintendents as 3.18 years, but is shorter in large urban school districts (Cooper et al., 2000).
The 5 urban superintendents that choose to take part in the research study were selected
based on the criteria identified for their participation. The 5 California identified superintendents
selected to participate in the research study had above average tenure in their respective district
and student populations or average daily attendance (ADA) that varied from 15,518 to 57,499
(California Department of Education, 2014).
Population
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2012), there were
13,588 public school districts, 98,817 schools serving 49.5 million students during the 2011-12
school year. The target population for this study included 5 California urban superintendents who
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

42
have tenures above the national average of 3.18 years (Council of the Great City Schools, 2014).
The identification of the 5 school urban district superintendents and their tenure resulted after a
comprehensive review of their district websites, online research and discussions with district
personnel.
Participants
All 5 urban superintendents from the population were asked to participate in the research
study. Superintendent contact information was obtained by reaching out to colleagues,
reviewing personal contacts and reviewing information from school district websites. Each
superintendent and board member was contacted by electronic email. Each electronic mail
delivered explained the purpose and rationale of the study, expectations for interviewees, and the
researcher’s plan to address subject confidentiality.
Instruments
Confidential interviews and surveys were central to the research study. Letters were sent
via electronic mail to 5 urban superintendents with above average longevity in California
requesting for their participation in the research study. The letter gave context to the research
study, as well as, the purpose and their role in the study. The letter also explained the procedures
used for the analysis and confirmation of data. Participating superintendents received a letter of
consent that they were asked to sign and return prior to beginning the research study. Five urban
superintendents responded and confirmed their participation to take part in the study.
Due to the qualitative and quantitative nature of this study, semi-structured interviews
and online surveys were given to the 5 urban superintendents participating in the research study.
The survey instrument is based on a four-choice Likert scaling. The choices were: Strongly
Agree, Agree, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree. The interviews consisted of standardized
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

43
questions followed by open-ended questions that would allow for additional information and
insight. Every interview began with demographic and background questions, followed by a set
of questions aligned to the research questions. The tape recorder was turned on and tested before
each of the interviews to ensure that the device was working. The interviews were transcribed for
clarity and destroyed after their purpose was served. The interviewee was told that the
information that they provided remains confidential and their names will be anonymous. They
were also told that the information that they provided was used for research at the university
level for those individuals that are seeking to become superintendents. The preferred method for
interviews was in person, but in certain situations, that was not feasible and phone interviews
were used.
Protocol
Interview with the superintendents were conducted utilizing the following protocols in
sequential order:
Each interview began with an introduction stating that the researcher is a University of
Southern California students conducting research on the leadership characteristics and practices
that support urban superintendent longevity. They were told that the research would be
conducted to inquire on urban superintendents perspectives on the characteristics that contribute
to their longevity. They were informed that they held the qualifications to be in the study and that
the researcher was very interested in the information that they could provide on the topic of
research. They were further informed how they would need to consent to a one hour interview in
addition to filling out an online survey.
The participants were informed that the interviews would remain confidential.
Pseudonyms would be utilized to protect their privacy. They were further informed that they
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

44
would not have to answer any questions that they were not comfortable with answering. Urban
superintendents were also informed that they could also discontinue the interview at anytime.
Their permission to move forward with the process was granted and the process began.
The researchers stated “Before we get started, do you have any questions for me?” “Are
you ready to get started?” At this point the researcher began questioning their participants. The
researchers first intention was to get the participant comfortable by easing them into the
questions slowly. The researcher then utilized questions that were structured and probed when
needed. After questioning the participant urban superintendents were asked if they had any
questions regarding the interview. Finally, the participants were thanked for their participation in
the study and their time. The researchers made sure that the participants correct contact
information was provided for possible future needs.
The surveys with the superintendents and the board members were conducted utilizing
the following protocols in sequential order:
Each survey was sent out electronically. The participants were given a Likert scale to
follow when answering the survey. The participants were informed that the surveys would
remain confidential. Pseudonyms would be utilized to protect their privacy. They were further
informed that they would not have to answer any questions that they were not comfortable with
answering. Once the surveys were all returned, all participants received a follow up thank you
email for participating in the survey.
Data Collection
Confidential interviews and surveys given to 5 urban superintendents with above average
tenure were essential to the study. The researcher sent letters to the five superintendents with
above average tenure at a California school district via email requesting for their participation in
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

45
the study. Five of these superintendents were from urban areas. In the email sent to
superintendents, the purpose of the study was explained, their role in the research study, and the
process for aggregating and disaggregating data. If superintendents accepted the invitation, there
was an attachment consent letter that needed to be signed and returned prior to participating in
the study. Five superintendents responded and were included in the study.
Data Analysis
The researcher coded the interview transcripts of each urban superintendent line-by-line.
Each of the codes were sorted using categorical aggregation to understand common themes
extended tenure. During the coding process, the researcher used an organizational chart (Constas,
1992) to identify themes. Secondly, a comparative analysis was conducted to develop
generalizations that can be applied to the specified population (Creswell, 2007).
Copies of the interview transcripts, audio-tapes of the interviews, and other identifying
documentation are housed in an web based cloud server and the device is locked in a safe at the
researcher’s residence. Once the research study is completed, all of the interview transcripts and
data will be destroyed based on the University’s Institutional Review Board.
The labels that result from the interviews were then turned into a codebook of findings.
Chapter 4 is a narrative of the codebook of findings that arose from the five superintendent
interviews. Dialogue taken directly from the interviews is synthesized and articulated underneath
each research question that it applies to throughout Chapter 4.
I then triangulated qualitative data with quantitative findings, which were the results of
the surveys distributed to the 5 urban superintendents that have above average tenure. The survey
data in Chapter 4 was articulated into charts and summarized by the mode (Fink, 2013). The
variation in the data was summarized by the range (Fink, 2013). Data from the Likert scale was
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

46
reduced to a categorical level by being combined with either agree or disagree responses that was
categorized as either accept or reject responses (Fink, 2013). The findings from the surveys was
represented in Chapter 4 both numerically and narratively.
Validation
Central to qualitative research is the ability of the researcher to capture the events of the
research study and interpret them in alignment with the findings free of bias (Creswell, 2007).
The researcher had subject reviews by having all interviewees review written, verbatim
transcripts of their interviews and also ensure their comments were were accurately depicted.
The transcribed interviews were sent via electronic mail to each superintendent prior to coding
interviews. The researcher received confirmation emails from each superintendent indicating
their transcript’s accuracy was correct.
Reporting Results
Superintendent participants were referenced anonymously throughout the study by giving
district titles such as District A, B, C, D, etc. Any potential items that could identify districts,
superintendents, and individuals were not used in the study. All participants were assigned the
same gender as females to remain anonymous.
Summary
This study utilized a mixed methods qualitative and quantitative approach designed to
aggregate information related to five urban superintendents with above average longevity. Three
research questions served as the basis of the study:
1. What personal characteristics do superintendents with above average tenure in urban
school districts possess that have promoted their career longevity?
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

47
2. What contributing factors do superintendents with above average tenure in urban
school districts perceive have promoted their career longevity?
3. What evaluation tool/s are used by urban school superintendents to determine their
effectiveness as it relates to their longevity?
The analysis of the data relating to the research questions provided information for each
of the participants. The information was disaggregated to understand the focus areas that related
to all five urban superintendents participating in the study. Given the quantitative and qualitative
nature of the study, the researcher used interviews and surveys for data collection. The five urban
superintendent participating in the study received verbatim interview transcripts immediately
following their interview.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

48
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
4

Background
Urban superintendent turnover is a problem and this research will examine the factors
that influence superintendent longevity. It is important to determine how urban superintendents
with above average tenure have remained in their positions despite the complexities of the
position. The research study will provide insight regarding urban superintendent leadership
characteristics and practices that impact and influence individuals who are interested or currently
serving as superintendent.
School district leadership, specifically the superintendency, is a critical component to
increase student achievement. Waters and Marzano (2006) highlight the statistical significance
between the superintendent position and overall student performance. Since the relationship is
important, it becomes significant for school districts to have effective superintendents that
possess the skills to serve students, parents, and the local community for a considerable amount
of time. Consistent and effective superintendent leadership is at the center of a school district
overall success (Marshall & Ray, 2005); however, recent data indicates the average tenure of
urban superintendents as 3.18 years (Council of the Great City Schools, 2014).
One of the primary focuses for a school superintendent is to ensure teachers are
delivering effective instruction and students learn, however, a new primary focus is navigating
and managing complex political situations at the local, state and federal level (Sergiovanni,
1990). At the local level, parents, unions, special interest groups, faith-based organizations,
board members, and district employees may have different perspectives about how the district

4
This chapter was co-authored with Bobbi Burnett and Mariana Ryan.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

49
should conduct its affairs and cause conflict (Fuller et al., 2003). Farkas, Foley, and Duffett
(2001) found that 81% of superintendents surveyed felt handling public criticism is an integral
component of the superintendent.
The role of superintendent is vast and includes many duties, expectations and
responsibilities. The complexity and challenges of the position (board-superintendent
relationships, finance, demographic shifts, new accountability, and public relations) indicate why
there is high turnover in the position. This turnover can negatively affect a district’s culture,
climate, and confidence.
The study called for an analysis of factors that urban school superintendents believe
contribute to their above average tenure. The research used a mixed method approach using
qualitative and quantitative data to address the research problem. The mixed methods approach
included both surveys and interviews in the data collection process to answer the research
question (Creswell, 2014). According to Creswell’s (2014) framework for qualitative research,
this study used interviews and surveys to determine the contributing factors related to urban
superintendents career longevity, a minimum of 3.18 years in their position (Council of the Great
City Schools, 2014). Integrating the quantitative and the qualitative data assisted with
triangulation, checking for accuracy of the other database being utilized (Creswell, 2014).
The purpose of this qualitative and quantitative research study was to identify the
leadership characteristics that successful superintendents possessed in order to maintain above
average tenure in their respective position as superintendent in urban school districts. The results
of this study will provide a foundation where aspiring superintendents or standing
superintendents can seek out necessary training or professional development for their careers.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

50
This study is a comprehensive look at multiple components that affect superintendent
tenure. The research will contribute to the thin literature on California urban school
superintendent’s tenure, leadership practices and characteristics that have contributed longevity.
Participants in the study are referenced anonymously through the use of generic district titles and
names. Any potential identifiers of the district, participant, and individual were excluded from
the study.
This chapter presents the findings from a mixed-method study comprised of a
quantitative survey completed by 30 superintendents and qualitative interviews conducted with
five urban superintendents, which aligned with the following research questions:
1. What personal characteristics do superintendents with above average tenure in urban
school districts possess that have promoted their career longevity?
2. What contributing factors do superintendents with above average tenure in urban
school districts perceive have promoted their career longevity?
3. What evaluation tool/s are used by urban school superintendents to determine their
effectiveness as it relates to their longevity?
Demographics of Participants
Superintendent Demographics of District Served
Standing urban superintendents selected for the study are currently employed in a
California urban school district, and have been in their positions for a minimum of 3 years. The
five California urban superintendents selected to participate in the research study had student
populations or average daily attendance (ADA) that varied from 15,593 to 46,868 (California
Department of Education, 2014).
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

51
Table 1 describes the demographics of the student population of each school district. It is
broken down into the following population categories: students, English Learners, free and
reduced lunches, minorities, and largest subgroups. This table gives the readers a more detailed
look into the districts interviewed. The average English Learner population in the district served
was 14.42%. The average population that was served free and reduced lunch was 65.46%. The
average minority population served within participant districts was 67.13%. Four out of 5
districts had Hispanic populations as being their largest subgroup, while one had Caucasian as
their largest subgroup.

Table 1
District Demographics
District
Student
Population
EL
Population
Free and
Reduced Lunch
Population
Minority
Population
Largest Subgroup
Population
A 15,593 30.92% 45.70% 59.50% Hispanic or Latino
B 16,710 24.40% 53.57% 49.53% Hispanic or Latino
C 25,311 35.92% 82.70% 85.03% Hispanic or Latino
D 34,208 17.77% 17.40% 57.20% Asian
E 46,868 21.47% 64.20% 38.20% Hispanic or Latino

Years of Superintendency
Table 2 gives the demographics characteristics of each urban superintendent interviewed.
The background of the superintendent is broken into the following categories: gender, years in
position, and ethnicity. Of the five superintendents interviewed, 4 of 5 urban superintendents
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

52
were male, two of five were Caucasian, and three of five were Latino. The average years in the
position for all 5 participants was 5.5 years as superintendent.

Table 2
Superintendency: Gender, Years in Position and Ethnicity
Superintendent Gender Years in Position Ethnicity
A Male 6 years Caucasian
B Female 3.5 years Latino
C Male 6 years Latino
D Female 7 years Caucasian
E Female 5 years Latino

Tiered Preparation of Superintendency
Table 3 describes how each participant interviewed had different career paths to their
superintendency. Each of the pathways to superintendency are charted beside each classified
superintendent interviewed. For example, superintendent A was a teacher, then assistant
principal, principal, assistant superintendent and then superintendent.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

53
Table 3
Superintendency Tiered Preparation
Superintendent Teacher Counselor
Assistant
Principal Principal Director
Assistant
Superintendent
A X X X X
B X X X X
C X X X
D X X X X
E X X X X X

Process to Gather Research
The quantitative portion of this study was done with a survey instrument that was based
on a five-choice Likert scale completed by urban superintendents. The data collected from the
surveys provided insight into the leadership characteristics and practices identified as being
important for successful urban superintendency that contributed to career longevity. Waters and
Marzano’s (2006) twenty-one leadership characteristics and Bolman and Deal’s (2003) research
on the four frames of leadership link strong leadership skills to superintendency positions and
inspired the survey questions created for inquiry.
Confidential interviews were central to the research study. Letters were sent via
electronic mail to 5 urban superintendents with above average tenure in an urban California
school district. This email requested for their participation in the research study. The letter gave
context to the research study, as well as, the purpose and their role in the study. The letter also
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

54
explained the procedures that were used for the analysis and confirmation of data. Five urban
superintendents responded and confirmed their participation to take part in the study.
The qualitative aspect of this study was done by holding five personal interviews with
each urban superintendent. The interviews ranged from one hour to two per urban superintendent
interviewed. The interviews were conducted utilizing standardized questions followed by open-
ended questions that allowed for additional information and insight. Interviews began with
demographic and background questions, followed by a set of questions aligned to the research
question. The interviews were recorded once permission is given by the participants. The data
collected provided insight into superintendent leadership characteristics and practices that
promoted their career longevity. The interviews were transcribed for clarity and destroyed after
their purpose coded, analyzed and synthesized. Each interviewee was sent a copy of their
transcribed interview for final approval. All participants information remains confidential and
names anonymous.
Response Rate
Based on the designed criteria for this study, 50 urban superintendents of elementary,
middle and high school districts were invited to participate in the quantitative survey. The
criteria selected for this study required that superintendents be in their position for above average
tenure, as defined by the Council of the Great City Schools of 3.18 years (2014). Of the 50
potential participants, 25 elected to participate. The result was a response rate of 50%. The
response rate was satisfactory to the researcher, based on the average return rate of 40% for a
survey conducted through email (Dillman, 2000).

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

55
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Response Rate
Measure # Invited To Participate # Participated % Participated
Superintendents 50 25 50%

Of the 25 suburban elementary, middle, and high school district superintendents who
chose to participate in the quantitative survey, 5 also participated in the qualitative interview.
Data Analysis and Findings
This section provides analyses, process for reporting and findings related to each of the
quantitative research questions. Descriptive statistics and the results of the quantitative statistical
calculations identified in the tables listed below where survey questions 1-26 are presented. The
data file consisted of the information from the 25 California superintendents representing the
total sample for the quantitative study. It was organized into Excel spreadsheets. Superintendent
responses were captured via an online survey. Each response was on a five point Likert Scale
from Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. Each response was
recorded and converted to a numerical value to aggregate and disaggregate the information to
understand the responses to each questions from a numerical analysis. Responses of Strongly
Agree were converted to a numerical value of five, Agree converted to four, Neutral to three,
Disagree to two and Strongly Disagree to one. The data was then analyzed to find the mean,
mode, average, to report the following perceptions of superintendents.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

56
Summary of Findings
Findings: Survey.
Table 5 depicts a ranked list of the 26 closed ended questions regarding leadership
characteristics and practices that support above average tenure in California school districts. The
table reports the findings of analyzing a five point Likert Scale ranging from strongly agree to
disagree to find the mean of each question.
Table 6 depicts a ranked list of the 26 closed ended survey questions regarding the
personality characteristics and factors that support above average tenure in urban districts. The
table reports the findings of a five point Likert Scale utilizing the data from Strongly Agree to
Agree to find the percentage scores of each question.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

57
Table 5
Leadership Characteristics and Practices: The Mean from 5 Point Likert Scaled Survey (number
of superintendents that took the interview (n)=25)
Leadership Characteristics/Practices Mean
I am passionate and care deeply about my work as a superintendent 4.96
I believe I am trustworthy 4.84
I consider myself a lifelong learner 4.84
I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass 4.8
I keep student learning and academic achievement at the forefront of my priorities 4.76
I am a caring and empathetic leader 4.76
I value the input of others 4.72
Building quality relationships with key stakeholders is important to my tenure as superintendent 4.72
I invest heavily in human capital 4.68
I am committed to issues of social justice and implement strategies to create equity and access in all
schools for all students
4.64
I value shared responsibility and delegate authority to ensure I build the collective capacity of all 4.56
I am consistently optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders 4.52
I have situational awareness regarding the happenings within the school district 4.52
I maintain a strong presence in the community I serve 4.48
My effectiveness as a superintendent is based on my ability to build a high quality cabinet and
administrative team
4.44
I have developed a clear vision for the school district I serve 4.4
I am a motivating and encouraging leader 4.4
I am approachable 4.36
I am a strong financial manager of resources 4.36
I have great communication skills 4.32
I have structures in place to keep myself well organized 4.32
My primary role is instructional leader 4.28
I maintain political acuity at the state and local level on issues that pertain to educational matters
that affect the school district and community I serve
4.2
I am an effective manager 4.08
I prioritize my time based on the vision of the district’s strategic goals 3.96
The most important relationship I maintain within my school district is with my school board of
education
3.92

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

58
Table 6
Leadership Characteristics and Practices: Combination of the Ratings Agree and Strongly Agree
(number of superintendents that took the interview (n)=25)
Leadership Characteristics/Factor Percentile Rank
I have developed a clear vision for the school district I serve. 100
I keep student learning and academic achievement at the forefront of my priorities 100
I believe I am trustworthy 100
I am consistently optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders 100
I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass 100
I value the input of others 100
I am committed to issues of social justice and implement strategies to create equity and access in all
schools for all students
100
I am passionate and care deeply about my work as a superintendent 100
Building quality relationships with key stakeholders is important to my tenure as superintendent 100
I have situational awareness regarding the happenings within the school district 96
I am a motivating and encouraging leader 96
I consider myself a lifelong learner 96
I maintain a strong presence in the community I serve 96
I am a caring and empathetic leader 96
I invest heavily in human capital 96
I am an effective manager 92
I value shared responsibility and delegate authority to ensure I build the collective capacity of all 92
I am a strong financial manager of resources 92
My primary role is instructional leader 88
I am approachable 88
I have great communication skills 84
I have structures in place to keep myself well organized 84
My effectiveness as a superintendent is based on my ability to build a high quality cabinet and
administrative team
84
I prioritize my time based on the vision of the district’s strategic goals 80
I maintain political acuity at the state and local level on issues that pertain to educational matters that
affect the school district and community I serve
80
The most important relationship I maintain within my school district is with my school board of education 76

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

59
Table 7 depicts a ranked list of the 26 closed ended questions with regard to personality
characteristics that support above average tenure in urban districts. The table reports the findings
of a five point Likert Scale utilizing the data from strongly agree to agree to find the frequency
scores of each question from the 25 superintendents.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

60
Table 7
Leadership Characteristics and Practices: From 5 Point Likert Scaled Survey (number of
superintendents that took the interview (n)=25)
Leadership Characteristics/ Practices
Frequency
Distribution
I have developed a clear vision for the school district I serve 25
I keep student learning and academic achievement at the forefront of my priorities 25
I believe I am trustworthy 25
I am consistently optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders 25
I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass 25
I value the input of others 25
I am committed to issues of social justice and implement strategies to create equity and access in all schools
for all students
25
I am passionate and care deeply about my work as a superintendent 25
Building quality relationships with key stakeholders is important to my tenure as superintendent 25
I have situational awareness regarding the happenings within the school district 24
I am a motivating and encouraging leader 24
I consider myself a lifelong learner 24
I maintain a strong presence in the community I serve 24
I am a caring and empathetic leader 24
I invest heavily in human capital 24
I am an effective manager 23
I value shared responsibility and delegate authority to ensure I build the collective capacity of all 23
I am a strong financial manager of resources 23
My primary role is instructional leader 22
I am approachable 22
I have great communication skills 21
I have structures in place to keep myself well organized 21
My effectiveness as a superintendent is based on my ability to build a high quality cabinet and administrative
team
21
I prioritize my time based on the vision of the district’s strategic goals 20
I maintain political acuity at the state and local level on issues that pertain to educational matters that affect
the school district and community I serve
20
The most important relationship I maintain within my school district is with my school board of education 19

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

61
Findings: Interviews.
Following the coding process of urban superintendent interviews, common themes, and
frequency counts from the open-ended interview questions were calculated. Table 8 lists the top
ten frequent leadership characteristics and that interviewed participants warranted as leadership
characteristics and factors that promoted superintendent longevity.

Table 8
Leadership Characteristics and Practices: From Open-Ended Interviews (number of
superintendents that took the interview (n)=25)
Leadership Characteristics/Practices Frequency Distribution
Relationships 52
Systems and Structures in Place 32
Knowledge 25
Interpersonal Skills 24
Communication 23
Values 13

Research Question #1: What Personal Characteristics Do Superintendents with
Above Average Tenure in Urban School Districts Possess that Have Promoted
Their Career Longevity?
Question 1 asked urban superintendents about their personal characteristics that the
possess to promote their longevity. In order to measure the characteristics that positively
impacted superintendent longevity, they participated in a Likert Scale survey where they ranked
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

62
the characteristics that they possessed from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. The
superintendents were also asked to list specific characteristics that they possessed that
contributed to their longevity in an open-ended interview.
Summary of Findings
Findings: Survey.
Table 9 is the mean of the top five findings of leadership characteristics that were
reported by the superintendents regarding superintendent longevity from the surveys. The top
five leadership characteristics with the highest mean were: I am passionate and care deeply about
my work as a superintendent at 4.96, I believe I am trustworthy at 4.84, I maintain a sound moral
and ethical compass at 4.8, I am a caring and empathetic leader at 4.76, I am consistently
optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders at 4.52.

Table 9
Leadership Characteristics: The Mean from 5 point Likert Scaled Survey (number of
superintendents that took the interview (n)=25)
Leadership Characteristics Mean
I am passionate and care deeply about my work as a superintendent 4.96
I believe I am trustworthy 4.84
I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass 4.8
I am a caring and empathetic leader 4.76
I am consistently optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders. 4.52

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

63
Table 10 is the list of the top five percentages of leadership characteristics that were
reported by superintendents with regard to superintendent longevity from the surveys. The top
five percentages of leadership characteristics that were reported by superintendents with regard
to superintendent longevity from the survey were: I am trustworthy at 100%, I am consistently
optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders at 100%, I maintain a sound moral and
ethical compass at 100%, I am passionate and care deeply about my work as a superintendent at
100% and I am approachable at 88.46%.

Table 10
Leadership Characteristics: Percentages (number of superintendents that took the interview
(n)=25)
Leadership Characteristics Percentile Rank
I believe I am trustworthy 100
I am consistently optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders 100
I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass 100
I am passionate and care deeply about my work as a superintendent 100
I am approachable 88

Table 11 is the list of the top five frequencies of leadership characteristics that were
reported by superintendents with regard to superintendent longevity from the surveys. The top
five most frequently cited responses as Strongly Agree or Agree leadership characteristics that
urban superintendents reported from the survey were: I am trustworthy at 25, I am consistently
optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders at 25, I maintain a sound moral and ethical
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

64
compass at 25, I am passionate and care deeply about my work at 25 and I am approachable at 23
frequencies.

Table 11
Leadership Characteristics: Frequency (number of superintendents that took the interview
(n)=25)
Leadership Characteristics
Frequency
Distribution
I believe I am trustworthy 25
I am consistently optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders 25
I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass 25
I am passionate and care deeply about my work as a superintendent 25
I am approachable 22

Findings: Interviews.
Table 12 is the list of the top three frequency leadership characteristics that were reported
by superintendents regarding superintendent longevity from the interviews. The top two
characteristics that were identified to promote longevity for the superintendency were
relationships and interpersonal skills. Relationships had a frequency of 52 while interpersonal
skills had a frequency of 24. Ranked third was communication.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

65
Table 12
Leadership Characteristics: Interview Frequency (number of superintendents that took the
interview (n)=25)
Leadership Characteristics Interview Frequency
Relationships 52
Interpersonal Skills 24
Communication 23

The characteristics of relationships. interpersonal skills, communication, and values being
were themes that surfaced most often over the course of all five superintendent interviews.
Having quality relationships was a necessity when it came to the board and other district
stakeholders and frequented the interviews 52 times. Over the course of the interviews,
interpersonal skills surfaced during the interview 24 times, while communication surfaced 23
times and values surfaced 13 times. Superintendent A with regard to relationships explained:
I believe in building relationships. For me, that’s something I emphasize in every district
that I have been in, is just saying that relationships matter. And so really taking the time
to build relationships within, with team, with board, but also build relationships outside
the district. Because we need stakeholders. We need people outside of public education to
support our efforts.
Superintendent A added to this discussion on relationships, “I was able to build in a short amount
of time relationships with city councilmen, the mayor, with the county supervisor, some people
in the assembly, and CEOs of companies and corporation.” Superintendent A later remarked,
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

66
“So really getting out there and building those relationships is really key.” Superintendent B
mentioned that relationships are
Probably most importantly is just being able to connect with people and understand
where they’re coming from, number one. Number two, building enough of a connection
with people that you can have a common agenda or vision Because I think in the position
of superintendent, it -- number one, you have to have that connection with board
members, and you have to have their support for what you want to do.
Superintendent’s B ability to have high quality relationships with various stakeholders
allowed for the implementation of the district’s strategic initiatives and focus on teaching and
learning, which had been a controversial issue in the past. The relationship between the
superintendent and community also allowed for the passing of a large bond to improve school
facilities and technology integration.
Superintendent C believes, “It’s all about people; it’s people first always.” During the
research study, superintendent C mentioned that strong belief in people and relationship
associated with people must be centered around caring for student needs and ensuring they
graduate college and career ready. On the certificated side, superintendent C responded, that
those relationships must extend to have honest conversations with staff, “to build their capacity,”
but foundational to that is relationship building first.
When addressing superintendent longevity superintendent C expressed the relationship
with various stakeholders is key to their longevity:
We get fired because of our relationship with the school board has gone south, our
relationship with the community has gone south, our relationship with staff has gone
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

67
south. It’s relationships with those three stakeholders is all that matters for the longevity
of the superintendent.
Superintendent D stated that the relationships he has with various stakeholders is vital:
When you’re working with people...the relationships that are developed and the bridges
that are established in an organization, I believe is based on what you do in those
different meetings and those different encounters dealing with the groups, students,
adults, and that will kind of shape your organization and your other leaders around you
will follow and do those same things that you do. Because that’s important too to the
superintendent. It must be important for the organization, and those relationships help.
Superintendent E has invested many hours educating the community on how they will
increase their district’s graduation rate and college and career readiness, that the relationship
with the community is solid. The community respects superintendent E and collaborates around
a number of issues affecting the community. Parents and members of the community actively
attend board meetings and have rallied behind the district because of the close relationship with
the superintendent.
I spent a lot of time probably than most superintendents building a relationship with
parents. I love my parents. And one thing that I was taught and it really works is if you
build a relationship with a hundred community members, parents that will take the bullet
for you, that will drive your agenda and promote programs...So I was told you get
yourself a hundred, no one is going to topple you over. You become this political football
even if you’re bad. But if you’re good, that’s even better because your hundred grows.
And sure enough, I have, I would say, a strong five to 600 parents of my 25,000 students,
I have those parents I could call on, you know, run through a wall.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

68
Superintendent A believes that his urban superintendency is directly tied to his
interpersonal skills with staff, various stakeholders and members of the community and other
people that have a vested interest in the district. Superintendent A mentioned that a
superintendent must have the
ability to be an active listener. Not just a listener, but an active listener. To be able to
really engage and hear people, what they’re saying. And then be able to -- from there, be
able to get a clear understanding of the situations, whatever situation may be.
Superintendent A mentioned various times that his interpersonal skills, specifically
patience, played a large role in his ability to work as instructional leader: “Patience is a big
virtue. I think in this job you have to be super patient.”
Superintendent B values interpersonal skills as one that has impacted their tenure in a
positive manner. Superinintendent B believes their situational awareness and the ability to not
take things too personal has allowed them to fulfill the superintendent position to the full
capability.
I think to have your own ability to analyze situations and figure out what needs to be
done, get other people to buy into it. And also take the pieces of what their individual
goals are and shape them into one of the big organizational goals we have to move
toward. And I think the third part of it is the ability to move on. To be in situations
where whatever the decision is, whatever direction we’re going in, it -- to take all the
personal feelings out of it. Here’s what it is. Here’s the direction we’re going, and we’re
moving on, and on to a new day. I think that is just critically important too because the
minute you take anything personal, you lose, you know. This is very personal. It’s very
important. But at the end of the day, here’s what the goals are. We’re on to the next one.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

69
Superintendent B felt other interpersonal skills have assisted them in having longevity in
their position. Their ability to be connected with their interpersonal skills, perform their duties
with the sensitivity of their board in mind and having the ability to say no, were very important
with working with staff:
The personal skills that I have that’s served me well is the ability to work long hours and
the interest in connecting with the community…..You have to have certain sensitivity to
the world of elected officials and understand that the pressure that they’re under just
because of that position. And the fact that as educators, to a certain extent, you know, we
really often times have the job of say no when people are asking -- making unreasonable
demands. We do what we have to do respectfully. But I think that’s the, you know, just
another important skill is being able to say no to people.
Superintendent C believes their interpersonal skills, specifically patience has been vital to
their position longevity:
I think the nature of superintendency is an impatient profession. But in order to in your
job for an extended period of time you have to be patient. That doesn’t mean you give
up, that doesn’t mean you don’t stay focused on what’s important, but that your patience
in understanding that what you know needs to happen may not happen right in front of
you. And you have to be to see down the road that you’re building on to make it I’d have
to say patience, that’s the number one.
Superintendent C explained his ability to be patient with their staff has been important to
his success. Superintendent C had to leverage their patience while having a difficult
conversation with their assistant superintendent:
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

70
I don’t think you can overestimate patience. I really -- I mean, I can’t tell you enough
how important that is and people who are in these jobs are by nature restless and
impatient people. I had a -- one of the assistant superintendents was talking about how
she was having a really difficult time getting some initiatives started. I thought back to a
superintendent I had worked for who said never make a decision before you have
to…people will try to force you into making a decision that I think that level of patience
in responding to situations and also looking at a long view is going to enable you to make
the changes that are going to last a lifetime.
Superintendent D felt managing their patience is important to their longevity, while being
an attribute that they are continuously monitoring to improve. Superintendent D mentioned that,
“think I can improve by being more patient.” Similarly, Superintendent D feels that managing
their interpersonal skills is very important the district’s instructional leader:
There’s a lot of pressure on the superintendent and that’s not unusual. I mean, I would
venture to say that that’s fairly typical, especially this time of year. But that kind of
external pressure, your weaknesses really get illuminated especially toward the end of
that time frame as you get more and more tired. And so not -- if you don’t think about it
and you’re not intentional about trying to change that, you can find yourself getting into
trouble making some poor decisions.
Superintendent E attributed to having interpersonal skills as a characteristic that
contributes to superintendent longevity. They stated that these types of skills, specifically,
“patience, tenacity, sticktoitiveness.” Furthermore, Superintendent E stated that a leader must
have the skills and a “keen understanding of your people that you have working with you” to
ensure the mission and vision of the district is moving in the same direction to ensure student
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

71
performance outcomes are consistently increasing. Superintendent E has a strong working
relationship with the district staff and believes his interpersonal skills are adept to being an
“active listener and understanding people and also checking for understanding ensuring that I get
it.”
Research Question #2: What Contributing Factors Do Superintendents with
Above Average Tenure in Urban School Districts Perceive Have Promoted
Their Career Longevity?
The second research question asked urban superintendents what factors have contributed
to their longevity. In order to measure what factors listed had a positive effect on superintendent
longevity, 25 superintendents participated in a Likert Scale survey where they ranked the factors
that have led to their longevity. They were also asked specific questions that pertained to factors
that promoted their longevity in an open-ended interview.
Findings: Survey
Table 13 is the list of the top five average (mean) scores of leadership factors that
reported by superintendents with regard to superintendent longevity from the surveys. The top
five mean leadership factors reported were: I valued the input of others at 4.9, I consider myself
a lifelong learner at 4.73, I value shared responsibility and delegate authority to build collective
capacity at 4.73, I invest heavily in human capital at 4.73, and I have developed a clear vision for
the school district I work for at 4.7.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

72
Table 13
Leadership Factors: The Mean from 5 point Likert Scaled Survey (number of superintendents
that took the interview (n)=25)
Leadership Factors Mean
I keep student learning and academic achievement at the forefront of my priorities 4.76
I value the input of others 4.72
Building quality relationships with key stakeholders is important to my tenure as
superintendent
4.72
I am committed to issues of social justice and implement strategies to create
equity and access in all schools for all students
4.64
I have developed a clear vision for the school district I serve 4.4

Table 14 is the list of the top five percentages of leadership factors that were reported by
urban superintendents regarding superintendent longevity from the surveys. The top five
percentages were: I have developed a clear vision for the school district I serve at 100%, I keep
student learning and academic achievement at the forefront of my priorities at 100%, I value the
input of others at 100%, I am committed to issues of social justice and implement strategies to
create equity and access in all schools for all students at 100% and building quality relationships
with key stakeholders is important to my tenure as superintendent at 100%.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

73
Table 14
Leadership Factors: Survey Percentages
Leadership Factors Percentile Rank
I have developed a clear vision for the school district I serve 100
I keep student learning and academic achievement at the forefront of my
priorities
100
I value the input of others 100
I am committed to issues of social justice and implement strategies to
create equity and access in all schools for all students
100
Building quality relationships with key stakeholders is important to my
tenure as superintendent
100

Table 15 is the list of the top five frequencies of leadership factors that were reported by
superintendents regarding superintendent longevity from the surveys. The top five frequencies of
leadership factors were: I have developed a clear vision at 25, I make student learning and
academic achievement a priority at 25, I value the input of others at 25, I consider myself a
lifelong learner at 25, and I am an effective leader at 25.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

74
Table 15
Leadership Factors: Survey Frequency (number of superintendents that took the interview
(n)=25)
Leadership Factors
Frequency
Distribution
I have developed a clear vision for the school district I serve 25
I keep student learning and academic achievement at the forefront of my
priorities
25
I value the input of others 25
I am committed to issues of social justice and implement strategies to create
equity and access in all schools for all students
25
Building quality relationships with key stakeholders is important to my tenure
as superintendent
25

Findings: Interviews
Table 16 is the list of the top three frequencies of leadership factors that were reported by
urban superintendents with regard to longevity from their interviews. The top three factors that
were identified to promote longevity by urban superintendents were relationships at 52. Ensuring
the district had structures to promote student achievement was second at 32 and and knowledge
at 25. Values ranked considerably lower at 12. Several categories surfaced underneath
relationships including: relationships with the school board, cabinet, community, and employees.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

75
Table 16
Leadership Factors: Interview Frequency
Leadership Factors Frequency
Relationships 52 f
Structures 32 f
Values 12 f

Superintendent A made reference to the having positive relationships with internal and
external stakeholders as very important. This was prevalent in our conversation when
superintendent A stated that their longevity has been a product of their:
Belief in building relationships. For me, that’s something I emphasize in every district
that I have been in, is just saying that relationships matter. And so really taking the time
to build relationships within, with team, with board, but also build relationships outside
the district. Because we need stakeholders. We need people outside of public education to
support our efforts. I’ve been able to build relationships with city councilmen, the mayor,
with the county supervisor, some people in the assembly, and some people involved in
CEOs of companies and corporations. So really getting out there and building those
relationships is really key. That’s contributed to my longevity as a superintendent.
Superintendent A also made reference in their interview that they have seen many
superintendents fail because of their inability to build high quality relationships before making
change to the organization. Superintendent A mentioned that ineffective superintendents:
try to create change too quickly before they have an opportunity to build relationships
with their board, build trust with their board and their community, and their constituents.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

76
They go in there too quickly. Not that what they’re wanting to do is wrong, but in the
context of not building the support. You know, I think a lot of what happens in our
positions, and something I have been able to do, knock on wood, is build social capital.
Superintendent A believed that building relationships and social capital directly impacted
their longevity. At times, the superintendent mentioned that they have made mistakes and
perhaps decisions that were controversial and would have done things differently in hindsight,
but their ability to have cultivated a quality relationships with various stakeholders has increased
their longevity in their respective district. Superintendent A mentioned:
there was always the opportunity for having something be very controversial. But then
build up enough social capital that you have support in moving some of these things
forward so it kind of negates some of that negativity that’s out there. But if you go in too
quickly and create the change before you done those things, before you set a foundation,
then I think that’s really run afoul. And pretty soon -- they may even misread where the
support is coming from.
With regard to building relationships, Superintendent B believes:
Probably most importantly is just being able to connect with people and understand
where they’re coming from, number one. Number two, building enough of a connection
with people that you can have a common agenda or vision. Because I think in the
position of superintendent, it -- number one, you have to have that connection and you
have to have their support for what you want to do.
Superintendent C believes the relationship they maintain with three strategic stakeholders
have positively impacted their tenure as an urban superintendents They spend many hours to
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

77
invest in the community and with staff. This investment is in the form of meetings, membership
in organizations and speaking engagements. Superintendent C professed:
what’s interesting is that no superintendent ever gets fired for poor student achievement.
It’s a sad statement, but they don’t. We get fired because we -- our relationship with the
school board has gone south, our relationship with the community has gone south, our
relationship with staff has gone south. It’s relationships with those three stakeholders is
all that matters for the longevity of the superintendent.
One way superintendent C ensures they maintain a good relationship with the Board of
Education is by having regular standing meetings. They meet on a weekly basis for
approximately one hour with each board member. In some cases, Board of Education members
do not want to meet as often, but that is at the discretion of the board:
Well, you have to pay attention to their needs. You have to meet with them regularly,
school board members. And I have an individual appointment with every school board
member. Not weekly, it’s on their schedule with one board member. It’s every other
week with every other board member.
Superintendent C felt that having a quality relationship with various stakeholders is key
in their success as a superintendent and has been able to remain in their position as an urban
superintendent. The ability to have face time with each allows them to understand each other’s
perspective and discuss various initiatives that the school district is engaged in to increase the
academic achievement of students:
You can still disagree with people, have a different perspective, you can, you know, they
want you to do A, and you’re going to still do B. But if you’re not out there trying to
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

78
establish a relationship with them, they’re not even going to understand why you rejected
A and are doing B. So that’s just key.
Superintendent C felt developing relationships with stakeholders is vital to their success
as district leader. The success of student outcomes related to graduation rates, college and career
readiness and reading levels are all a by product of quality relationships with invested
stakeholders:
When you’re working with people...the relationships that are developed and the bridges
that are established in an organization, I believe what you do in those different meetings
and those different encounters dealing with the groups, students, adults, will kind of
shape your organization and your other leaders around you will follow and do those same
things that you do. Because that’s important to the superintendent.
Superintendent D is heavily invested in the community. Their ability to be in the
community joining various groups and organizing parents has been key to their success and
longevity in the district. Superintendent D feel the relationship they maintain with parents will
ensure they become a barrier the board of education will have pressure to not rid the
superintendent of their position:
I taken that further with the rotary with the optimus and -- Engage in all the community.
I engage. We go into their spaces. I have directors in every one of those groups,
including myself, that served in the optimus, rotary. I’m the humanitarian guy. And so I
do that.
Superintendent E identified the characteristic they possess that has contributed to their
longevity is relational:
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

79
My relationship with the board is everything, you know. Again, you have thier support
going forward. But, it’s like a family, you know. You’re going to have disagreements,
you’ll have conflict. The trick is to work through it. You know, how do you work through
it? Do you let it fester, do you let it become a bigger issue, or do you address it and get it
resolved? So for me it’s always been the longevity piece is how do you work through that
with the board and then continue focusing on the real work, which is the district and the
kids.
Having structures in a school district surfaced as the number two leadership factor that
was discussed from the interviews with the 5 urban superintendents as being characteristics and
leadership qualities that promote superintendent longevity. Sub categories that emerged were
meetings and systems of support.
Superintendent A believed that the structures they have developed in the school district
was a key component that has contributed to their longevity. The structure of meetings allowed
the team to communicate and reflect on the path of success they are taking to support student and
educator success. Superintendent A felt that the structure of the meeting allowed the team to
“understand how it all fits together,” both at the cabinet level, but also at the organizational level
as well. Superintendent A felt that the meeting structure promotes delegated responsibility
which is aligned to the district office systematic approach to student supports.
I have a structure so we that we can meetings....and this has already been my style as to
do them Mondays first thing in the morning to review those big projects, those big
decision-making things that are out there. I trained my cabinet to be open and candid. I
mean, I need their best thinking so if we’re going to poke holes in things, let’s do it
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

80
behind closed doors as a leadership team. Their concerns, here’s a time to do it. And then
when we arrive at a decision, either my decision or a group decision, move that forward.
Superintendent B felt that understanding the educational system was vital to their success
as urban superintendent. Specifically, developing a district understand to Education Code has
been an important structure that has allowed their team to manage through important policies to
improve their instructional program to increase student achievement: “What I had to learn is
we’ve had to constantly improve and get so much smarter about the education code and laws.
But I continue focus on is really caring and being thoughtful and knowledgeable about legal
requirement.”
Superintendent B feels their ability to have clear structures to ensure they priortize their
time effectively. They mentioned that the position is very demanding and has spent many
evenings out in the community and during the day at schools. Their success as a superintendent
is promoted by the structures they have developed with their team. Superintendent B mentioned
that they do not have time to follow up on all of the requests of their time and therefore it is vital
to properly delegate to their assistant superintendents, but being able to communicate with one
superintendent rather than various stakeholders will ensure the item is completed and effectively.
Superintendent B felt:
When I delegate something, it is a huge effective tool to make sure that you’re spending
your time correctly. Because what I see in organizations often is, you know, you ask
somebody to respond to something and they don’t and it comes back to haunt you and it’s
a big time waster.
Superintendent C feels developing structures in their school district has promoted their
longevity. Similar to superintendent B, Superintendent C feels they have developed specific
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

81
protocols when delegated responsibilities to staff. They also feel that being able to delegate and
communicate with one staff member is an effective use of their time and leverages the collective
capacity of their staff to use their expertise to respond or work on specific projects to ensure
student academic outcomes are continuously increasing: “People have to have that system-wide
lens, I really do my best to give them as much autonomy as possible, not micro manage their
work, and then periodically check in.”
Superintendent C feels that understanding how to build systems during their first year in
their position would have saved them many hours and lessons learned:
As a superintendent, there is absolutely nothing that’s off your plate. I had to develop
structures. If I had understood that right off the bat, I’m certain I would have been better
during the beginning of my first superintendency. But I didn’t. I had to learn that the hard
way that I can’t work until midnight every night and still wake up at 5 o’clock and think
I’ve done a good job. So really thinking about each problem and thinking, okay, what’s
the most effective and efficient way that I can strategize to get where I need to go? And
that you have to be very intentional about. You can’t just kind of hope your way through
or be haphazard.
Superintendent D attributed there longevity to developing structures and spoke of district-
wide approaches as components they considered vital to increasing academic achievement of
students. They felt that district office support to schools was based on structures that identified
individual central office strengths and weaknesses, while coupling strengths to site weaknesses
and vise versa. This multi tiered approach collectively build the capacity of schools and district
office to engage in conversations that promoted positive interactions where learning was
continuously taking place:
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

82
You really look at the talent and skills that they have and hand them those
responsibilities. But you also take a look at what they’re -- I wouldn’t say weaknesses,
but the areas that they want to grow in and really provide them the opportunity to grow in
those areas. It’s really get to go know them and understand them.
Superintendent E expressed similar sentiments to Superintendent D, in that, having
district office structures in place to increase the collective capacity amongst the school district
has positively contributed to their longevity. Superintendent E feels that making the district
office a place where continuous learning takes place is paramount. They felt respectfully
challenging status quo to promote equity and access as a vehicle to broaden the group’s
perspective on various items is important:
I want to stretch you. I’m going to challenge you. I’m not going to just give you what
you’re good at, what you’re great at. It’s what -- what you’re telling me, I really don’t
have that comfort level. I said, so I’m going to give you a lot back with support and
resource.
Research Question #3: What Evaluation Tool/s are Used by Urban School Superintendents
to Determine Their Effectiveness as it Relates to Their Longevity?
Findings: Interview
The third research question asked the 5 interviewed urban superintendents what
evaluation tools they utilize to support them and help in the process of determining their
effectiveness that contributes to their longevity. In order to measure what factors listed actually
had a positive effect on superintendent longevity, the participating superintendents responded to
open ended interview questions regarding this topic.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

83
Table 17 is the list of the seven evaluation tools that are used by superintendents to
determine the effectiveness of their job. The tools used are both formally and informally to
measure and determine a superintendent’s effectiveness. The table was created by analyzing and
coding the interview process from each superintendent interviewed.

Table 17
Evaluation Tools Used by Superintendents: From Open-Ended Interview
Superintendents A B C D E
Annual Evaluation X X X X X
Mid Year Evaluation X X
Annual Student Academic Assessment Scores X X
Individual School Board Meetings X X X X X

There were four tools listed by urban superintendents to evaluate their success and areas
of improvement, which included both formal and informal measures. The three formal tools used
to measure the superintendent’s effectiveness were: annual school board evaluations, mid-year
school board evaluations and annual student academic assessment scores. The informal tool used
to measure the superintendent’s effectiveness were individual school board member meetings.
The first tool used to measure urban superintendent’s effectiveness was the annual
evaluation created by the district’s school board of education. Every urban superintendent
interviewed verified that there was annual evaluation done by the school board of education that
was collectively analyzed and discussed with the urban superintendent to calibrate on the urban
superintendent effectiveness. Superintendent A stated:
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

84
We focus in on data, and use data to support the things that we’re doing because I think
that speaks volumes, but there are gaps. When I was in, we used to report out to our
community every year. We had a state of the district superintendent after the evaluation.
I think that’s the kind of thing we need to do is be more accountable to our community,
but not just our parents, but take it to the next level. Because I think that’s where you can
get more support and engagement to say we’re going to report out how we’re doing, we’ll
do a report card, here’s where we have success, here are the gaps, and then here’s the
plan going forward.
Superintendent B did not feel that the annual evaluation did not support their strategic
work in the district and felt their annual evaluation was a mere formality:
But their [Board of Education] evaluation really means very little to me. My own self
evaluation is the most important evaluation or, you know, conversation that I have every
single day as I’m driving home in the car is probably the most important. You know,
when I first got here, we developed our data dashboard, it said here’s the indicators,
here’s what’s important to us. And I think now we’ve transitioned to -- we’re in the
process of transition to the LCAP indicators. I think that is really important.
Superintendent C felt their evaluation was based more on the relationship they maintain
with the board of education, community and teachers. They did not feel the formal evaluation
was very helpful:
What’s interesting is that no superintendent ever gets fired for poor student achievement.
It’s a sad statement, but they don’t. We get fired because we -- our relationship with the
school board has gone south, our relationship with the community has gone south, our
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

85
relationship with staff has gone south. It’s relationships with those three stakeholders is
all that matters for the longevity of the superintendent.”
Superintendent D had similar beliefs as Superintendent C regarding the formal annual
evaluation. Both urban superintendents did not find much value the evaluation, but stated it was
part of what the public wanted to keep the board of education accountable. Most of the feedback
was not critical enough to impact their performance and very positive. “You know, it’s nicely
done [evaluation] and then usually by May.” I was told:
we’re not going to even waste too much time on this. You hit every mark, exceeded way
above. I mean, everything and then some. We’ll just -- you’re amazing. So we’re only
going to spend a minute on this, so let’s not waste any time. You’re not going to do a
presentation, we don’t need. It’s everywhere. I see it. It’s not even a minute so that’s how
we want it now.
Superintendent E stated:
I try to communicate to them [Board of Education]. I really want them to be a critical
friend evaluation. I would much rather -- I don’t really need an evaluation to tell me
everything I’m doing right. I don’t really want that. It’s not helpful, and it’s not useful to
me. It’s very hard because they’re nice people and they want to, you know, help. So I
developed an evaluation tool that I actually do the evaluation myself and then I give my
evaluation to them for affirmation or disagreement. Interestingly enough, they always
change my little rating scale and make me better.
The second tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was a mid-year
evaluation created by the district’s school Board of Education. Only two of the five school board
members interviewed verified that there was a mid year evaluation done by the school board
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

86
members that was shared with the superintendent that analyzed their effectiveness in their
position and the district mid-way through the school year. Superintendent B minimally spoke on
the topic, but did say they evaluate them midyear:
It’s really the goal setting that you do the school year before. Usually it’s done in May or
June for the next mid year eval and expectations from the board. And the way we do it
here, I don’t know if it’s done this way everywhere is we kind of formulaic -- LCAP has
really worked nicely because we take months to develop the LCAP. There’s a lot of input
from everywhere, all the various groups. We do surveys, we just do a whole bunch of
communication. And from there, it really allows us to validate where we’re going, what
we’re doing those three focus areas, and how the strategies we chosen to use. And lay it
in front of the board of education.
The third tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was analyzing the
district’s annual student test scores. Only two of the five school board members interviewed
verified that they analyzed student data to determine the effectiveness of the superintendent in
their position and the district at the end of the school year.
Superintendent D felt that student achievement data is very important in developing the
strategic supports the district office provides schools and how their position is evaluated using
summative assessment data. “The data is very clear what we choose to follow because the data is
clear. It’s like, boom, boom, we’re really hurting here. You really need to work on this. It’s not
like we’re coming off of thin air.” However, Superintendent C spoke contradictory to the use of
student achievement data to evaluate their efficacy: “I mean, it doesn’t matter if your student
achievements is going out the roof. They don’t care.”
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

87
The fourth tool used to measure superintendent effectiveness is individual meetings held
between superintendent and school board member. These informal meetings consisted of phone
calls, one on one meetings and other time superintendents spent with school board members.
These informal meetings vary in frequency such as weekly monthly, quarterly, semiannually, or
annually. Superintendent A mentioned that they meet informally with board members, “once a
week, or every other week, whatever they request, meetings with them. I probably, on any given
daily basis, talked to at least two or three of them every day about something.” Superintendent C
stated:
You have to meet with them regularly, school board members. And I have an individual
appointment with every school board member. Not weekly, it’s on their schedule with
one board member. It’s every other week with every other board member.
Chapter 4 discussed the analysis of data collected for this study. In Chapter 5, there will
be a discussion of the research, further conclusions and implications of the research.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

88
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
5

Introduction
The purpose of this qualitative and quantitative research study was to identify the
characteristics that successful urban superintendents possessed in order to maintain longevity in
their respective position as superintendent. There were twenty five urban superintendents that
responded to the survey. Five urban superintendents were interviewed for one on one interviews.
Of the five superintendents interviewed, 4 of 5 urban superintendents were male, two of five
were Caucasian, and three of five were Latino. The average years in the position for all 5
participants was 5.5 years as superintendent. The average English Learner population of urban
superintendents interviewed was 26.1%. The average population that was served free and
reduced lunch to students was 52.7%. The average minority population served within participant
districts was 57.8%. Four out of 5 districts had Hispanic populations as being their largest
subgroup, while one had Caucasian as their largest subgroup.
Purpose of the Study
Urban superintendent turnover is a problem and this research examined factors that
influence superintendent longevity. It is important to determine how urban superintendents with
greater than average longevity have stayed in their positions despite all of the obstacles. The
information from the research study will provide insight to the leadership characteristics and
strategies that can influence and promote longevity in individuals in positions of urban
superintendency.

5
This chapter was co-authored with Bobbi Burnett and Mariana Ryan.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

89
Research Questions
The following questions were used to guide the study:
1. What personal characteristics do superintendents with above average tenure in urban
school districts possess that have promoted their career longevity?
2. What contributing factors do superintendents with above average tenure in urban
school districts perceive have promoted their career longevity?
3. What evaluation tool/s are used by urban school superintendents to determine their
effectiveness as it relates to their longevity?
Results and Findings
The findings in this study were based on the data that was collected and analyzed from
surveys and interviews.
Research Question #1: What Personal Characteristics Do Superintendents with Above
Average Tenure in Urban School Districts Possess that Have Promoted Their Career
Longevity?
There were five findings of leadership characteristics that were reported most frequently
from the qualities and characteristics survey that was completed by 25 urban superintendents.
Five leadership characteristics with the highest average score were: I am passionate and care
deeply about my work as a superintendent at 4.96, I believe I am trustworthy at 4.84, I maintain a
sound moral and ethical compass at 4.8, I am a caring and empathetic leader at 4.76, I am
consistently optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders at 4.52. The superintendent
leads the organization to share common ceremonies, traditions, rituals and protocols that are
valued by members within the group (Bolman & Deal, 2003) which in fact shows that that the
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

90
leader strongly cares about the organization being served. Bolman and Deal (2003) conducted a
study on leadership that identified, 89.7% of participants valued input from others.
There were two leadership characteristics that were reported most frequently from the
qualities and characteristics interviews that was completed by 5 urban superintendent interviews.
The top two characteristics that were identified to promote longevity in urban superintendencies
were relationships and interpersonal skills. Relationships had a frequency of 52 while
interpersonal skills had a frequency of 24. Ranked third was communication.
Research Question #2: What Contributing Factors Do Superintendents with Above
Average Tenure in Urban School Districts Perceive Have Promoted Their Career
Longevity?
The demanding changes and responsibilities of a superintendent have shown that there
are certain attributes, experiences, and knowledge that promote urban superintendent longevity
in today’s educational setting. The areas of knowledge that have shown to have the most positive
effect on the longevity of an urban superintendent is: I keep student learning and academic
achievement at the forefront of my priorities, I value the input of others, building quality
relationships with key stakeholders is important to my tenure as superintendent, I am committed
to issues of social justice and implement strategies to create equity and access in all schools for
all students, I have developed a clear vision for the school district I serve.
There were two leadership factors that were reported with high frequency by the qualities
and characteristics interview completed by 5 urban superintendents with regard to superintendent
longevity. The top two factors that were identified to promote longevity in the superintendents
were relationships and ensuring the district had structures to promote student achievement. The
study done showed that superintendents credited the community for their success and public
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

91
relations was identified key as well (Chance, 1991). The interviews proved that the relationship
between the superintendent and various stakeholders is critical to their longevity. This factor was
one that was listed throughout all interviews. Superintendents need to keep communication lines
open with many and they also need to maintain a positive relationship with them as well. The
relationship component is key to an urban superintendent’s longevity.
The second highest factor urban superintendents believed impacted their tenure was
having systems and structures in place to address the needs of the organization. Urban
superintendents felt that understanding the educational system was vital to their success as urban
superintendent. By having systems and structures there were urban superintendents that could
develope a better district understand to Education Code. This structure has been an important
space and time that has allowed their team to manage through important policies to improve their
instructional program to increase student achievement.
Research Question #3: What Evaluation Tool/s are Used by Urban School Superintendents
to Determine Their Effectiveness as it Relates to Their Longevity?
There were four tools listed by the urban superintendents for evaluative purposes, which
included both formal and informal measures. The 3 formal tools used to measure the
superintendent’s effectiveness were: annual school board evaluations, mid-year school board
evaluations and student test scores. The informal tool used to measure the superintendent’s
effectiveness was individual school board member meetings.
The annual evaluation was a tool urban superintendents used to gauge their efficacy.
Each urban superintendent interviewed indicated that yearly evaluation was completed by the
school Board of Education and shared with the superintendent. Like the annual evaluation, the
mid year evaluation also played an integral role in superintendents gauging their effectiveness.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

92
The tool was duly created by the Board of Education and superintendent. The mid-year
evaluation gave both entities the ability to discuss effective practices by the superintendent and
areas of focus. An additional evaluation tool used by urban superintendents to gauge their
efficacy was the use of student performance data. The fourth tool used to measure a
superintendent’s effectiveness was individual meetings that the urban superintendent coordinated
with each school board member.
Implications of the Study
Urban superintendent turnover is a problem and this research study examined the factors
that influence urban superintendent longevity. The research study’s focus analyzed how urban
superintendents with greater than average longevity have stayed in their positions despite many
obstacles. The information from the research study provides insight to the leadership
characteristics and strategies that influenced and promoted longevity in individuals in positions
of urban superintendency.
Characteristics
The role of urban superintendents has changed to meet the twenty-first century needs of
the educational population. These demanding changes and responsibilities of a superintendent
have shown that there are certain characteristics that promote superintendent longevity in today’s
educational setting. The results from the research study indicated that the characteristics
attributed to urban superintendent longevity were high quality relationships, interpersonal skills,
communication, and values. Similarly, there were sub topics that rose from the research study,
including the need for urban superintendent to be perceived as trustworthy, consistently
optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders, maintaining a sound moral and ethical
compass, continue to be passionate and care deeply about the position.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

93
Having quality relationships was a necessity when it came to the board and other district
stakeholders. Lere (2004) found a correlation between superintendent longevity and the
relationship between the community, school board and superintendent leadership. When the
relationship of these entities are aligned, the average years of service for the superintendent is
over 5 years, as compared to a negative relationship between superintendent and stakeholders is
one and a half years less (Johnson, 2007).
The research study also found urban superintendents with above average tenure must
possess high quality interpersonal skills to deal with the daily challenges of being an urban
superintendent. Inclusive in that process is the ability to be an effective communicator. A
successful school superintendent understands that effective communication is critical in his/her
tenure in that district. In their relationships with their communities, open communication
regarding a number of issues is integral to the success of a superintendent’s longevity (Chance,
1991).
Factors
The role of the urban superintendency has adjusted to meet the demands of the twenty-
first century. These changes have shown that there are certain factors, experiences, and
knowledge have proven to promote superintendent longevity. The results from the research study
indicated that the factors that attributed to superintendent longevity frequented from the
interviews and surveys were valuing the input of others, being lifelong learners, sharing
responsibility and delegating authority to build collective capacity, invest heavily in human
capital, and developing a clear vision for the school district.
Urban superintendents are faced with difficult issues daily and need to have the skill set
to deal with these issues, which includes knowledge in all areas of education. Competing factors
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

94
such as allocating resources of time, money, personnel, and materials to accomplish the district’s
goals will require that tough decisions are made at the expense of initiatives not aligned with
district’s priorities (Plotts, 2011). Factors like cutbacks matter, but an urban superintendent
should be knowledgeable in finances of the districts (Chance, 1991). Urban superintendents
should also be fluent in the curriculum and professional development needs of staff and students
in the district (Quinn, 2005). The role of the superintendent now is as an instructional leader
(Quinn, 2005).
With the onslaught of No Child Left Behind (USDOE, 2002) and the transition to
Common Core, superintendents face high levels of scrutiny for the outcomes of students as
evidenced by summative assessment measures, college and career readiness, and high school
graduation rates. This level of scrutiny had begun to analyze the role an urban superintendent
plays both within and outside of the educational organization. The ability for urban
superintendents to clearly articulate their ability to impact the teaching and learning at their
school district and share the vision and mission of the district’s strategic plan becomes vital in
the interaction with various stakeholders, including the Board of Education. The
superintendency requires leadership that successfully improves student achievement, which will
in turn increase superintendent longevity (Berlau, 2011).
Tools
The four evaluation tools that were utilized to measure urban superintendent
effectiveness were: annual school board evaluations, mid year school evaluations, student test
scores, and individual board member meetings.
Having multiple measures to gauge an urban superintendents effectiveness is important to
properly measure the effectiveness of an urban superintendent. Although the authority of a
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

95
school board is in its ability to both hire and fire the superintendent, but when there is
transparency around goals, expectations and commitment to communication, the relationship
between the urban superintendent and the school governance team, the evaluation process is not
a surprise, but more of a validation or need to make changes (Land, 2002). There is widespread
agreement that a good working relationship between the school board and the superintendent is
essential to the governance of a district (Anderson, 1992; Carol et al., 1986; Goodman et al.,
1997; Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000; Grady & Bryant, 1991; Thomas, 2001).
Summary
The findings of this research study have demonstrated that there are leadership
characteristics, factors, and tools that urban superintendents use to promote their longevity. The
leadership characteristics of urban superintendents that promoted longevity were having high
quality relationships with various stakeholders to promote the increased academic outcomes of
students and having strong interpersonal skills to deal with the complexity of the position. The
research study also analyzed the factors that positively impacted the longevity of above average
tenure of urban superintendents were the ability of superintendents to cultivate and nurture
positive interactions and relationships with various stakeholders. This played a large role in the
ability for the superintendent establish institution systems and structures to deliver a coherent
menu of services to staff to increase their professional development to impact student outcomes.
There were four evaluation tools that were identified to measure urban superintendent
effectiveness: annual school board evaluations, mid-year school evaluations, student test scores,
and individual board member meetings. The position and expectations of the superintendent has
shifted significantly, causing the ability to fulfill the duties very difficult. There is a need to
continue to explore the leadership characteristics, factors and and tools urban superintendents
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

96
have leveraged to impact learning and lives while providing stability in the superintendent
position to promote longevity in the position.
Recommendations for Future Research
The research study surveyed 25 urban superintendents and interviewed five urban
superintendents that are all from the state of California. The findings of the research study
revealed the need to explore additional areas of focus. The following are recommendations for
future research:
• Further explore urban superintendents leadership characteristics, like communication
(Kowalski, 2003). Communication surfaced as a subcategory, but may play more of a
significant role in other urban school districts where the leadership style of the
superintendent is different those of the research study.
• Further explore the current factors of new assessment consortiums and
implementation of new state standards and it impact on urban superintendent
longevity.
• Further explore the tools used the urban superintendents and other stakeholders
leverage to gauge the efficacy of urban superintendents.
• Further explore the impact student achievement has on urban superintendent
longevity.
Concluding Remarks
In developing this research study, there was a need to investigate the reasons that have
contributed to such a high rate of turnover for urban superintendents. the research indicated a gap
in the literature that explored the leadership characteristics, factors and tools used by urban
superintendents to promote their longevity. The focus of the research was to analyze
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

97
superintendents with above average tenure and investigate the practices associated with their
longevity. Throughout the study it became apparent that there are promising practices in school
districts that are being used by superintendents that in fact have impact the time they have been
in the position serving urban school settings. Aspirationally, the findings of this study can be
scaled to a larger set of urban superintendents to positively impact their stay in school districts to
serve as stable leaders to ensure we have equitable outcomes for students and close the
opportunity gap.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

98
REFERENCES
Allen, P. R. (1998). Reasons for involuntary non extensions of Missouri public school
superintendent contracts in 1996. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(9), 3292A.
Andero, A. (2000). The changing role of school superintendent with regard to curriculum policy
and decision-making. Education, 121(2), 276-286.
Anderson, C. G. (1992). Behaviors of the most effective and least effective school board
members. ERS Spectrum, 10, 15-18.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M, & Stogdill, R. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research,
and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Berlau, D. (2011). Superintendent longevity and its relationship to student performance
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Drake University, Des Moines, IA.
Bjork, L., & Gurley, D. (2003). Superintendents as transformative leaders in a large scale reform:
Creating a community of learners. Journal of Thought, 38(4), 37-38.
Bjork, L., & Kowalski, T. (Eds.) (2005). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation,
practice, and development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brederson, P., & Kose, B. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A study of
schools’ superintendents instructional leadership. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
15(5), 2-24.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

99
Bryant, M. T., & Grady, M. L. (1989). Superintendent turnover in rural school districts.
Educational Considerations, 16(1), 34-36.
Burnett, B. (2016). Leadership characteristics, factors and tools that support superintendent
longevity in suburban school districts: A case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Byrd, J. K., Drews, C., & Johnson, J. (2006, November 10). Factors impacting superintendent
turnover: Lessons from the field. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University
Council of Educational Administration.
California Department of Education. (2014, November). California Basic Education Data
System. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/dc/cb/
Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan, M.
D. (1986). School boards: Strengthening grass roots leadership. Washington, D.C.:
Institute for Educational Leadership.
Carter, G. R., & Cunningham, W. G. (1997). The American school superintendent: Leading in
the age of pressure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chance, E. (1991). Long term rural superintendents: Characteristics and attributes. West
Lafayette, IN: National Rural Education Association.
Constas, M. A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category
development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 253-266.
Cooper, B., Fusarelli, L., & Carella, V. (2000). Career crisis in the superintendency? The results
of a national survey. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

100
Copeland, M. E. (1993). A descriptive study of superintendent stability in rural Oklahoma
schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
Council of the Great City Schools. (2014, Fall). Urban school superintendents: Characteristics,
tenure, and salary. Urban Indicator. Retrieved from
http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/Urban%20Indicator_Su
perintendent%20Summary%2011514.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research and practice at
the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129-151.
Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (1992). Governing public schools: New times,
new requirements. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Education Writers Association. (2003, May). Effective superintendents, effective boards: Finding
the right fit (Special Report). Washington, D.C.: Author.
Ellerson, N., & McCord, R. (2009). Report of findings: One year later: How the economic
downturn continues to impact school districts. Washington, D.C.: American Association
of School Administrators.
Farkas, S., Foley, P., & Duffett, A. (2001). Just waiting to be asked. New York, NY: Public
Agenda.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

101
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., & Foleno, T. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the game. New
York, NY: Public Agenda.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step by step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Finnan, L. (2014). Common core and other state standards: Superintendents feel optimism,
concern and lack of support. Alexandria, VA: The School Superintendents Association.
Fullan, M. (2002). The role of leadership in the promotion of knowledge management in schools.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, 409-419.
Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M., Harvey, J., Immerwahr, J., & Winger, A. (2003). An
impossible job: The view from the urban superintendent’s chair. Seattle, WA: Center on
Reinventing Public Education.
Fusarelli, B., & Fusarelli, L. (2003). Systemic reform and organizational change. Planning and
Change, 34(3 & 4), 169-177.
Glass, T. E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The 2000 study of the American school
superintendency: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.
Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Goodman, R. H., Fulbright, L., & Zimmerman, W. G. (1997). Getting there from here: School
board-superintendent collaboration: Creating a school governance team capable of
raising student achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service & New
England School Development Council.
Goodman, R. H., & Zimmerman, W. G. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for 21st
century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for high
student achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

102
Grady, M. L., & Bryant, M. T. (1991). School board turmoil and superintendent turnover: What
pushes them to the brink? School Administrator, 48, 19-26.
Grieder, C., Pierce, T. M., & Jordan, K. F. (1969). Public school administration (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Ronald Press.
Harvey, J. (2003, February). The urban superintendent: Creating great schools while surviving
on the job. Orlando, FL: Council of Great City Schools.
Hess, R. G. (1994). A study of school board/community organizational structures and
superintendent leadership styles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson
(Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Houston, P. D. (2006). The superintendent: Championing the deepest purposes of education.
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 105, 1-9.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-7984.2006.00060.X
Hoyle, J. R. (2007). A preparation mystery: Why some succeed and others fail. Planning and
Changing: An Educational Leadership and Policy Journal, 38(3 & 4), 148-163.
Hoyle, J., Bjork, L., Collier, V., & Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as CEO. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science, 28(3),
315-336.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

103
Johnson, G. (2007). A study of the relationships between community power structures, school
board types, superintendent leadership styles and the impact on student achievement in
Oklahoma (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
Jones, K., & Howley, A. (2009). Contextual influence on superintendents’ time usage. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 17(23), 1-24.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? The Executives, 5, 48-
60.
Konnert, W. M., & Augenstein, J. J. (1995). The school superintendency: Leading education into
the 21st century. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Kowalski, T. J. (2003). Superintendent shortage: The wrong problem and wrong solutions.
Journal of School Leadership, 13(3), 288-303.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229-278.
Lere, D. J. (2004). A study of the relationships between community power structures, school
board types, superintendent leadership styles and superintendent longevity in Colorado
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO.
Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between
personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization
procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small
groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

104
Marshall, R. L., & Ray, L. A. (2005). The aftershock of superintendent buyouts: An analysis of
the effects on school finance, school climate, student achievement and community
relations. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal,
23(4E), 1-9.
Marzano, R., McNulty, B., & Waters, T. (2005). School leadership that works from research to
results. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
McCarty, D. J., & Ramsey, C. E. (1971). The school managers: Power and conflict in American
public education. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
McKenna, B., & Rooney, D. (2007). Wisdom in organizations: Whence and whither. Social
Epistemeology, 21(2), 113-138.
Mountford, M. (2008). Historical and current tensions among board-superintendent teams:
Symptoms or cause? In T. Asbury (Ed.), The future of school board governance:
Relevancy and revelation (pp. 81-114). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Urban education in America. Washington,
D.C.: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/urbaned/districts.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Urban education in America. Washington,
D.C.: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/urbaned/districts.asp
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April 26). A nation at risk.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

105
Nestor-Baker, N. S., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Tacit knowledge of school superintendents: Is nature,
meaning and content. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 86-129.
Newell, M. B. (1997). Factors affecting superintendent tenure in Missouri (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2006). Racial transformation and the changing nature of segregation.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
Plotts, T. (2011). A multiple regression analysis of factors concerning superintendent longevity
continuity relative to student achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seton Hall
University, South Orange, NJ.
Quinn, R. (1996). Discovering the leader within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, T. (2005). Factors influencing superintendent longevity in Pennsylvania (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Widener University, Chester, PA.
Rausch, L. M. (2001). Factors contributing to exits from the superintendency in Indiana.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(4), 1290A.
Ryan, M. (2016). Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support
superintendent longevity in suburban school districts: A case study (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Value added leadership: How to get extraordinary performance in
schools. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Sharp, W. L., & Walter, J. K. (1997). The school superintendent: The profession and the person.
Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

106
Smith, B. J. (1998). Community power structures, school board types and superintendent
leadership styles in North Carolina (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Spring, J. (1984). The structure of power in an urban school system: A study of Cincinnati
school politics. Curriculum Inquiry, 14, 401-424.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature.
Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The quest to
define effective leadership (CRESPAR Tech. Rep. No. 55). Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002, January 8). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
Wagner, T., & Kegan, R. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming our
schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Waters, T., & Marzano, R. (2006). School leadership that works: The effect of superintendent
leadership on student achievement. A working paper. Denver, CO: Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this research study was to identify urban superintendent leadership characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that support superintendent longevity. there were five urban superintendents interviewed for the study that have above average tenure of 3.18 years. Additionally, 25 urban superintendents with above average tenure were surveyed to quantify their perception of the characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that support superintendent longevity. The design of the study was mixed method, leveraging both qualitative and quantitative research. Creswell’s six step framework was the foundation of the research study, which is designed to be a mixed-method research study using interviews and surveys. The research study provides insight to urban superintendent leadership characteristics, factors and evaluation tools which can provide insight to those seeking urban superintendent positions.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts: a case study

PDF

Leadership characteristics, factors and tools that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts: a case study

PDF

Leadership traits and practices supporting position longevity for urban school superintendents: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study

PDF

Common Core implementation: decisions made by Southern California superintendents of unified school districts

PDF

Understanding the decision making process of California urban schools superintendents through Bolman and Deal's four leadership frames

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals

PDF

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

PDF

The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

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

PDF

The superintendency in a California school district: preparation, recruitment, and career longevity

PDF

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

PDF

A case study in reform: implementation strategies of one urban superintendent

PDF

Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

Asset Metadata

Creator Jimenez, Abram (author)

Core Title Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in urban school districts: a case study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/15/2016

Defense Date 11/17/2015

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

Tag case study,leadership characteristics,OAI-PMH Harvest,practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in urban school districts

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member)

Creator Email abe5656@gmail.com,abramjim@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-227465

Unique identifier UC11276402

Identifier etd-JimenezAbr-4248.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-227465 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JimenezAbr-4248.pdf

Dmrecord 227465

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Jimenez, Abram

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