University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

Leadership characteristics, factors and tools that support superintendent longevity in suburban 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 SCHOOL DISTRICTS

1

LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS, FACTORS AND TOOLS THAT SUPPORT
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SUBURBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS:
A CASE STUDY

by

Bobbi Burnett

_________________________________________________________________________

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 Bobbi Burnett

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

2
DEDICATION
To my husband Matt, selfless, loving, committed and steadfast are just a few of the
adjectives that come to mind when I think about you and the support that you have provided for
me during this amazing journey. When we attended the USC football game three years ago, I
was so inspired to become a Trojan that I uttered the words to you “I’m going to graduate from
this school someday.” You smiled at me with your endearing and supportive, yet, you are crazy
kind of look! Within months of that utterance, I had applied, been accepted and started this
overwhelming at times, but awesome adventure with you, my best friend, my rock by my side
every step of the way. To say that I adore you is not enough! I thank God for you everyday. A
partnership in marriage, in pursuing our dreams, in building and sustaining a promising future for
our family, and in raising our children is our gift and our legacy. Thank you for holding true and
faithful to the promises that you made to me on our wedding day. Thank you for the laughter, the
tears, the joy, the sorrow and the hope that manifests from these emotions that has compelled me
to persevere and to complete this incredible educational endeavor. I love you and I am eternally
grateful to you!
To my son, my first-born, Matthew, I fell in love with you the minute that I knew that
you existed in my tummy. You came into this world suddenly, without a minute to spare. I can’t
imagine a minute without you in my life. You are witty, silly, compassionate and kind. Thank
you for hugging me with those comforting hugs that only you can provide. Thank you for being
so sincere and understanding these last two years while mommy was gone one day a week at
school. Thank you for your patience with me and for the unconditional love that you provide me
everyday. I love watching you grow and as you continue to mature into a young man, please
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

3
remember that you can have it all and that education is the catalyst to dreams coming true. I love
you son!
To my Sadie Bell, my daughter, my baby, you sweet girl are dynamite, a firecracker and
wise beyond your years. The day that you were born I was overwhelmed with emotion knowing
that I was going to have my very own real-life dolly. You my angel, have exceeded my
expectations and are the best dolly I could have ever asked for. Thank you for sharing me with
school over the last few years. I know that it wasn’t the choice that you would have made, but
you have handled it with such grace. I will never forget these years of us in college together.
When I would read, you would read. When I was on my computer, you would be on your
computer. You snuggled up next to me and joined me in this adventure. One of greatest rewards
from this journey has been hearing you say, “I’m going to USC so that I can be just like my
mommy!” I love you Sadie Bell!
To my Mom and Dad, thank you for your unconditional love. Thank you for instilling in
me the value of education and all the freedom that comes with it. Thank you for loving my
children as your own. Thank you for fighting every step of the way to be here with us and for
being so understanding and supportive when I told you that I was going to back to school. The
pride that I feel from you both when you look at me and smile is beyond gratifying. I feel so
blessed and loved by you and I am so very excited that we will get to celebrate this achievement
together.
To my sister Anna, thank you for being my best friend, my confidant and my cheerleader.
I couldn’t have done this without having my crazy sister by my side to help me forget about the
stress that comes with deadlines and homework. Thank you for encouraging me through life’s
storms to dance in the rain. I love you sister!
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

4
To my brother Sean, the foundational support that you have provided me throughout my
life is the reason why I am who I am today. You have always been my biggest fan, my best
friend and my source of strength. Thank you for challenging me and for never allowing me to
settle. Thank you for compelling and inspiring me to be the best version of me that I can be. I
love you brother and I will forever be indebted to you.
To my father and mother in law, Gene and Esther Eschendal, I will forever be grateful for
the support that you have provided throughout this process. Thank you for extending a helping
hand with our babies. I love you!
To my extended family and friends, thank you for all of your love and support. I am so
extremely blessed in my life to be surrounded by such amazing people who inspire me everyday.
I am so in love with my life and I genuinely contribute that to you. Thank you for your words of
encouragement, your help with my children, your love and your guidance throughout this
journey. I love you all very much!
To my former teachers, your modeling of human kindness, compassion, and belief in
tomorrow’s future is the reason why I became a teacher first and foremost. As I reflect upon who
I am today, images of teachers that have motivated, compelled and inspired me light up in my
mind. Thank you for being a constant in my life. Thank you for encouraging me not to accept
anything less than what I am capable of. Thank you for never giving up on me.
Finally, to the children that I have served and currently serve, upon the completion of my
doctoral degree, I vow to you that I will never stop learning. I consider myself the luckiest
person in the world to have a career where I get to influence children, whom in return teach me
boundless life lessons. Because of you, no amount of education will ever be enough. I will
continue to learn, to grow and to challenge myself to provide you with the best educational
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

5
opportunity that is possible. You deserve nothing more than the best there is to offer. Thank you
for motivating and encouraging me to never stop learning and for making me smile everyday of
my life.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my dissertation chair Dr. Rudy Castruita. Your support, guidance
and feedback during this entire process has been instrumental to my success. You were the first
professor that I had a class with entering into the doctoral program here at USC and I knew then
that I would be receiving the best education possible. Your insight, your passion and your
wisdom in educational practices and theory have far exceeded my expectations. Dr. Castruita.
thank you for the once in a lifetime opportunity to have you as a professor both entering into the
program and exiting the program. Thank you for agreeing to be my dissertation chair and for
your support during this rigorous, but amazing journey. You are truly the best Dr. Castruita!
Dr. Pedro Garcia, I must thank you for agreeing to be on our dissertation committee and
also for being a wonderful influential professor while I have been in attendance in this program.
Your knowledge, experiences and heartfelt stories will carry with me in my career. Dr. David
Cash, thank you as well for your insight and for agreeing to sit as a member on our dissertation
committee.
My 2013 cohort thank you for the engaging conversations and for challenging me to a
deeper understanding on many of the issues surrounding education today. Entering into this
program as a teacher and being surrounded by superintendents, assistant superintendents,
directors, psychologists, counselors and a vast array of other individuals in different fields has
been enlightening and instrumental in my growth and development. Because of your insight and
knowledge, I entered into this program a teacher and am exiting this program as an assistant
principal.
The superintendents that gave me so much of their time, I thank you. Without your hard
work and dedication to education, our students would not have the opportunities that they do.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

7
The interviews and the surveys that you provided were instrumental to this study. I feel
extremely fortunate to have been forged the opportunity to speak with you in regards to your
careers and your success. This information will provide future superintendents with critical
information that can support them with success in their superintendency.
Beaumont Unified School District and the incredible individuals within this organization
that serve students everyday, thank you for compelling me to become a leader within our district.
I feel very fortunate to be apart of a community and a district that supports lifelong learners and
leadership roles at all levels within our organization. You truly value your employees and you
truly care about the lives of our children. I am honored to be an administrator for Beaumont
Unified and to serve the students within this wonderful community.
Finally, Mary, my dissertation co-author, my classmate, my colleague, my friend, my
partner in crime throughout this entire experience, I could never have done this without you. You
have been so instrumental in my finishing this program. I will forever cherish our silly laughter
outbursts, our tears of joy and sadness, our long talks while driving to and from school and our
frequent writing dinner sessions. You are amazing Mary and I absolutely love you! Thank you
for being there and pushing me every step of the way with love and support! If I could do this all
over, I would again choose to do it with you!

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 6
List of Tables 10
Abstract 11
Preface 12
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 13
Introduction 13
Statement of the Problem 18
Purpose of the Study 19
Assumptions 20
Limitations 20
Delimitations 20
Definition of Terms 21
Chapter 2: Literature Review 23
Background of the Superintendency 25
The Superintendent and School Board of Education Perceptions 27
Challenges to Superintendent Longevity 30
Superintendent Leadership Characteristics and Factors 32
Superintendent Relationships with Stakeholders 36
The Role of the Twenty-First Century Superintendent 38
Chapter 3: Methodology 43
Introduction 43
Purpose of the Study 44
Research Questions 45
Research Design 45
Conceptual Framework 46
Sample and Population 47
Instruments 47
Protocol 48
Summary 48
Chapter 4: Findings 49
Background 49
Process to Gather Research 54
Response Rate 56
Data Analysis and Findings 56
Summary of Findings 57
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

9
Research Question #1: What Personal Characteristics and Leadership Qualities 63
Do Suburban Superintendents with Above Average Tenure in Suburban
Districts Possess that Promote Longevity in Their Career?
Research Question 2: What Do Suburban Superintendents, with Above Average 73
Tenure, Perceive as the Contributing Factors to the Longevity of their
Position?
Research Question #3: What Evaluation Tool/s are Used by Suburban 88
Superintendents to Determine Their Effectiveness as it Relates to
Their Longevity?
Summary 96
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications 98
Introduction 98
Purpose of the Study 99
Research Questions 100
Methodology 100
Results and Findings 100
Implications of the Study 108
Recommendations for Future Research 112
Concluding Remarks 113
References 114

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. District Demographics 52
Table 2. Superintendent: Gender, Years in Position and Ethnicity 53
Table 3. Tiered Preparation of Superintendency 54
Table 4. Quantitative Survey: Response Rate 56
Table 5. Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: The Mean from a 5 Point 58
Likert Scaled Survey
Table 6. Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: The Percentage from a 5 Point 59
Likert Scaled Survey
Table 7. Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: The Frequency From a 5 Point 61
Likert Scaled Survey
Table 8. Top Ten Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: From an Open-Ended 62
Interview
Table 9. Top Five Leadership Characteristics: Mean 64
Table 10. Top Five Leadership Characteristics: Percentile Rank 65
Table 11. Top Five Leadership Characteristics: Frequency 66
Table 12. Top Four Leadership Characteristics, from Interview 67
Table 13. Top Five Leadership Factors: Mean from Survey 74
Table 14. Top Five Leadership Factors: Percentage from Survey 75
Table 15. Top Five Leadership Factors, Frequency from Survey 76
Table 16. Top Six Leadership Factors, Frequency from Interviews 77
Table 17. Evaluation Tools Used by Superintendents: From Open-Ended Interviews 89

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

11
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify leadership characteristics, factors and evaluation tools
that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts. Five superintendents that have
been in their positions for a minimum of three years were surveyed and interviewed to obtain an
understanding of the characteristics, the leadership factors, and the evaluation tools that they
have utilized throughout their careers to promote longevity in their positions. In addition, 30
suburban superintendents, who have been superintendents for at least 3 years, were surveyed to
identify their understanding of superintendent characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that
support longevity. The design that utilized for this study was both qualitative and quantitative.
The conceptual framework utilized for this study was based on Creswell’s six steps of the
research process. These 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 (6) reporting and evaluating the research. This conceptual framework is
designed to be a mixed-method research study and will be conducted using both the use of
interviews and surveys. The information from this research study will provide insight about
suburban superintendent leadership characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that can directly
impact and influence individuals who are interested in becoming a superintendent in suburban
school districts.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

12
PREFACE
The chapters in this dissertation were coauthored as this dissertation was written as a
collaborative project with two other doctoral students: Mariana Ryan and Abram Jimenez.
Jointly written dissertations that are coauthored by multiple doctoral students are not the norm;
however, the USC Graduate School and the USC Rossier School of Education have allowed this
collaborative practice to align with their objective of developing highly skilled practitioners who
have the ability to apply theory and coursework to real-life educational settings. Chapters
1through 5 were jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting a team approach to this project.
Examining the characteristics, factors and evaluative tools that support superintendent
longevity in suburban, urban school districts and the board’s perception of this topic was a
venture too big to take on with one dissertation. For this reason, we three doctoral students broke
the topic up into three different dissertations. As a result, there are three dissertations co-authored
and produced by our inquiry team that collectively address the needs of suburban, urban and
board perceptions (see Jimenez, 2016; Ryan, 2016).

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

13
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.
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. 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
follower’s 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 Abram Jimenez and Mariana Ryan.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

14
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 SCHOOL DISTRICTS

15
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 SCHOOL DISTRICTS

16
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 SCHOOL DISTRICTS

17
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, 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 (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
are great at analyzing and using their imagination. Wagner and Kegan (2006) emphasize that
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

18
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 moral. 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 SCHOOL DISTRICTS

19
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 suburban school districts.
The research questions that guided this investigation are:
1. What personal characteristics and leadership qualities do suburban superintendents
with above average tenure in suburban districts possess that promote longevity in
their career?
2. What do suburban superintendents, with above average tenure, perceive as the
contributing factors to the longevity of their position?
3. What evaluation tool/s are used by suburban superintendents to determine their
effectiveness as it relates to their longevity?
This study identifies the characteristics, factors and evaluative tools that superintendents
in suburban districts possess that have assisted in their longevity. The results of this study
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 the characteristics, factors and evaluative tools that
successful superintendents utilize, individuals seeking superintendent candidates for employment
can use this information in their hiring selection process.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

20
Assumptions
The study assumed that character traits, which superintendents in small districts
possessed played a key role in their professional longevity. 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 suburban superintendents and surveying 30. Furthermore, due to the limited numbers of
superintendents in suburban districts that actually have longevity of 3 years or more, the
participant selection was limited for participating superintendents. 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 sub
urban districts as well as 30 suburban superintendents surveyed. This study was delimited by
examining and providing evidence that supports leadership characteristics, factors and evaluative
tools that support superintendent longevity in urban and suburban school districts; a topic related
to educational management and instructional leadership.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

21
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 and 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
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
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

22
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.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

23
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2

According to a Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education
[NCEE], 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 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.
Today’s school superintendents, as compared to 15 years ago, are faced with more
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

2
This chapter was co-authored with Abram Jimenez and Mariana Ryan.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

24
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). 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 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
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

25
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
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,
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

26
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 1980s and 1990s, the superintendent position became one of politician filled
with turmoil and pressure (Johnson, 2007). 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).
Although the superintendent’s role originally began with a focus on the teaching and
learning, (Kowalski, 2003) it is still expected today, but 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
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

27
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’s (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
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.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

28
There are a number of resources to assist school boards in selecting, collaborating with
and evaluating 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
to the Education Writers Association (2003), the relationship that superintendents have 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-
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

29
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 a cooperative working
relationship 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 superintendents as leaders who want to control the direction
that the school district is going in and the policies that are enacted by giving information that is
not sufficient in an attempt to put a stop to board deliberations. Also, 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 superintendent’s 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-
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

30
Baker & Hoy (2001) conducted a study that identified how successful superintendents openly
support board decisions and work to maintain unity (Johnson, 2007).
Positive relationships between suburban superintendents and their school board play a
critical role in the longevity of a superintendent. An experienced superintendent understands how
important the relationship for him/her to have with their school board. In a study conducted
amongst twenty-four 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 twenty-four 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 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).
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 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-
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

31
two percent of suburban district superintendents and 87.7% of urban district superintendents felt
their district is inadequately funded (Ellerson & McCord, 2009).
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
Education Statistics (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 National Center for Education Statistics (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,
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
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

32
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 Factors
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 century
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 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,
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

33
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. This time period was one
whereby researchers clearly concentrated on linking specific character traits with leaders (Bass &
Stogdill, 1990; Jago, 1982).
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
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

34
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. 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 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 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 a 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 factor experienced urban and suburban
superintendents keeps as important. A successful superintendent understands that communication
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

35
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 showed that superintendents credited the community for
their success and public relations was identified as 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).
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 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 factor that promotes longevity of suburban superintendents is
having a clear and concise vision for their district and an effectively be able to translate this plan.
Effective 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
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

36
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 (Marzano et al., 2005).
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
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
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

37
district, which 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 &
Walter, 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
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
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

38
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 school 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 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. In addition, the
qualifications as listed in the job description for a superintendent require the leadership of a
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

39
leader that can organize high-performing teams that create a common purpose that translates into
measurable outcomes. 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. 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 job includes providing
democracy, egalitarianism, training and security within a workforce that leads to cohesion, trust
and organizational satisfaction.
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
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

40
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. 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. The superintendent leads the
organization to share common ceremonies, 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;
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

41
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 role 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 Duffet (2001) found that more than
half of superintendents listed that their hardest job is that of increasing student achievement.
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
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

42
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 SCHOOL DISTRICTS

43
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3

This chapter provides detailed information about the purpose of this design study. It
provides overview information about the 5 participating suburban superintendents utilized to
obtain information from over the course of the study. Further, this chapter explains how the
mixed methods approach was utilized for the inquiry process using both a Likert-Scale survey
and semi-structured interview questions as the research instruments. Finally, this chapter
discusses the procedures and protocols that were used to conduct and analyze the information
found in the data.
Introduction
The superintendency is viewed as 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 superintendents that have the desired attributes of a
successful superintendent (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 districts 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). In the same study, 100 randomly selected California school districts reported that

3
This chapter was co-authored with Abram Jimenez and Mariana Ryan.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

44
43% of superintendents remained in their position for three years or less. But 71% of those in
districts with more than 29,000 students also left within that time frame (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
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.
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 on suburban superintendents. These challenges have been described as impossible and
contribute to superintendent turnover (Andero, 2000). Not only should a superintendent
understand areas such as finances and the appropriate allocations of these finances, they too
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 is no longer just
as a financial manager and a community liason, but more so now as an instructional leader
(Quinn, 2005).
Purpose of the Study
Suburban superintendent turnover is a problem and this research examined the
characteristics, factors and tools that influence superintendent longevity. It is important to
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

45
determine how suburban superintendents with greater than average longevity have stayed in their
positions despite all of the obstacles. The information from this research study will provide
insight about suburban superintendent leadership characteristics, experiences and relationships
that can directly impact and influence individuals who are interested in becoming a
superintendent in suburban school districts.
Research Questions
The following questions were used to guide the study:
1. What personal characteristics and leadership qualities do suburban superintendents
with above average tenure in suburban districts possess that promote longevity in
their career?
2. What do suburban superintendents, with above average tenure, perceive as the
contributing factors to the longevity of their position?
3. What evaluation tool/s are used by suburban superintendents to determine their
effectiveness as it relates to their longevity?
Research Design
The study called for an analysis of characteristics, factors and evaluative tools that
suburban school superintendents believe contribute to superintendent longevity. 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 suburban superintendents career longevity, a minimum of 3.18
years in their position (Council of the Great City Schools, 2014). Integrating the quantitative and
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

46
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 was based on Creswell’s (2014) six
steps of the research process. These 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 (6) reporting and evaluating the research. This conceptual
framework is designed to be a mixed-method research study and was conducted using both
interviews and surveys.
The qualitative aspect of this study was done with in-person interviews. These interviews
were with five suburban superintendents. The interviews ranged about one hour per person
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 was given by the participants. The data
collected will provide insight into superintendent perceptions about what constitutes career
longevity and the positive character traits that contribute to this longevity. The interviews were
also transcribed for clarity and will be destroyed after their purpose is served. The interviewee
was told that the information they provided will remain confidential, and that their names will
remain anonymous.
The quantitative portion of this study was done with a survey instrument based on a four-
choice Likert scale that was completed by participating superintendents that fit the 3 year
suburban superintendent participant qualification guidelines. The data collected from these
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

47
surveys will provide insight into the characteristics and qualities that are identified as being
important for successful suburban 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 and Population
Standing suburban superintendents selected for the study are currently employed in a
California suburban school district, have been in their positions for more than 3 years. The 5
California suburban superintendents selected to participate in the research study had student
populations or average daily attendance (ADA) that varied from 8,315 to 23,362 (California
Department of Education, 2014).
Instruments
Confidential interviews were central to the research study. Letters were sent via
electronic mail to 5 suburban superintendents with a minimum of 3 years as a superintendent in a
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 explained the procedures that were 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 suburban superintendents responded and confirmed
their participation to take part in the study. The quantitative instrument used to collect data was a
four-choice Likert scale with the categories: Strongly Agree, Agree, Strongly Disagree, and
Disagree. Twenty-five surveys in all were sent out to suburban superintendents who matched the
3 year minimum requirement.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

48
Protocol
The interviews with the suburban superintendents were conducted utilizing the following
protocols in sequential order:
Each interview began with an introduction stating that the researcher was a University of
Southern California student who was conducting research on the characteristics that contributed
to superintendent longevity. They were told that the research would be conducted to inquire
about suburban superintendents perspectives on the characteristics that contribute to their
longevity.
The participants were informed that the interviews would remain confidential and that
pseudonyms would be utilized to protect their privacy.
The surveys with the participating superintendents were conducted utilizing the following
protocols in sequential order:
Each survey was sent out electronically. The participants were given a 4-choice Likert
scale to follow when answering the survey. The participants were informed that the surveys
would remain confidential and that 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.
Summary
Chapter 4 will discuss the findings of this qualitative and quantitative mixed methods
study. The findings from the interviews and the surveys will be triangulated and synthesized to
provide a robust and detailed understanding of the qualities and characteristics, as well as the
experiences and relationships that contribute to career longevity for suburban superintendents.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

49
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
4

Background
Suburban superintendent turnover is a problem and the researcher will examine the
factors that influence superintendent longevity. It is important to determine how suburban
superintendents with greater than average longevity have stayed in their positions despite all of
the obstacles. The information from this research study will provide insight about suburban
superintendent leadership characteristics, experiences and relationships that can directly impact
and influence individuals who are interested in becoming a superintendent in suburban school
districts.
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,

4
This chapter was co-authored with Abram Jimenez and Mariana Ryan.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

50
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, 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. Turnover can negatively affect a district’s culture, climate,
and confidence. The negative effect is basis for the research.
The study called for an analysis of factors that suburban school superintendents believe
contribute to superintendent longevity. 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
questions (Creswell, 2014). According to Creswell’s (2014) framework for qualitative research,
this study used interviews and surveys to determine the contributing factors related to suburban
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). This
was a mixed case study that identified the characteristics, the contributing leadership factors and
the evaluation tools that successful superintendents possess and utilize in order to maintain
longevity in their respective positions as superintendents in suburban school districts. The
results of this study will provide a foundation where aspiring superintendents can seek out
necessary training in preparing for their careers.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

51
This study is a comprehensive look at multiple components that affect superintendent
tenure. By examining superintendents’ characteristics, individuals seeking superintendent
candidates for employment can utilize this information in their hiring selection process.
Similarly, the research findings will contribute to the thin literature on California suburban
school superintendent’s tenure leadership practices and characteristics that have contributed to
their tenure as superintendents. 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 suburban superintendents and qualitative interviews
conducted with five suburban superintendents, which aligned with the following research
questions:
1. What personal characteristics and leadership qualities do suburban superintendents
with above average tenure in suburban districts possess that promote longevity in
their career?
2. What do suburban superintendents, with above average tenure, perceive as the
contributing factors to the longevity of their position?
3. What evaluation tool/s are used by suburban superintendents to determine the
superintendents’ effectiveness as it relates to their longevity?
Superintendent Demographics of District Served
Standing suburban superintendents selected for the study were employed in a California
suburban school district, and had been in their positions for a minimum of 3 years. The five
California suburban superintendents selected to participate in the research study had student
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

52
populations or average daily attendance (ADA) that varied from 9,073 to 23,362 (California
Department of Education, 2014).
Table 1 describes the demographics of the student population of each superintendent’s
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 Caucasians as their largest subgroup.

Table 1
District Demographics
Superintendents
Student
Population
EL
Population
Free and
Reduced
Lunch
Population
Minority
Population
Largest
Subgroup
Population
A 21,507 13.6% 80% 67.9% Hispanic
B 9,073 13.4% 58.9% 65.25 Hispanic
C 23,362 26.5% 81.9% 92% Hispanic
D 9,762 9.3% 51.2% 42.5% Caucasian
E 21,233 9.3% 55.3% 68% Hispanic

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

53
Years of Superintendency
Table 2 gives the demographics for each district served by the superintendent
interviewed. This table gives the reader a more detailed breakdown of the demographics and
background of the superintendent in each district. The background of the superintendent is
placed into the following categories: gender, years in position, and ethnicity.
Out of the five superintendents interviewed, 3 of the superintendents were female. Only
one out of five was Hispanic/Latino, while the other four were Caucasian. The average years in
the position for all 5 participants was 6.3 years as superintendent.

Table 2
Superintendent: Gender, Years in Position and Ethnicity
Superintendent Gender Years in Position Ethnicity
A Male 9 years Caucasian
B Female 3.5 years Caucasian
C Male 5 years Hispanic/Latino
D Female 7 years Caucasian
E Female 7 years Caucasian

Tiered Preparation of Superintendency
Table 3 describes how each participant interviewed had different career paths to their
superintendency. Each of the pathways to superintendency were charted beside each classified
superintendent interviewed. For example, superintendent A was first a teacher, then an assistant
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

54
principal, to a principal, to a director, later to an assistant superintendent and finally to a
superintendent.

Table 3
Tiered Preparation of Superintendency
Superintendent Teacher
Assistant
Principal Principal Director
Assistant
Superintendent
A X X X X X
B X X X X
C X X X X X
D X 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 is based on
a five-choice Likert scale that was completed by participating superintendents that fit the 3 year
suburban superintendent participant qualification guidelines. The data collected from these
surveys provided insight into the characteristics and qualities that were identified as being
important for successful suburban 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 linked strong leadership skills to superintendency
positions and inspired the survey questions created for inquiry.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

55
Confidential interviews were central to the research study. Letters were sent via
electronic mail to 5 suburban superintendents with a minimum of 3 years as a superintendent in a
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 explained the procedures that were 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 suburban superintendents responded and confirmed
their participation to take part in the study. The quantitative instrument used to collect data was a
five-choice Likert scale with the categories: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Strongly Disagree,
and Disagree. Fifty surveys in all were sent out to suburban superintendents who matched the 3
year minimum requirement.
The qualitative aspect of this study was done with interviews that were done in person.
These interviews were conducted with five suburban superintendents. The interviews ranged
about one hour per person interviewed. The interviews conducted utilized 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 was given by the participants.
The data collected provided insight into superintendent perceptions about what constitutes career
longevity and the positive character traits that contribute to this longevity. The interviews were
transcribed for clarity and destroyed after their purpose was served. The interviewee was told
that the information they provided would remain confidential and their names would remain
anonymous.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

56
Response Rate
Based on the designed criteria for this study, 30 suburban superintendents of elementary,
middle and high school districts participated 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,
30 elected to participate. The result was a response rate of 60%. The response rate was
satisfactory to the researcher, based on the average return rate of 40% for a survey conducted
through email (Dillman, 2000). Of the 30 suburban elementary, middle, and high school district
superintendents who chose to participate in the quantitative survey, 5 also participated in the
qualitative interview.

Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Response Rate
Measure # Invited to
participate
# Participated % Participated
Superintendents 50 30 60%

Data Analysis and Findings
This section provides analyses and processes 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 30 California suburban
superintendents representing the total sample for the quantitative study. It was organized into
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

57
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. Of the 30
suburban superintendents who chose to participate in the quantitative survey, five also
participated in the qualitative interview. The data was then analyzed to find the mean to report
the following perceptions of superintendents.
Summary of Findings
Findings: Surveys
Table 5 depicts a ranked list of the 26 closed ended questions in regards to personality
characteristics and factors that support above average tenure in suburban districts. The mean is
the mathematical average of all scores in the data set (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). These are the
results of 30 suburban superintendents (n=30) that participated in the survey. 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 with regard to
personality characteristics and factors that support above average tenure in suburban districts.
The percentile rank represents the percentage of people in a group who scored at any given raw
score (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). This table depicts the results of 30 suburban superintendents
(n=30) that participated in the survey. 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 SCHOOL DISTRICTS

58
Table 5
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: The Mean from a 5 Point Likert Scaled Survey
(Superintendents, n=30)
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics Mean
I am trustworthy 4.97
I am passionate and care deeply about my work 4.93
I value the input of others 4.9
I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass 4.8
I consider myself a lifelong learner 4.73
I value shared responsibility and delegate authority to build collective capacity 4.73
I invest heavily in human capital 4.73
I am optimistic when interacting with stakeholders 4.73
I have developed a clear vision 4.73
I am approachable 4.67
Student learning and academic achievement is a priority 4.67
Building quality relationships is important 4.67
I am committed to issues on social justice and create strategies to promote equity in my district 4.63
I am a caring and empathetic leader 4.53
I have great communication skills 4.47
I am a motivating and encouraging leader 4.43
I am effective in my ability to build a high quality cabinet and administrative team 4.43
I am an effective leader 4.4
I have situational awareness regarding what happens in my district 4.37
I have structures in place to myself well organized 4.27
I am a strong financial manager of resources 4.23
I maintain a strong presence in the community 4.2
It is important to maintain relationships with board 4.1
I prioritize my time based upon based on the vision of the district goals 4.03
My primary role is instructional leader 4.0
I maintain political acuity at the state and local level 3.93

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

59
Table 6
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: The Percentage from a 5 Point Likert Scaled Survey
(Superintendents, n=30)
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics 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 that 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 consider myself a lifelong learner 100
I am an effective leader 100
I am approachable 100
I am passionate and care deeply about my work 100
I invest heavily in human capital 100
I have great communication skills 97
I am committed to issues of social justice and implement strategies to create equity and
access in all schools for all students to promote equity in my district
97
I am a caring and empathetic leader 97
I am a motivating and encouraging leader 93
Building quality relationships with key stakeholders is important to me as a superintendent
and for my tenure as superintendent
93
I am effective in my ability to build a high quality cabinet and administrative team 93
I have situational awareness regarding what happens in my district 87
I have structures in place to myself well organized 83
I maintain a strong presence in the community 83
I am a strong financial manager of resources 83
It is important to maintain relationships with board 80
I prioritize my time based upon based on the vision of the district goals 80
My primary role is instructional leader 73
I maintain political acuity at the state and local level 70

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

60
Table 7 depicts a ranked list of the 26 closed ended questions in regards to personality
characteristics that support above average tenure in suburban districts. The frequency distribution
presents scores (X) and how many times (f) each scored was obtained (Kurpius & Stafford,
2006). Frequency refers to the intervals that have the highest mode (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006).
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.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

61
Table 7
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: The Frequency from a 5 Point Likert Scaled Survey
(Superintendent, n=30)
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics
Frequency
Distribution
I have developed a clear vision 30
Student learning and academic achievement is a priority 30
I am trustworthy 30
I am optimistic when interacting with stakeholders 30
I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass 30
I value the input of others 30
I consider myself a lifelong learner 30
I am an effective leader 30
I value shared responsibility and delegate authority to build collective capacity 30
I am approachable 30
I am passionate and care deeply about my work 30
I invest heavily in human capital 30
I have great communication skills 29
I am a caring and empathetic leader 29
I am committed to issues on social justice and create strategies to promote equity in my district 29
Building quality relationships is important 28
I am effective in my ability to build a high quality cabinet and administrative team 28
I am a motivating and encouraging leader 28
I have situational awareness regarding what happens in my district 26
I am a strong financial manager of resources 25
I have structures in place to myself well organized 25
I maintain a strong presence in the community 25
It is important to maintain relationships with the board 24
I prioritize my time based upon based on the vision of the district goals 24
My primary role is instructional leader 22
I maintain political acuity and the state and local level 21

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

62
Findings: Interviews
Following the coding process, which identified common themes, frequency counts from
the open-ended interview questions were tabulated. These are the results of 5 suburban
superintendents (n=5) that participated in the interviews. Table 8 lists the top ten frequent
character attributes and factors that interviewed participants warranted as leadership
characteristics and factors that promoted superintendent longevity.

Table 8
Top Ten Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: From an Open-Ended Interview
(Superintendent, n=5)
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics Frequency Distribution
Communication 117
Important is to maintain relationships with board 56
Delegating/shared responsibility 49
Relations outside the board 48
Systems in place 26
Trust 24
Instruction 24
Listening 20
Visionary 17
Accountability 10

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

63
Research Question #1: What Personal Characteristics and Leadership Qualities Do
Suburban Superintendents with Above Average Tenure in Suburban Districts
Possess that Promote Longevity in Their Career?
The first research question asked about personal characteristics that suburban
superintendents possessed that promoted their longevity. In order to measure what characteristics
actually had a positive effect on superintendent longevity, superintendents participated in a
Likert Scale survey where they ranked characteristics that superintendent’s possessed from
strongly disagree to strongly agree. The suburban 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: Surveys.
Table 9 is the list of the top five mean findings of leadership characteristics that were
reported from the qualities and characteristics survey. These are the results of 30 suburban
superintendents (n=30) that participated in the survey. The top five leadership characteristics
with the highest mean were I am trustworthy at 4.97, I am passionate and care deeply about my
work at 4.93, I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass at 4.8, I am optimistic when
interacting with stakeholders at 4.73 and I am approachable at 4.67.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

64
Table 9
Top Five Leadership Characteristics: Mean (Superintendent, n=30)
Top 5 Leadership Characteristics Mean
I am trustworthy 4.97
I am passionate and care deeply about my work 4.93
I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass 4.8
I am optimistic when interacting with stakeholders 4.73
I am approachable 4.67

Table 10 is the list of the top five percentile rank findings of leadership characteristics
that were reported from the qualities and characteristics survey. These are the results of 30
suburban superintendents (n=30) that participated in the survey. The top five percentages of
leadership characteristics that were reported by suburban superintendents with regard to
superintendent longevity from the survey were: I am trustworthy at 100%, I am optimistic when
interacting with stakeholders at 100%, I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass at 100%, I
am approachable at 100% and I am passionate and care deeply about my work at 100%.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

65
Table 10
Top Five Leadership Characteristics: Percentile Rank (Superintendent, n=30)
Top 5 Leadership Characteristics Percentile Rank
I am trustworthy 100
I am optimistic when interacting with stakeholders 100
I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass 100
I am approachable 100
I am passionate and care deeply about my work 100

Table 11 is a list of the top five frequencies of leadership characteristics that were
reported from the qualities and characteristics survey completed by the 30 suburban participating
superintendents. Thirty suburban superintendents (n=30) participated in this survey. 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 30, I am optimistic when
interacting with stakeholders at 30, I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass at 30, I am
approachable at 30, and I am passionate and care deeply about my work at 30 frequencies.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

66
Table 11
Top Five Leadership Characteristics: Frequency (Superintendent, n=30)
Top 5 Leadership Characteristics Frequency Distribution
I am trustworthy 30
I am optimistic when interacting with stakeholders 30
I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass 30
I am approachable 30
I am passionate and care deeply about my work 30

Findings: Interview.
Table 12 is the list of the top four frequency leadership characteristics that were reported
from the quality and characteristic interview. These are the results of 5 suburban superintendents
(n=5) that participated in the interviews. The top two characteristics that were identified to
promote longevity for the superintendency were communication and trust. Communication had a
frequency of 117 while trust had a frequency of 24. Ranked three and four were the
characteristics listening and being visionary. Listening had a frequency of 20 while being
visionary had a frequency of 17. Underneath the title of communication surfaced the themes of
being trusting, a good listener and also communicating as a visionary the future of the district.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

67
Table 12
Top Four Leadership Characteristics, from Interview (Superintendent, n=5)
Top 4 Leadership Characteristics: Interview Frequency Distribution
Communication 117
Trust 24
Listening 20
Visionary 17

The characteristics of communication, trust, listening and being a visionary were themes
that surfaced most often over the course of all five superintendent interviews. Communication
was deemed a necessity when it came to the board and other district stakeholders and frequented
the interviews 117 times. Over the course of the interviews, trust frequented the interview 24
times, while listening surfaced 20 times and being a visionary surfaced 17 times. Superintendent
A with regard to communicating explained:
I answer my phone, I get back to people in a timely manner, if not by phone, then by
electronic mail and voice messaging. That’s very important too that people know that you
take a minute and give them feedback and get back to them. I think that’s very important.
Then getting along with people. If you can’t get along with people, you’re not going to
last in this business.
Superintendent A added to this discussion on communication, “I like to be informed of
things,” “I don’t care how much time that takes,” “I like to have open lines of communication.”
He later stated, “I think good communication, listening to people, their point of view is very
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

68
important.” Finally, he made reference to communicating with the labor board in this district as a
high priority and as being a strength of his because of his background and experience in this area.
Superintendent B addressed communication as viable in “recognizing and helping [to]
communicate, we are in an information technology era and with that shift comes tremendous
change for the profession in our district.” Her primary focus this year was extending information
out to cabinet and district personnel that technology needs to be prevalent and utilized across all
departments and disciplines. She also communicated district wide that professional learning was
essential to enhance technology skills as a district need.
Superintendent C stated that he was going to encourage communication this upcoming
school year by asking his principals to communicate every three months in regards to district
data presented, “What’s working?” “What’s not working?” “What changes are you going to
make?” and “What support do you need?” He asserted that he was tactical in planning and
communicating and that these were characteristics that promoted superintendent longevity.
Superintendent C made it clear that he prioritized his time around what was going to have
the greatest impact on the outcomes of student performance “so I will do a lot of community
events where it gets us recognition and a focus on supporting our students.”
Superintendent C shared in his interview, “I think my personal characteristics that I
possess that contributed to my longevity would probably be my communication skills.” He
valued listening to the principals and bringing back their concerns to cabinet to have
conversations about their concerns and making adjustments when needed.
Superintendent D spoke about communicating with her board ongoing and found this
essential in her longevity:
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

69
But everyone is like, Oh my gosh! you spend so much time with your board, but that’s
my job. That’s a big part of my job. We have fun. It’s a fun group. I can tease with them,
but I’m always, of course, very respectful. I call them personally on the big things; I
email them on the small things, and we really do lead together.
Superintendent E stated that ongoing communication and relationships with the board
was her responsibility:
My responsibility is to present the options to the board and to say okay, so we want to
talk about whether or not we’re going to build this school. Here’s what will happen if we
do and here’s what will happen if we don’t. What do you think? I go to the board as much
as I can before I have an opinion. That doesn’t mean that I don’t have knowledge and I
don’t think it’s a horrible idea then I don’t present it. The idea is, it’s their district. It’s a
service attitude.
Superintendent A entrusted in his staff and believed that this trust contributed to his
longevity as a superintendent. He stated, “people have a good understanding of their job
responsibilities and their duties, and then you give them the autonomy to run their respective
positions.”
Superintendent B valued trust as a prominent characteristic of superintendents with
longevity. She stated that there must be a sense of trust developed with the cabinet. The
superintendent “really relied on the judgment and the direction that all of the different cabinet
members had in their respective positions.” She further made reference to the book The Five
Dysfunctions of a Team where she discussed that trust is the second foundational piece that must
be prevalent for superintendent success.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

70
With regard to trust, Superintendent B stated:
My relationship with the board is very positive. And, again, with the board and the
cabinet, we have worked on The Five Dysfunctions of a Team together as well so we
recognize the level of trust being an extremely important foundation.
She made it clear in the interview that her longevity was impacted by her relationship
with the board and that having a high level of trust with them had a “definite high correlation.”
She further elaborated that when there is a high level of trust amongst the school board members
and the superintendent, there is no need for the board to micromanage the superintendent
because “they know that you are going to take care of it.”
Superintendent C attributed his longevity as a result of established trust within his
organization:
If I am going to be a successful superintendent, I need to be balanced and well-rounded.
And the reason why I was made aware of that is because I had a certain - I had already
pre-established relationships with people in my district. You know, I wouldn’t say we
we’re friends, we were good working colleagues and friends. Not social friends outside
of work, but we had trust and a working relationship that was supportive of each other.
Superintendent C stated with regard to trust:
I think people have a tendency to trust what I say, I believe that I am a person of
integrity. I’m a firm believer if I say I’m going to do something, I’ll do it. If I say I’m
going to be there, I’ll be there. I’ll be at the events. Not only do I expect some support
from our community and from our principals, but I also expect that I have to give support
too.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

71
Superintendent D attributed to having trusting relationships as a characteristic that
contributed to her superintendent longevity. She stated that when you have these types of trusting
relationships then “they’ll follow you, and they’ll let you lead even if it stretches them.” She
further ascertained that her board relations are strong due having “a lot of trust.” Furthermore,
she stated that there are “moral obligations” that goes on with superintendent decision making
and that you must have public trust with the public’s money “and with their most prized
possessions.”
Superintendent E had a strong working relationship with the board and stated with regard
to trust, “I trust that if I’m doing something wrong, they’ll let me know.” She contributed her
longevity to being impacted by having a “trusting relationship that allows me to do my job and
allow them to do their job.” Superintendent A stated with regard to listening and being a
visionary:
You have to have good communication skills and always be a good listener. You have to
be forthright and move forward, and, you know, to see big -, you know, be a visionary
person. You see the big picture and then be able to articulate ideas and goals and
objectives and move those goals and objectives forward.
He further stated with regard to listening and being visionary:
You know, I think being a down-to earth person and listening to people and valuing
people’s ideas and opinions. So I think being able to identify the differences in people
and listening to them as they give you their opinions and viewpoints is very important.
Superintendent A really saw the value in creating a vision and being able to carry that
vision forward. He felt that positive results stem from listening to people and generally caring
about their position and their point of view.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

72
Superintendent B also stated with regard to vision, that it is important to look at the
growth of the community to envision how many schools might need to be built, what technology
learning environments might look like in the future, what the futuristic classroom might look
like, what the schedule of the school day in the future may look like and the fiscal resources that
may need to be in place to support all of this.
Superintendent C attributed his superintendent longevity as resulting from recognizing
that he needed to gravitate away from his human resources comfort zone and to “start listening”
to people from outside of this comfort zone to see the problems within the organization and to
listen to what others had to say about the direction that the district needed to go in for success.
He made reference to how listening to others contributed to getting the organization to a “good
place.” Superintendent C further stated that superintendents have to be risk-takers, visionary and
supportive for success.
Superintendent D referred to being a “good listener” throughout her interview and that
organizations will fall apart with “systemic procedures in place for ‘vision.’” She also stated that
her longevity was a result to not delegating community affairs, but rather “listening” to her
principals and supporting them when it comes to community affairs and taking “those on
[her]self.”
Superintendent E believed that her strengths had come from “learn[ing] to be very good
at listening to people’s ideas and then playing that out in my head and seeing where they’re
going to end up.” She also states with regards to being visionary, “I think I’m good at seeing - as
a matter of fact, I know I’m good at seeing what could happen and then piecing them together.”
She also made reference to listening to the board and when they seem worried about a process, “I
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

73
brought them a concept of a process, and they liked that process, and they stood behind that
process one hundred percent.”
Superintendent E further stated with regard to listening that superintendents who have
had longevity have:
learned to listen and have learned to do things differently than they think that they would
have done them. They have adapted. I think that they have listened, they changed. And
what they would have done in year five, or seven, or three is different that what they
would have done in year one. But they still, they haven’t gotten conservative. So it’s not
like they said, okay I have been wounded so many times, I won’t do anything. They’re
still out there doing all these things. They’ve learned to figure out how to make it work in
the district.
Research Question 2: What Do Suburban Superintendents, with Above Average Tenure,
Perceive as the Contributing Factors to the Longevity of their Position?
The second research question asked the superintendents about what factors have
contributed to their longevity. In order to measure what factors listed actually had a positive
effect on superintendent longevity, 30 suburban superintendents participated in a Likert Scale
survey where they ranked the factors that led to their superintendent longevity in their current
position. The superintendents were also asked specific questions that pertained to factors that
promoted their longevity in an open-ended interview.
Summary of Findings
Findings: Survey.
Table 13 is the list of the top five mean findings of leadership factors reported from the
qualities and characteristic survey. These are the results of 30 suburban superintendents (n=30)
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

74
that participated in the survey. The mean is the mathematical average of all the scores in the data
set (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). The top five mean leadership factors reported were in this study
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.

Table 13
Top Five Leadership Factors: Mean from Survey (Superintendents, n=30)
Top 5 Leadership Factors Mean
I value the input of others 4.9
I consider myself a lifelong learner 4.73
I value shared responsibility and delegate authority to build collective capacity 4.73
I invest heavily in human capital 4.73
I have developed a clear vision for the school district I work for 4.7

Table 14 is the list of the top five percentages of leadership factors that were reported
from the quality and characteristics survey. These are the results of 30 suburban superintendents
(n=30) that participated in the survey. The top five percentages were: I have developed a clear
vision at 100%, I make student learning and academic achievement a priority at 100%, I value
the input of others at 100%, I consider myself a lifelong learner at 100% and I am an effective
leader at 100%.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

75
Table 14
Top Five Leadership Factors: Percentage from Survey (Superintendent, n=30)
Leadership Factors Percentile Rank
I have developed a clear vision 100
Student learning and academic achievement is a priority 100
I value the input of others 100
I consider myself a lifelong learner 100
I am an effective leader 100

Table 15 is the list of the top five frequency findings of leadership factors that were
reported from the qualities and characteristics survey. These are the results of 30 suburban
superintendents (n=30) that participated in the survey. The top five frequencies of leadership
factors were: I have developed a clear vision at 30, I make student learning and academic
achievement a priority, I value the input of others, I consider myself a lifelong learner, and I am
an effective leader.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

76
Table 15
Top Five Leadership Factors, Frequency from Survey (Superintendent, n=30)
Leadership Factors Frequency Distribution
I have developed a clear vision 30
Student learning and academic achievement is a priority 30
I value the input of others 30
I consider myself a lifelong learner 30
I am an effective leader 30

Findings: Interview.
Table 16 is the list of the top six frequencies of leadership factors that were reported by
the qualities and characteristics interview. Frequency refers to the data that has the highest mode
(Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). These are the results of 5 suburban superintendents (n=5) that
participated in the interviews. The top four factors that were identified to promote longevity in
the superintendents were maintaining relationships with the board with a frequency of 56.
Delegating and sharing responsibility came in second with a frequency of 49, relations outside
the board had a frequency of 48, and systems in place had a frequency of 26. Instruction and
accountability were ranked considerably lower at 24 and 10. Several categories surfaced
underneath relationships including: relationships with the school board, cabinet, community, and
employees. Delegating and sharing responsibilities was also a theme that surfaced with regards
to staff, community and systemic processes and relations.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

77
Table 16
Top Six Leadership Factors, Frequency from Interviews (Superintendent, n=5)
Leadership Factors Frequency Distribution
Important is to maintain relationships with board 56
Delegating/Shared Responsibility 49
Relations outside the board 48
Systems in place 26
Instruction 24
Accountability 10

Superintendent B made reference to the positive relationships that the district
administrative teams had with both union organizations. This was prevalent in her conversation
when she stated with regard to contract negotiations:
But what also happened with that settlement is also like the election with our teacher’s
association, and that was overwhelming with a positive leadership support and I’m
extremely proud of that. The second group is our CSEA group. And I’m really proud that
the leadership group there really took strong bold action to be in charge of their own
negotiation process, and they did not allow the interference from the CSCU organization
to derail it. And that took tremendous courage and, again, trust on the part of those
members to take action. So two of the groups that are typically trained to oppose
everything that goes on administrative have actually come to support us. So this is what I
think is going to be the strongest asset of our district.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

78
Superintendent B also made reference in her interview to “how bargaining units are
coming together in support of district goals and visions and how teacher groups are interacting in
the curriculum design teams” as being key components of relationship building characteristics
that support superintendent longevity. With regard to the board, Superintendent B saw the board
relations as:
[O]ne of the most important jobs that I have is to have a very strong relationship with the
different school board members and other collaborative agency leaders in our
community. And also, if there’s a particular interest that I know they have or an area of
concern that I know they share, I will contact them personally. I do a lot of personal
contact with the board.
Superintendent B also stated that she spends a lot of quality time establishing
relationships with elected officials and having regular meetings with agencies such as parks, the
water district, the police department and the city. As well as liaison meetings with the police
department. Furthermore, she met with organizations such as Rotary to club to promote
community events. She asserted:
I want to maintain really strong relationships with all these different groups. When you’re
working in a positive environment, it just increases longevity because it’s rewarding, it’s
exciting, it fulfills a lot of intrinsic needs that you many have and it’s important. My
relationship is extremely positive and trusting with the board so that’s what leads to the
longevity.
Superintendent C with regard to relationships asserted that his second strength was
“interpersonal relationships with the employees. If there’s a retirement then I will stop by for a
couple of minutes, you know, out of the day and go. If it’s a welcome luncheon, I’ll stop by and
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

79
say a few words.” He further stated, that “giving back, being a steward of public service and
being a servant leader” are qualities that superintendents with longevity exhibit.
With regard to board relations, Superintendent C made reference to three relationships:
board relations, labor union relations and community relationships. He stated that “board
member relationships are number one in this list. And if the superintendent cannot get along with
their board and not lead the board, then it’s going to be a short tenure.” In addition, he focused
on having to “be in constant conversation with [his] board members”: “I have to be truthful and
honest and act with integrity. Board relations has maintained my longevity. I mean a positive
relationship breeds comfort, breeds satisfaction.” “I’m available to my board 24 hours a day.”
Superintendent C, like Superintendent B, was also very happy with the relationships that
he has had with the labor union. He shared in his interview, “I would say my greatest
accomplishment as superintendent would probably be our relationships with our labor unions.”
He took great pleasure in not being in conflict with his board currently. He made reference to an
18- 20 year battle that his district had been in with the union that he had experienced. When he
became superintendent the first year, the union was days away from a strike and had completed
fact finding. Instead of getting the report, the union agreed to the terms because the district was
nearly bankrupt. After this decision was made the superintendent said:
[L]ook, we go outside this door, we shake their hands. We have nothing to be proud of
because we took some pretty hard concessions, 14 furlough days, and so it wasn’t
anything to be happy. So we walked out with stoned faces and just shook their hands and
said thank you. After the dust settled, about 3 months later, I went to a superintendent
workshop where he learned about and implemented a process called fair share bargaining
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

80
that the union accepted. And ever since then, we have had peace for three years, labor
peace and we’ve settled negotiations in probably three negotiating sessions.
Superintendent D identified the characteristic that she possessed that had contributed to
her longevity as relationships:
Relationships, that’s probably my best asset is developing, cultivating, and developing
sincere relationships. If you have that, people trust you. And with trust, they’ll follow
you, and they’ll let you lead, even if it stretches them. And they’ll also call you on the
carpet too and they’ll provide you feedback that matters. So it’s a great thing to have that.
Man, you have to be sincere. You have to really like people.
She also made reference to people without educational backgrounds coming into
positions of superintendency and asserted that these individuals can be successful without an
instructional background due to their ability to “develop strong relationships.”
Superintendent D made reference in her interview frequently to relationships being a
necessary component to superintendent longevity as it relates to both the community, the district
staff members and the board. In reference to the community she felt that establishing and
“engaging in the community” was something that she did “pretty well.”
We have 5 different committees going on: helping parents with FASFA, helping seniors
with resumes, helping Freshmen with understanding how to plan to get a job and
balancing a checkbook. We have two goals left, emotional well-being and some literacy
goals.
Superintendent D reflected and shared a negative situation that she had with the board
that ended in a negative relationship with them after three years. She ended up having an
unsuccessful relationship with two board members and felt like “there was nothing that [she]
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

81
could do to win them over.” This happened when two new board members got elected and then
proceeded to “turn the board upside down.” She asserted that she tried to work with them with
what [she] was good at “relationships, but when that failed, she left the district.” She again made
reference to “relationship building [and] being able to work with people and finding the middle
ground. If not being able to compromise, to not walk away mad.” “I tried to find some middle
ground [with the board] but just couldn’t.” Some “superintendents move on because the board
changes and those expectations change.” She made reference to this being a learning experience
that equipped her with knowledge for her current superintendency position.
Superintendent E validated that it is crucial to “communicate with the board.”
Superintendent E agreed with Superintendent D with regard to leaving a district that does
not fit the superintendent and where the relationship is not working attributing longevity to board
relations:
When you’re at the top of the system and you’re only working with five people, in my
case, if that relationship isn’t workable, then you shouldn’t stay. It’s not good. It’s not
good for the person, it’s not good for the district. The relationship with my school board
has impacted my longevity because it’s a trusting relationship that allows me to do my
job and allows them to do their job.
Sharing responsibility/delegating and establishing organized systems were two additional
themes that surfaced from the interviews with the superintendents as being characteristics and
leadership qualities that promoted superintendent longevity. Responsibility and delegating
frequented the interview 49 times, while establishing and maintaining systems frequented the
interview 26 times.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

82
Superintendent A:
But so we’re constantly refining how we get information out to people, how you include
people in the decision-making process. And I truly believe that if you have a lot of buy-in
and people, you know, a lot of input, that they’re going to have tremendous more buy-in
in terms of the decision-making. Very rarely do I exercise my, I’ll call it, you know,
positional power. I don’t believe in it. I would rather have more of a consensus building.
When I see are that I need to improve on, then I seek advice from other people. I’m not
afraid to pick up the phone and bounce ideas off of other people.
Superintendent A made it clear in the interview that he takes “ownership of stuff.” He
does however, give people what are the priorities of their jobs and because he works for a larger
suburban district, he stated that “you have to delegate.” He made reference to there being “levels
of delegation.” He voiced that there were some decisions that he would never delegate and these
types of decisions are ones that will “always come back to the cabinet and then we prioritize.”
He did share that he does at time pull rank or “positional authority,” however, “most of
the time, so people have a good understanding of their job responsibilities and their duties, you
give them the autonomy to run their respective division.”
Superintendent A discussed the shift systemically to the Locally Controlled Funding
Formula (LCFF) and the Locally Controlled Accountability Plan (LCAPP). This will be the
“singular most important thing that we shifted to.” He stated that the change in the funding
schedule and the development of the district’s plan is going to be a very challenging systemic
change for the district. His concern was with regard to ensuring that “adequate funding” would
be provided to the initiatives that were built into the eight criteria and the “three goals and
objectives that were adopted to support the criteria as being a very daunting task.”
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

83
Superintendent B voiced that working on delegating was something that she knew was
valuable and something that she knew she could “improve tremendously.” She described herself
as a “constructive leader,” being that she likes to learn by doing and “going through the process
herself.” She stated that she is:
apply[ing] that same type of perspective in getting information from others and really
developing questions and different ways of being able to take that information and not
feel like I have to read it myself, write it myself and create it myself.
Superintendent B additionally stated with regard to shared leadership:
And I’m really working at ways first of all to ascertain the information and then be
confident that it’s correct and then applying it in what would be problem-solving
situations or a looking at the future with what the strategy is going to need to be for, you
know, the future decision. An example of this is facilities. You know it is a really
complex area of our work operationally and statistically how we’re going to navigate the
construction that’s coming, the type of school, it really takes an extensive amount of
expertise and I’m going to have to be able to draw from other people.
Superintendent B further stated with regards to shared leadership, “I do not feel I have to
read it and touch it myself like I used to. I really can rely on others for information and make
decisions now based on that.” She likes to delegate the leadership or shared responsibility to the
individual within the organization that happens to be the expert in that particular area. She makes
a “purposeful effort” to take opportunities to feature her staff in leadership roles “before the
board and before the public.” She likes for her staff to be “seen as experts and to give them that
experience.” She feels that “the greatest accomplishment so far is really building a culture of
shared leadership in our district.” She is proud of the relationship that the district has with the
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

84
unions and again states: “So what I think is going to be the strongest asset of our district in our
future is going to be a culture of shared leadership and everyone owns our kids.”
Superintendent B had teachers that were fully emerged in the design of units of study for
the California State Standards and stated, “I don’t think there’s nothing better than for teachers to
construct that then to determine how the students learn it or not.” Teachers are invested in the
curriculum design process.
Superintendent B’s final comments on shared leadership related to modeling this
behavior for others:
You really have to demonstrate and show those in the district really what shared
leadership looks like, for example. And by doing that, you really then can increase the
trust and all the other levels that we have to increase. So it’s really something a person
must invest in as a superintendent.
Superintendent C regarded one of the personal characteristics that have lead to his
longevity as “a management style that possesses collaborative characteristics in a sense that, you
know, when decisions are made, that it’s best being made collectively as opposed to in
isolation.” He has structures in place where:
people are really dialed in and focused and comfortable with decisions that are being
made because they know they’ll be a time in the school, throughout the school year that
says, okay, we’re going to have conversations to see if this is working.
Superintendent C made reference to his district having a tiered system of accountability
and shared responsibility of indicators that are aligned from the top down. He also made
reference to a system that he has in place that has promoted his relationship with the union called
the fair share process:
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

85
It’s a formula and it tells what the teachers’ share is, it tells what the CSCA shares, it tells
what the management share is. And there’s no question because they all agree on the
numbers. And so now we can stick to the language as opposed to the salary and benefits.
Superintendent D attributed her longevity to relationships, but spoke often of the
“systemic approaches” component as one that she considered valuable but as a “weakness” that
she was still developing. As an incoming superintendent within a district that she previously
worked for, she only knew one system. She voiced, “So I think that’s probably been one of my
biggest frustrations with myself, and that’s probably what I worked the hardest on.” She went
through a district where the system was “torn apart” due to a “horrific recession,” and a “board
recall.” As she changed from her former district to her current one, she stated, “I didn’t think
about putting a system in place. I fell into what systems we had, which wasn’t working for my
relationship style and all of a sudden I had to recreate a system.” She realized that there was no
system in place for vision, mission, and communicating where the district is going. She stated
that superintendent longevity is promoted by having “whole systems that need to be in place.”
Superintendent D picked people within her organization that it is very easy to delegate to
because they have the same style. She stated, “They’re going to carry out my mission.” She
delegated responsibilities under work titles:
Because they have to be held responsible for the work that’s under their titles, you know,
I delegate. And I delegate it, obviously by instruction, business, and HR. I just made the
decision to do an extended cabinet and I did that all this year and last year. It will bring in
director level positions or similar positions and I will be delegating directly to them in
some cases, which bypasses assistant superintendents, but I’ve met with them and shared
why and it’s because there is a lack of communication and follow-up and that these are
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

86
huge jobs. So it’s hard from them to manage the new work, follow up on the new work.
And so they all agreed, but that’s only because we do have a lot of trust.
Superintendent D further stated with regard to delegation:
It doesn’t matter how long you’ve been a superintendent. Once you have that position,
they have the expectation that you are the expert, whether it be about instruction, or
budget, or curbs and gutters, or pressure rates in the toilets. There’s so much, and they
just expect you to know. And so when it comes to some kind of conflict with them. It’s a
difficult, difficult spot to be in. So for conflict with the board, it only goes so far and then
you farm it out and get some help.
Superintendent D mentioned “doing great for three wonderful years” as superintendent
until she had two board members where she felt that “there was nothing I could do.” She referred
to the necessity of having a system in place when dealing with these board members that
was fair and equitable for all five board members, that [she] could have used as a back
bone in dealing with these difficult board members that could have prevented them from
picking out employees and asking them questions about their religion or race, questioning
people in public and questioning principals about decisions that they made personally on
their campus.
She asserts that longevity is promoted by having “good protocols in place.”
Superintendent E did delegate in her former position as a director and has since become
more of a servant style leader:
When I was a director back in my -- years ago, I used to be the type of person that would
have the answer. So if we were going to be implementing, adopting a language art’s
curriculum, I had already done the research, I already knew which one lined up the best, I
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

87
already knew the ones that would have the results. So I would be watching everyone
making sure we had gotten the one that was right. Well, now I tell my staff, Do you know
what? There’s not a right answer. There’s just the best answer for us. And I think that’s --
I learned that through this more of a service kind of attitude. But I think that’s how -- I
think that’s how a superintendent makes sure that there’s almost always unanimous votes
because I’m bringing them what they want. I’m not bringing them my ideas I’m trying to
sell.
Superintendent E asserted to have a top-down attitude at times within [her] organization
when she stated:
I’m always -- always the joke is now is I always start with no. Because I always start with
no, I can always implement. If I start with yes, you can never get it back. So sometimes
I’ll start with that. But really what I do is go away and I think about things 24/7 and so
it’s not usual for me to come back two days later to the person and say now explain this
to me. And yet, really, my first initial thing was sort of sending a message, no, you’re not
doing that. Then, I come back and think, tell me more about that. So, you know, I wish I -
- I mean, I do a better job of it, but I do think I still need to remember to improve in that
area.
Superintendent E claimed that superintendents do need to learn how to delegate and if
they don’t learn how to do that then “their position quickly gets penalized.” She stated that it is
hard to do this when you come into the position from a specific background already like business
or human resources. She asserted, “So delegating -- there’s some people who will say I hire
people and let them do their job. Well those kinds of things happen in those organizations. So I
say I hire really good people.”
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

88
Superintendent E referred to her greatest accomplishment as being a time in her
organization when the district was cut 30 million dollars over 5 years. She presented a budget
reduction process to the board that they liked. A budget reduction priority list was made which
highlighted the dollar amount in cuts and the priority list in order of what programs and jobs
would be cut. She stated with regard to this budget cut process:
I was six months as a superintendent. And when I was watching across the state of folks
that were probably going to be more successful, I noticed that they had processes. So I
thought people are going to keep coming to the board meeting and worrying, employees
or community, if they don’t know what order things are going to be cut in. If I know for
example, as a kindergarten teacher my class size is not going to be reduced, then I’m not
going to go to the board meeting so -- I already know it’s not. So you can eliminate all
the people that don’t need to worry about the budget reductions and then only worry
about the ones that should be worrying. So we created a priority list. So if you can just
look on that and see exactly what was going to be cut next, and every year we did that
process and added more to it. So we had a very efficient, manageable, non-dramatic 30
million dollars worth of cuts.
Research Question #3: What Evaluation Tool/s are Used by Suburban Superintendents
to Determine Their Effectiveness as it Relates to Their Longevity?
The third research question asked the five interviewed superintendents what evaluation
tools they utilized to determine the superintendent effectiveness in their district. 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 SCHOOL DISTRICTS

89
Summary of Findings
Findings: Interview.
The third research question asked the 5 interviewed suburban superintendents what
evaluation tools they utilize that determined 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.
Table 17 is the list of the eight evaluation tools that were used by suburban
superintendents to determine the effectiveness of their job. These are the results of 5 suburban
superintendents (n=5) that participated in the interviews. The tools were used 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 Interviews (Superintendent, n=5)
Superintendents
Tools A B C D E
Annual School Board Evaluations X
Cabinet/Personnel meetings X X
Student Test Scores X X
Board Meetings X X X X X
Superintendent Information Letters X X
Teacher groups interaction with curriculum design teams X
Interaction between bargaining units and district goals X X X
Surveys X

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

90
There were eight tools listed by the school board members to evaluate the
superintendents in their district, which included both formal and informal measures. The eight
tools used to measure the superintendent’s effectiveness were: annual school board evaluations;
cabinet/personnel meetings; student test scores; board meetings; superintendent informational
letters; teacher group interactions with the curriculum design team; interaction between
bargaining units and surveys.
The first tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was the annual evaluation
created by the district’s school board members. Only one superintendent interviewed verified
that there were annual evaluations done by the school board members that were shared with the
superintendents, which analyzed superintendent effectiveness in their position.
Superintendent A stated that the board used superintendent evaluations to monitor his
progress and stated that he had never had a problem getting his contract renewed:
I have always had good evaluations, contract extensions because I have been able to
show districts that I am making progress with the goals and objectives that we put in
place.
The second tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was determined by
cabinet/personnel meetings that provided feedback on the state of the district.
Superintendent C met with each of his departments on a weekly basis to see how things
were going: education services and business services. He asserted:
I take my principals out to lunch three times a year, just my principals and I have a
conversation on how it’s going, what’s working, what’s not working, tell me how your
family is. Those are opportunities where it’s just me and the principals, with no executive
cabinet members around, no cabinet members. That’s what I call, we have the ground
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

91
troop conversations, military. We have ground troops that actually tell me what’s
happening and how things are going on overall in the district.
He further commented:
I have a system in place where the superintendent, the board, the cabinet, the principals,
the teachers, and the students all have a say in the following questions to verify if what
we are doing is working: “What’s the data tell us?” “What’s working?” “What’s not
working?” “What are we going to do different?” “This is another area of how delegation
is taking place.” This information will be discussed by different divisions weekly,
monthly, quarterly and annually.
Superintendent E addressed cabinet meetings:
I have standard update meetings twice a week and it’s an hour a meeting generally. Most
of the time it’s them bringing in their questions and getting direction or getting direction,
making sure we’re under the same umbrella. That’s the board’s umbrella and if we’re
outside of the umbrella, then that’s not a good thing.
Superintendent E further made reference to meetings being essential to report back
information about the success of her cabinet, which in turn reflected her success:
The other thing is the success of my cabinet is my success as well. If they’re not
successful, I’m not successful. So if I hear a complaint about any of them in a meeting,
then I know I need to do more coaching and mentoring.
The third tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was analyzing the
district’s annual student test scores. Two of the five school superintendents interviewed verified
that they analyzed student data to determine effectiveness in their position.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

92
School board member A indicated that “I really do use the data that we have available to
us on student achievement” as a tool to measure success.
Superintendent B shared in her interview with regard to superintendent success tools and
student achievement, “Obviously, kids are learning and teachers are being successful is probably
the one tool that I think most about when I go home at night as an indicator of my success as a
superintendent.”
The fourth tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness were school board
meetings scheduled formally or informally depending upon urgency and need. They also varied
in time, date and duration depending on the district. Superintendent A met with his board every
Wednesday and with his cabinet:
I have a standing time where I visit schools. I have a standing time where I meet with my
board members and then I can’t set time where I meet with my cabinet level and our
director level. Those are sacred times that no one can kind of take away from those
times.
Superintendent B utilized “a regular Friday communications with the board, and a
monthly one on one” meeting as a viable tool that gauged the board’s approval with her success
in decision making. She further stated that she talked with them personally if there was
something that she felt was viable to a situation or a decision that had been made or needed to be
made.
Superintendent C referenced his regular meetings with the board as a good indicator of
his success within the district:
I speak with them on a regular basis. I talk to them on a regular basis. On a regular basis
I take them to lunch, I go to dinner, I go to their houses when I’m invited. I go to
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

93
conferences with them. I invite them to conferences. I keep them in the loop as much as I
can.
Superintendent E when asked what tool she utilized to measure superintendent success shared:
I guess what I need to measure whether I’m succeeding is the reactions of the board. It
only takes three people. And actually it only takes one, because if one person’s unhappy,
they’ll convince someone else they’re not happy. If I’m bringing them items or
suggestions or ideas that are causing them to be in conflict, then they’re not being
successful. I know my board, I know what makes them tick.
With regard to the same topic, Superintendent E further mentioned in her interview:
If I’m finding the board not being successful and I know if they’re arguing over
something, I know I didn’t do it right, I’m not being successful. I would think if they’re
doing that a lot, I’m probably going to be on my way out, not by my choice, but by their
choice. Because they’re going to think why isn’t the superintendent bringing us things
that we can agree on? That’s what they want to see happen.
The fifth tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was the informational
letter/memo that the superintendent sends out to their respective school board and cabinet. This
informal measure varied from district to district. Some superintendents sent out a memo or letter
weekly, monthly, or quarterly to inform the school board members and cabinet of what was
occurring in the district during that time period.
School board member D stated that she attributed her success tool to communicating with
her board on a weekly basis through superintendent letter(s) that keep her board well-informed of
district proposals:
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

94
I want to make sure we’re all okay with the proposal. And a lot of times they say, we
already approved that, you have been talking about it for three weeks. And I just learned
that that makes them very, very comfortable. So that’s something that I do, I
communicate with my board on a weekly basis and get them very comfortable with the
proposal before they vote on it.
Superintendent E also sees that her longevity has stemmed from “preparing the board
with information.” She does her updates on Monday and it is in the form of a memo. This memo
is where she “floats an idea.” Without any sort of “pushback” from the board then the next week,
she will provide more information on this idea and ask them “Is this what you think we should be
doing?” From that meeting is she senses a yes, then the item will go on the following board
agenda for approval, which makes the board “very comfortable” with the idea and the decision.
The sixth tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was teacher groups
interaction with curriculum design teams. One superintendent that had design teams write their
own units of study had found that the interaction between curriculum design teams and
instructional coaches facilitating the design was a valuable tool to measure her success in the
district. Superintendent A firmly stated:
how teacher groups are interacting in the curriculum design teams, for example and other
opportunities that they have to really be involved in the work as teachers is a tool that I
will be using to measure that we are succeeding because that affects curriculum, which
will then affect the students.
The seventh tool utilized to determine superintendent success was the interaction between
bargaining units and district goals, which was perceived as a tool that measured superintendent
effectiveness informally. Superintendent A referenced the bargaining unit relationship as a tool:
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

95
I pride myself, like in labor relations and grievances, contract interpretation, that kind of
conflict, because I’m very experienced in that. I try to resolve things way before they go
through an actual process. That’s very important to my success.
Superintendent B stated:
So two of the groups that are typically trained to oppose everything that goes on
administratively have actually come to support us. So what I think is going to be the
strongest asset of our district in our future is going to be a culture of shared leadership
and everyone owns our kids. And when that happens, I think we’re going to have just a
tremendous amount of success in the district.
Superintendent B further referenced the tool that she used to measure success as “how
bargaining units are coming together in support of district goals and visions.”
Superintendent C stated that his peaceful negotiations with his union members over the
past few years is a true indicator and a tool that he utilizes to gauge success within his
organization.
The eighth tool mentioned in this study that referenced measuring superintendent success
was a survey. Superintendent E stated:
Well, I like surveys, first of all, because I think surveys are unbias input. And I haven’t
done one here yet, but I was planning on doing it this year, and I was doing it with -- in
conjunction with our union presidents so they actually do it for me so it’s not coming
from me. So there’s a safety net there for people to feel comfortable. Also, you know,
committee work is good so that you get honest feedback.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

96
Summary
This chapter reported the findings from 30 suburban superintendents surveyed as well as
5 suburban superintendents interviewed from California suburban school districts. The results
from this study indicated that the characteristics that attributed to superintendent longevity
frequented from the interviews were communicating, trust, being a good listener, and also being
visionary. The findings from this research are shared by the research of Anderson (1992), Carol
et al. (1986), and Goodman et al. (1997): good suburban superintendent-board relations are
characterized by shared respect, trust, support, confidence, and the ability to openly
communicate. This research mimics the theory as stated by Chance (1991), that a successful
superintendent is one who accepts three simultaneous roles: the politician, the manager, and the
teacher.
Furthermore, the study indicated the highest frequency of superintendent characteristics
that contributed to their longevity from the surveys analyzed were I am trustworthy, I am
optimistic when working with stakeholders, I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass, I am
approachable, and I am passionate and care deeply about my work. These findings support
Northouse (2007) and Bolman and Deal’s (2003) theories. 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 leadership factors that were identified from the interview analysis as contributors to
suburban superintendent longevity were I have developed a clear vision, student learning and
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

97
academic achievement is a priority, I value the input of others, I consider myself a lifelong
learner, and I am an effective leader. The leadership factors frequented from the survey that
contributed to superintendent longevity were it is important to maintain relationships with the
board, delegating and sharing responsibility, having strong relationships outside the board,
having systems in place, knowing instruction, and having clear accountability measures. These
findings match Mountford’s (2008) research that also found the single most important factor for
superintendent success as the interaction between the board and the superintendent.
Finally, the eight evaluation tools that were utilized to measure superintendent
effectiveness were: annual school board evaluations; cabinet/personnel meetings; student test
scores; board meetings; superintendent informational letters; teacher group interactions with the
curriculum design team; interaction between bargaining units and surveys. These research
findings support the research that 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 et al., 1997). The findings from this research further support
Waters and Marzano (2006), who report 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.
In Chapter 5, there will be a discussion of the research, further conclusions and
implications of the research. Finally, recommendations for future research will be reported.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

98
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
5

Introduction
The superintendency is viewed as 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 superintendents that have the desired attributes of a
successful superintendent (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 (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 students also left within that time frame (Council of
the Great City Schools, 2014).
One of the primary focuses for a suburban 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,

5
This chapter was co-authored with Abram Jimenez and Mariana Ryan.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

99
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, Foley and Duffett
(2001) found that 81% of superintendents surveyed felt handling public criticism is an integral
component of the job.
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 on suburban superintendents. These challenges have been described as impossible and
contribute to superintendent turnover (Andero, 2000). Not only should a superintendent
understand areas such as finances and the appropriate allocations of these finances, they too
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 is no longer just
as a financial manager and a community liason, but more so now as an instructional leader
(Quinn, 2005).
Purpose of the Study
Suburban superintendent turnover is a problem and this research examined the
characteristics, factors, and evaluation tools that influence superintendent longevity. It is
important to determine how suburban superintendents with greater than average longevity have
stayed in their positions despite all of the obstacles. The information from this research study
provide insight about suburban superintendent leadership characteristics, factors and evaluation
tools that can directly impact and influence individuals who are interested in becoming a
superintendent in suburban school districts.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

100
Research Questions
The following questions were used to guide the study:
1. What personal characteristics and leadership qualities do suburban superintendents
with above average tenure in suburban districts possess that promote longevity in
their career?
2. What do suburban superintendents, with above average tenure, perceive as the
contributing factors to the longevity of their position?
3. What evaluation tool/s are used by suburban superintendents to determine their
effectiveness as it relates to their longevity?
Methodology
Superintendents were selected across California suburban school districts. Five
participating suburban superintendents were interviewed and 30 suburban superintendents were
surveyed to obtain information from over the course of the study. A mixed methods approach
was utilized for the inquiry process using both a Likert-Scale survey and semi-structured
interview questions as the research instruments.
Results and Findings
The findings in this study were based on the data that was collected and analyzed. This
section will interpret the findings from both the qualitative and quantitative data collected and
link these findings back to the literature review.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

101
Research Question #1: What Personal Characteristics and Leadership Qualities Do
Suburban Superintendents with Above Average Tenure in Suburban Districts Possess that
Promote Longevity in Their Career?
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). 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). The next
highest scoring characteristic, 93.1% of the participants surveyed, contributed superintendent
longevity to caring deeply and being passionate about their job. 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 leader
strongly cares about the organization being served. The third highest ranking characteristic
identified in the survey, 89.7% of participants, valued input from others. 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 job includes providing
democracy, egalitarianism, training and security within a workforce that leads to cohesion, trust
and organizational satisfaction.
The results from this study indicated that the characteristics that attributed to
superintendent longevity frequented from the interviews were trust, being a good listener, and
also being visionary. The findings from this research are shared by the research of Anderson
(1992), Carol et al. (1986), and Goodman et al. (1997): good suburban superintendent-board
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

102
relations are characterized by shared respect, trust, support, confidence, and the ability to openly
communicate. This research mimics the theory as stated by Chance (1991), that a successful
superintendent is one who accepts three simultaneous roles: the politician, the manager, and the
teacher.
Furthermore, the study indicated the highest frequency of superintendent characteristics
that contributed to their longevity from the surveys analyzed were I am trustworthy, I am
optimistic when working with stakeholders, I maintain a sound moral and ethical compass, I am
approachable, and I am passionate and care deeply about my work. These findings support
Northouse (2007) and Bolman and Deal’s (2003) theories. 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).
Research Question 2: What do Suburban Superintendents, with Above Average Tenure,
Perceive as the Contributing Factors to the Longevity of their Position?
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’s (2009) research suggests this struggle with superintendents and
school boards is a significant challenge for many that regularly affect their overall performance.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

103
The single most important factor for superintendent success is the interaction between the board
and the superintendent (Mountford, 2008).
The top four factors that were identified to promote longevity in the superintendents in
this study were maintaining relationships with the board with a frequency of 56. Delegating and
sharing responsibility came in second with a frequency of 49, relations outside the board had a
frequency of 48, and systems in place had a frequency of 26. Instruction and accountability were
ranked considerably lower at 24 and 10. Several categories surfaced underneath relationships
including: relationships with the school board, cabinet, community, and employees. Delegating
and sharing responsibilities was also a theme that surfaced with regard to staff, community and
systemic processes and relations.
Communication is another leadership factor experienced urban and suburban
superintendents view 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). Superintendents in this study credited the community for their success
and public relations was identified as key as well (Chance, 1991). Superintendents 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). The top five frequencies of leadership
factors that were derived from this study were: I have developed a clear vision at 30, I make
student learning and academic achievement a priority, I value the input of others, I consider
myself a lifelong learner, and I am an effective leader.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

104
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
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).
Research Question #3: What Evaluation Tool/s are Used by Suburban Superintendents to
Determine their Effectiveness as it Relates to Their Longevity?
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 et al., 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 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 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 suburban superintendents, despite these resources, critics still discern that there
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

105
are several school boards that are still lacking the capacity to train and maintain positive working
relations with their superintendents (Danzberger et al., 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 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
to the Education Writers Association (2003), the relationship that 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 LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

106
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.
The results from this study indicate there were eight accountability tools utilized to
evaluate the superintendent’s effectiveness or lack there of, which included both formal and
informal measures. The eight tools used to measure the superintendent’s effectiveness or lack of
effectiveness were: annual school board evaluations; cabinet/personnel meetings; student test
scores; board meetings; superintendent informational letters; teacher group interactions with the
curriculum design team; interaction between bargaining units and surveys.
The first tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was the annual evaluation
created by the district’s school board members. Only one superintendent interviewed verified
that there were annual evaluations done by the school board members that were shared with the
superintendents which analyzed superintendent effectiveness in their position. The second tool
used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was determined by cabinet/personnel meetings
that provided feedback on the state of the district. The third tool used to measure a
superintendent’s effectiveness was analyzing the district’s annual student test scores. Two of the
five school superintendents interviewed verified that they analyzed student data to determine
effectiveness in their position.
The third tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was analyzing the
district’s annual student test scores. Two of the five school superintendents interviewed verified
that they analyzed student data to determine effectiveness in their position. The fourth tool used
to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness were school board meetings scheduled formally or
informally depending upon urgency and need. They also varied in time, date and duration
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

107
depending on the district. The fifth tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was the
informational letter/memo that the superintendent sends out to their respective school board and
cabinet. This informal measure varied from district to district. Some superintendents sent out a
memo or letter weekly, monthly, or quarterly to inform the school board members and cabinet of
what was occurring in the district during that time period.
The sixth tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was teacher groups
interaction with curriculum design teams. One superintendent that had design teams write their
own units of study had found that the interaction between curriculum design teams and
instructional coaches facilitating the design was a valuable tool to measure her success in the
district. The seventh tool utilized to determine superintendent success was the interaction
between bargaining units and district goals, which was perceived as a tool that measured
superintendent effectiveness informally. The eighth tool mentioned in this study that referenced
measuring superintendent success was a survey.
Some school boards perceive 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
information that is not sufficient in an attempt to put a stop to board deliberations. Also, some
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.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

108
Implications of the Study
Suburban superintendent turnover is a problem and this research examines the factors that
influence superintendent longevity. It is important to determine how suburban superintendents
with greater than average longevity have stayed in their positions despite all of the obstacles.
This study contributes to research regarding personal characteristics, factors and tools that
suburban superintendents possess that contribute to superintendent career longevity. Findings
from this study aligned with research, further suggest implications that will provide insight about
suburban superintendent leadership characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that can directly
impact and influence individuals who are interested in becoming a superintendent in suburban
school districts.
Characteristics
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. Trust, being a good listener, optimism, and having strong morals and
ethics are all characteristics that this study found are attributed to superintendents with longevity.
Marzano et al. (2005) identify their 21 necessary leadership characteristics 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. Within
these 21 leadership skills are the characteristics identified in this study, trust, being a good
listener, being optimistic and having strong morals and ethics, being approachable, and caring
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

109
passionately about their job. 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 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; 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 (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
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.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

110
Factors
The top four factors that were identified to promote longevity in the superintendents in
this study were maintaining relationships with the board, delegating and sharing responsibility,
relations outside the board, and systems in place. Instruction and accountability were ranked
considerably lower. Several categories surfaced underneath relationships including:
relationships with the school board, cabinet, community, and employees. Delegating and sharing
responsibilities was also a theme that surfaced with regard to staff, community and systemic
processes and relations.
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
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). The single most important factor for superintendent
success is the interaction between the board and the superintendent (Mountford, 2008).
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
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

111
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 maintain a strong relationship with their board, they delegate and share responsibility, they
maintain positive relations outside the board and have systems in place. Consistent and effective
superintendent leadership is at the center of a school district’s overall success (Marshall & Ray,
2005).
Tools
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 et al., 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 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).
Eight accountability tools that were identified in the study and utilized to evaluate the
superintendents interviewed both by formal and informal measures. The eight tools used to
measure the superintendent’s effectiveness were: annual school board evaluations;
cabinet/personnel meetings; student test scores; board meetings; superintendent informational
letters; teacher group interactions with the curriculum design team; interaction between
bargaining units and surveys.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

112
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). Superintendents need to have accountability measures in place that define what is
working in terms of student performance, community outreach, superintendent/board relations,
union relations, instructional support, and cabinet support. With these tools in place, the district
can identify if goals are being met and if not, then why?
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 with accountability measures in place that track their shortcomings
and success. Consistent and effective superintendent leadership is at the center of a school
district’s overall success (Marshall & Ray, 2005).
Recommendations for Future Research
This study surveyed 30 suburban superintendents and interviewed five male suburban
superintendents in the state of California. Findings from this study revealed additional areas that
need to be further explored. The following are recommendations for future research:
• Further explore the nature of support systems in place for superintendents.
• Further explore the characteristics that support superintendent longevity.
• Expand the research on mentorship programs for superintendents.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

113
• Further explore and investigate the causes of superintendency turnover.
• Further research the factors that support superintendent longevity.
• A study of preparation programs in colleges and universities to assess how
superintendents are being supported and prepared to enter the superintendency.
Concluding Remarks
The factor that motivated this study was to determine if there were characteristics,
factors, and evaluation tools that contributed to superintendent longevity due to the impact that
superintendent turnover has on student achievement and systemic change. This study has
demonstrated that although there is a high level of superintendent turnover, there are contributing
characteristics, factors and tools that suburban superintendents with longevity possess that are
contributing to their sustained longevity. This study has really sought out to explore and
understand the leadership qualities and factors that suburban superintendents possess that have
kept them in the field longer than many of their counterparts who don’t make it longer than 3
years. In addition, this study has sought to understand what accountability tools are in place that
superintendents with longevity utilize that measures their success or lack of success. It is my
hopes that this research will be a tool that aspiring superintendents can analyze and apply to their
respective positions in hopes of sustaining successful satisfying careers as superintendents.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

114
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 SCHOOL DISTRICTS

115
Bryant, M. T., & Grady, M. L. (1989). Superintendent turnover in rural school districts.
Educational Considerations, 16(1), 34-36.
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.
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.
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
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

116
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). 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.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., & Foleno, T. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the game. New
York, NY: Public Agenda.
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.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

117
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.
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.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

118
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.
Jimenez, A. (2016). Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support
superintendent longevity in urban school districts: A case study (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
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.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

119
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.
Kurpius, S., & Stafford, M. (2006). Testing and measurement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
doi:10.4135/9781412986106
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.
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.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

120
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 Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April 26). A nation at risk.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
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.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

121
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.
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.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

122
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 study was to identify leadership characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts. Five superintendents that have been in their positions for a minimum of three years were surveyed and interviewed to obtain an understanding of the characteristics, the leadership factors, and the evaluation tools that they have utilized throughout their careers to promote longevity in their positions. In addition, 30 suburban superintendents, who have been superintendents for at least 3 years, were surveyed to identify their understanding of superintendent characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that support longevity. The design that utilized for this study was both qualitative and quantitative. The conceptual framework utilized for this study was based on Creswell’s six steps of the research process. These 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 (6) reporting and evaluating the research. This conceptual framework is designed to be a mixed-method research study and will be conducted using both the use of interviews and surveys. The information from this research study will provide insight about suburban superintendent leadership characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that can directly impact and influence individuals who are interested in becoming a superintendent in suburban school districts.

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

PDF

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

PDF

The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Getting to the Core: an examination into the resources, strategies and skills superintendents employed as they implemented the Common Core state standards and the politics in play

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The role of superintendents and district administrators in developing career technical education programs to assist students in becoming college‐ and career‐ready

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

Pivotal positions, critical experiences, and preparation programs in the career paths of superintendents

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Burnett, Bobbi L. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 01/19/2016

Defense Date 11/10/2015

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

Tag accountability,Board Members,characteristics,Common Core State Standards,conceptual framework,factors,leadership,longevity,No Child Left Behind Initiative,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,suburban superintendent,Tools

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 Bburnettkidz@gmail.com,blburnet@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-204196

Unique identifier UC11277081

Identifier etd-BurnettBob-4072.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-204196 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BurnettBob-4072.pdf

Dmrecord 204196

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Burnett, Bobbi L.

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