University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

AN EXAMINATION OF TRADITIONAL VERSUS NON-TRADITIONAL
SUPERINTENDENTS AND THE STRATEGIES THEY EMPLOY TO IMPROVE STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT

by

Daniel Assisi
_____________________________________________________________________

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

August 2014

ii
DEDICATION
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
(Eliot, 1972, p. 36)

Completing a doctoral program while welcoming a newborn son into the world, moving
cities, and embracing growing professional responsibilities can be a daunting task. Were it not
for the constant support of friends, family, mentors, and guides, none of this would ever be
possible. To my wife Nicole, in particular, who supported me throughout this process and always
shoulders the burden of my long hours away from home for professional and volunteer work we
both deemed of an important nature, my never-ending love and gratitude. To my son, David,
who taught me about all the hopes and wishes parents everywhere have that their children may
fare better than themselves before he could ever utter a single word, my unconditional love and
gratitude for helping me reach a new level of personal commitment and sense of urgency to the
improvement of public education. To my parents who, at great personal sacrifice, afforded me a
world-class education that spanned three continents even when I did not make the best use of it,
my heartfelt love, gratitude, and admiration.
This work and any good that may come of it is dedicated to all those who labor
anonymously day in and day out for the betterment of others through education.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
None of this work would have been possible without the masterful guidance and patience of
Drs. Rudy Castruita, Pedro Garcia, and Maria Ott. I must say, however, that Dr. Castruita’s immense
experience and leadership savvy have been, unquestionably, the guiding hand that made this study
possible. I have learned more about district leadership in a semester of classes with Dr. Castruita than
I had anywhere else until then. Additionally, how one can respond so quickly and insightfully to
one’s students in addition to one’s extensive day-to-day responsibilities is still beyond me. All of this
leads me to believe Dr. Rudy Castruita is, indeed, a “force of nature” when it comes to educational
leadership. Dr. Pedro Garcia, on his turn, aligns his vast leadership experience with a “zen-like”
quality that has the ability to distill even the most complicated process to simple next steps. His eye
for framing any situation and communicating it simply and accurately to his students probably also
explains his knack for photography – which any student can see for him or herself in the pictures on
the 10
th
floor of Rossier’s building in the USC campus, all taken by him. Lastly, my gratitude also
goes to Dr. Maria Ott, who courageously accepted the invitation to serve on my dissertation
committee in the first month of her joining Rossier. I must also thank Dr. Rudy Crew and Dr.
Katharine Strunk for some especially memorable learning experiences while on the program. Special
gratitude goes to Adam Wolfson and Dr Steve Seaford for helping me secure interviews with some
of the capable superintendents that took part in this research. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not
thank my fellow cohort members who made my experience at Rossier (in the US and in Thailand)
truly unique and enjoyable – including Ryan Eisenberg, Jim Feigert, Jason Kuncewicki, Henan Joof,
Maria Covarrubia, Veronica Solis, Ilene Ivins, and many others. Fight On!

iv

Table of Contents
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ...................................................................... 10
Introduction ........................................................................................................................10
Responses to the crisis ...........................................................................................11
Lack of Effective Leadership .................................................................................11
The Impact of Superintendent Leadership .............................................................12
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................13
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................14
Research Questions ............................................................................................................14
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................15
Assumptions ......................................................................................................................15
Limitations .........................................................................................................................16
Delimitations ......................................................................................................................16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 17
History of the Superintendency – The Changing Role of Superintendents .......................17
Superintendents as Managers ................................................................................18

v

Superintendents as Political Figures ......................................................................19
Superintendents as Accountability Experts ...........................................................20
Superintendents: Towards a More and More Complex Role ................................22
Factors Hindering Effective Leadership in Public Education ...........................................23
Dwindling Number of Leaders ..............................................................................23
Shorter Tenure for Superintendents .......................................................................24
Alarming Student Achievement Numbers .........................................................................26
National Measures .................................................................................................26
International Measures ...........................................................................................26
The Role of the Superintendent .............................................................................29
Impact of Superintendent Leadership ................................................................................29
Lack of Superintendent Leadership Studies ..........................................................30
The Measured Impact of Superintendent Leadership ............................................31
A New Kind of Leadership ................................................................................................33
Benefits of Recruiting Non-traditional School Leaders ........................................33
Criticism and Resistance to Outside Leaders ........................................................35
Summary ............................................................................................................................36
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 37
Introduction ........................................................................................................................37
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................38

vi

Research Questions ............................................................................................................39
Research Design ................................................................................................................39
Sample and Population ......................................................................................................40
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................41
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................42
Qualitative Instrumentation ...................................................................................42
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................43
Qualitative Data Collection ...................................................................................43
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................44
Qualitative Data Analysis ......................................................................................44
Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................45
Summary ............................................................................................................................46
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 47
Background ........................................................................................................................47
Summary ............................................................................................................................76
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ..................................................... 78
Introduction ........................................................................................................................78
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................80
Research Questions ............................................................................................................80
Review of Current Literature .............................................................................................81

vii

Methodology ......................................................................................................................83
Findings .............................................................................................................................84
Implications .......................................................................................................................88
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................89
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................91
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 94
APPENDIX A – INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ............................................................................. 99
APPENDIX B – INFORMATION SHEET ................................................................................ 101
APPENDIX C – RECRUITMENT LETTER ............................................................................. 103

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Participants to the Study 48
Table 2: Research Question #1 – Greatest Obstacle to Student Achievement 53
Table 3: Allocation of Resources – Creating and Extinguishing Cabinet Roles 57
Table 4: Allocation of Resources – Roles Superintendents Intearct With Most Often 58
Table 5: Allocation of Resources – Time Spent Commnicating with Board 59
Table 6: Executing – Key Factors for the Successful Implementation of New Programs 62
Table 7: Monitoring & Evaluation – Academic Accountability & Staff Evaluations 65
Table 8: Ancillary Findings – Most Important Area of Conceptual Framework 68
Table 9: Ancillary Findings – Is There a Role for Non-traditionals in Education? 72
Table 10: Ancillary Findings – Skills the Leaders of Tomorrow Should Possess 75

ix
ABSTRACT
As the demands and expectations placed on public school systems to improve student
achievement continue to mount, many boards of education have sought alternative leadership
models by appointing non-traditional superintendents to lead their respective districts. Criticism
remains from traditional educators as to whether these new leaders are properly equipped to meet
the growing challenges of public education. The purpose of this study was to examine how
strategies employed by traditional superintendents to improve student achievement compare to
those used by non-traditional superintendents. More specifically, this study set out to determine:
1) what superintendents perceive to be the greatest obstacles to improving student achievement;
2) how superintendents allocate resources to improve student achievement; 3) the strategies
superintendents leverage when establishing programs to improve student achievement; and 4) the
criteria and systems superintendents use to evaluate and sustain student achievement progress.
The study implemented a qualitative approach in which 6 California urban superintendents (3
traditional and 3 non-traditional) participated in semi-structured interviews to arrive at its
findings. As a result, the study's findings indicate there are more commonalities than differences
between traditional and non-traditional superintendents, although some minor differences
emerged in the areas of resource allocation and performance and evaluation. The study also lists
essential qualities the 6 superintendents predict leaders of tomorrow will need. Overall, given the
lack of a clear consensus in the answers to the research questions even among the two different
subgroups, the study suggests emphasis should be placed on selecting the right individual for the
specific job at hand, independent of a traditional or non-traditional background.

10
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction
A generation ago, the United States was almost unanimously regarded as the golden
standard of education in the world. American public schools produced a highly capable labor
force that fueled the technological and social revolutions of the decades to come as well as the
envy of almost all nations in the modern world. Fifty years later, the United States’ public
education system is under unprecedented pressure to demonstrate increased student achievement
as recent indicators suggest the performance of American students lag behind those of other
developing countries (Miller, Malley, & Owen, 2009).
Today’s American society faces a quiet educational crisis of significant proportions.
Although the US dedicates more resources to education than any other nation (Hanushek &
Lindseth, 2009), student achievement has remained stagnant while other developed countries
continue to produce academic gains and surpass the United States in international tests
(Schleicher, 2006). The overall performance of American students in international academic
subject matter assessments such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) does not compare
favorably to those of other developing countries (Gonzales, 2008; OECD, 2007). In the 2006
PISA, for example, U.S. students ranked 21
st
in science and 25
th
in math proficiency among
students from the 30 OECD countries (OECD, 2007). One interpretation of such a trend is that
American public school systems are struggling to produce students with the knowledge and

11
skills to compete in an increasingly global market (Levine, 2005). The large-scale social
implications of this potential shorter supply of adequately prepared human capital are self-
evident: the United States’ economy may be adversely impacted over the next decades.

Responses to the crisis
In response to this perceived declined in educational achievement levels, our nation has
embarked on a series of reform efforts. In terms of government compliance measures, No Child
Left Behind (NCLB), the current re-authorization of the Elementary School and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, is the latest attempt to mandate student achievement reform
through increased accountability (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). On the school governance
side, the nation has witnessed the birth and expansion of charter schools over the past twenty
years. While the debate ensues as to what may constitute the most effective reform measure, the
prevailing opinion is that student achievement continues at a low.

Lack of Effective Leadership
Despite multiple reform efforts, there is broad consensus regarding a lack of effective
leadership in public education (Olson, 2000). At the school level, a shortage of qualified public
school administrators persists (Elmore, 2005) at a time where it is most needed. Qualification
for existing openings also does not imply excellence – or competence, for that matter. In a
human capital landscape where there are not enough qualified personnel to lead organizations,
many of those who are hired in leadership roles are often ill prepared to excel (Davis et al.,

12
2005). As such, a case can be made for the growing impact and importance of superintendent
leadership. With a reduced pool of qualified site leaders to choose from and with the challenge
of developing those who may be in place but not excelling, superintendents everywhere are
being put to the test as increased calls for accountability and compliance (and their
administrative demands) continue. To top it all of, superintendents must not only face mounting
pressure to demonstrate gains in student achievement, but they must also do it quickly: the
average tenure for an urban superintendent is fewer than three years (Jackson & Cibulka, 1991).

The Impact of Superintendent Leadership
Although superintendent leadership grows more important by the day, few studies
concern themselves with the impact of superintendent leadership on student achievement. While
many studies have been and should rightly continue to be carried out on the important role of
teachers and principals on student achievement, few seem to consider the important role
superintendents play in staffing, directing, and supporting staff in their quest for student gains.
Without a healthy and purposeful alignment of district resources, principals may face an even
greater battle when engaging in academic reform. In fact, effective school districts often have a
range of support programs in place (Fink et al., 2001). Given superintendents yield the greatest
power within a school district to affect policy and allocate resources (Togneri & Anderson,
2003), the importance of their leadership remains evident.
While the indirect impact of superintendent leadership is relatively simple to internalize,
its direct effect remains understandably harder to quantify. Because of the varying nature of

13
districts and their organization structures, the direct impact superintendents have on student
achievement is sure to change from school system to school system. Nevertheless, a
meta-analysis carried out by Marzano & Waters (2009) computed the correlation between
district leadership and student achievement to be .24 and statistically significant at the .05 level.
That is to say: if a district were to replace an average superintendent (at the 50
th
percentile of
ability) with a good one (at the 84
th
percentile), student achievement would likely improve by
9.5% in the district. If such significant results underscore the importance of effective district
leadership, they also reiterate the importance of further study as to what contributes to effective
leadership. Thus, in light of growing public demand for education reform, an examination of
traditional and non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they use to improve student
achievement may be warranted.

Statement of the Problem
Student academic achievement in the US has fallen behind those of other developing
nations over the past decades. As a result, a series of reform efforts have forced school systems
to substantially alter the way they conduct business. As district leadership becomes even more
important as a result of increased public pressure, mandated accountability, and administrative
complexity, research on how a superintendent’s actions impact student achievement is lacking.
Even more scant are studies on how superintendents with non-traditional and traditional
backgrounds compare when facing the challenge of improving student achievement in this new

14
environment. As such, an investigation as to whether traditional and non-traditional
superintendents achieve different results is consequential.

Purpose of the Study
This study seeks to comprehend how the strategies employed by traditional
superintendents to improve student achievement compare to those used by non-traditional
superintendents. To do so, the study investigates how different superintendents: 1) define the
obstacles to improving student achievement; 2) align resources to achieve their goals; 3) carry
out programs to improve their school systems; and 4) monitor and evaluate their efficacy.

Research Questions
To achieve its purpose, the following questions guide this study:

1) What do traditional and non-traditional superintendents perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving student achievement?
2) How do traditional and non-traditional superintendents allocate resources to improve
student achievement?
3) What strategies do traditional and non-traditional superintendents leverage when
establishing programs to improve student achievement?
4) What criteria and systems do traditional and non-traditional superintendents use to
evaluate and sustain student achievement progress?

15

Significance of the Study
This study adds to the growing body of academic literature on the impact superintendent
leadership exerts on student achievement. As such, its findings have the potential to span a
breadth of applications. More notably, the study provides additional insight as to the effect a
superintendent’s professional background and experiences may have on student outcomes.
Thus, the findings may also furnish school boards with supplementary information that could
prove useful in making future superintendent appointments. Additionally, the study could
provide some guidance to aspiring superintendents on the types of professional experiences they
should garner in order to increase their chances of becoming district leaders who successfully
improve student achievement. Lastly, the study also documents some strategies that proved
effective in bolstering student academic results in some California districts.

Assumptions
Four assumptions were made in this study:
1. Superintendent leadership is essential to student achievement improvements;
2. Gains experienced by selected districts were directed influenced by or related to
superintendent leadership;
3. Responses submitted by superintendents were true and accurate of their views and
experiences when running their respective school districts; and

16
4. The range of school districts and superintendents selected is representative of
traditional and non-traditional superintendents in California.

Limitations
This study includes the following limitations:
1. The sample size for interviews was limited by the need to find similar pairs of districts
with respective traditional and non-traditional superintendents and similar
demographics; and
2. Superintendents who have been at their posts for less than 2 years were excluded from
the studies to ensure student achievement results were reflective of their tenure and not
that of their predecessor.

Delimitations
Data collection was limited to:
1. Urban superintendents of California districts with more than 4,000 students;
2. Districts that have experienced API score improvements of more than 50 points over the
superintendent’s tenure or that have maintained an average score of 850 points or above.

17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter will describe how the superintendent role has changed through the times
adding layers of managerial, political, and accountability complexity since its inception as a
primarily supervisory function in the area of instruction. The chapter will also provide an
overview of the current want of effective leadership in American K-12 education by visiting
current achievement trends, leadership pipelines, and shortened tenure of superintendents in
public school systems. This literature review will analyze existing literature on the impact of
superintendent leadership on student achievement to emphasize its importance. Finally, it will
visit a new type of leadership, non-traditional leadership, before finally highlighting gaps in
current research and discussing how this work may help enhance the field of scholarly literature
on the topic of superintendent leadership in public American education.
History of the Superintendency – The Changing Role of Superintendents
The history of the school superintendency has greatly evolved throughout time (Candoli,
1995). In fact, it may be possible to assert it has evolved more radically and become more
intricate than any other educational role. The role superintendents play in school systems today
is far more complex than when the first superintendent was hired in the 1800s to manage a
group of one-schools (Glass et al., 2002). Whereas the role continues to develop and to
encompass more competencies today, it originally began as a “teacher of teachers” (Callahan,
1964). Still at its infancy, the superintendent role was much simpler as it remained biased
towards instruction delivery and the management of budding schools systems was limited to

18
maintaining facilities and distributing state funds to pay employees (Campbell et al., 1990). In
the following pages, this dissertation will explore how superintendents had to develop new
managerial, political, and accountability competencies as a direct result of external factors – and
how modern circumstances point to the need of even more competencies.
Superintendents as Managers
As American society progressed from an agrarian system to a more urbanized one,
public schooling grew and districts became more complex. To match such changes, different
policies were enacted and funding sources also expanded. Accordingly, districts and states
expanded the role of the superintendent. As a natural consequence of the expansion of funding
streams and increased funding complexity, it was not uncommon for districts to hire a financial
officer to assist the superintendent in dealing with matters of school finance (Campbell et al.,
1990). The need for a financial officer, or at least the need to supervise a financial officer, meant
superintendents became more involved with the growing financial operations of the district
(Johnson, 1996). This added a new layer of managerial complexity to the superintendency.
Superintendents were then expected to run the “business” of schools and became
managers whose primarily responsibility was to ensure systems for operations were in place
(Kowalski & Bjork, 1999). As superintendents saw themselves forced to adopt this new
management competency, they embraced concepts of scientific management to usher their
respective school systems into a new era (Glass et al., 2002; Kowalski, 2005). Interestingly, it is
at this point we first see administration courses offered to meet the needs of an emerging market
of managers, professionalizing the position (Kowalski, 2005). This new development was an

19
indirect corroboration of the increased complexity of the superintendent role. From this
moment on, the instructional aspects of the role were overshadowed by the need for system
leaders to increase efficiency and manage people in an operationally effective manner
(Callahan, 1962, 1966; Kowalski, 2005).
Superintendents as Political Figures
If superintendents had to develop a managerial competency to navigate the growing
fiscal complexity of their school systems, they were also faced with a new paradigm to consider
on the political front. After the Great Depression, superintendents assumed the political duty of
cultivating public support for the educational systems (Kowalski, 2005). As they stepped into a
more visible and political role, superintendents were asked to connect with the population at
large and advance the ideas and vision for public schooling in their communities in ways not
done before (Kowalski, 2005).
Further, as urban districts found themselves under the growing influence of political
forces in larger cities, many of the managerial responsibilities previously carried out by school
boards were given to superintendents (Glass et al., 2002; Kowalski, 1999, 2005). Glass et al.
(2002) and Kowalski (1999, 2005) posit this shift led to a more bureaucratized system where
authority was centralized and hierarchical systems began to replace the looser models of the
1800s. As a natural consequence, more of the superintendent’s time had to be focused in
community issues – all the while still performing other essential duties. This new shift meant
superintendents would then have even less time for instructional and managerial matters.
(Kowalski, 2005)

20
As systems became more uniform as a result of this managerial quest for
standardization and efficiency, an emphasis on accomplishing tasks replaced that of leading
people (Glass et al, 2002). This shift further de-sensitized a bulging public system to the needs
of the growing melting pot of America. While operations were being streamlined towards
standardization, the demography of America continued to change. Thus, public outcry ensued as
citizens wanted public schooling to be more democratic and adaptive to their needs (Glass et al,
2002). In response, superintendents also had to develop new public relations skills to navigate
the growing pressures of dissatisfied communities.
In being further drawn into local politics and community issues, superintendents had to
develop new competencies as they took larger strides into assuming a role Kowalski (2005)
would later equate to that of a “statesmen”. All in all, as management and politics took center
stage, superintendents saw themselves inserted into a growing political context marked by local
politics and shifting alliances. Thus, they continued to become more and more removed from
the instructional side of their businesses as they grappled with the new requirements of district
leadership (Kowalski, 2005).
Superintendents as Accountability Experts
Continuing its ongoing trend towards greater complexity, the superintendent role faced a
new challenge at the end of the 20
th
century: increased federally mandated accountability and
compliance. For superintendents, the 1980’s and 1990’s were characterized by aggressive
federal reforms aimed at improving student achievement through policies designed to tie
funding to performance on standardized tests. The publication of “A Nation at Risk: The

21
Imperative for Educational Reform” by the National Commission on Excellence in Education
in 1983 added additional pressure on superintendents to increase graduation rates, produce
results on standardized tests, and increase instructional time in schools. If gains were not
realized, the future of America would be in peril. Superintendents were thus tasked with the
unenviable job of keeping the vision of the American public education system alive and viable
amidst tightening regulation (Usdan & Cronin, 2003).
The demands for increased performance in both federal and state assessments also made
it more difficult for districts to allow for greater local control of schools and to further focus on
personalizing the needs of the community (Hoyle et al., 2003). Because these mandated state
and federal accountability measures became the de facto barometer of success, district and
school leadership reacted by focusing on them rather than on alternative approaches to student
success. Faced with high expectations, superintendents found themselves between a rock and a
hard place: between creating local schools that were tailored for individual communities or
ensuring the new, inflexible standards were adequately met across their districts for all
demographic subgroups. As they bore the brunt of conciliating this paradox, superintendents
found themselves again as political figures dealing with both federal and state pressures (Glass
& Franceschini, 2006). This time, however, they were faced with the added complexity of new
accountability systems. Thus, superintendents were forced to become experts in navigating these
complex systems and in procuring funding for their respective school systems (Glass, Bjork &
Brunner, 2000). Again, superintendents were forced to develop a new competency to ensure the
proper running of public school districts.

22
Superintendents: Towards a More and More Complex Role
The history of the school superintendency has no doubt changed over time, as Candoli
affirmed (1995). From its very onset, the superintendent role has seen constant growth in both
complexity and breadth. If superintendents began as “teachers of teachers” who focused mainly
on instruction as Callahan asserts (1964), varying circumstances quickly forced the district
leader to develop new competencies over time in the areas of general management, finance,
politics, and accountability.
The scholarly literature reviewed on the topic seems to corroborate this idea. Ever
increasingly, superintendents are expected to have an intimate understanding of school facilities,
human resources, and school finance (Kowalski, 2005). Candoli (1995) also holds as generally
accepted that the newest role of superintendents also encompasses the duties of planning, public
delivery to appropriate audiences, evaluation, business management, instructional support, and
non-instructional support. Hess (2003), Houston (2001), and Kowalski (2005) also point out
that, since the emergence of the Information Age, superintendents have been expected to also
demonstrate excellent communication skills. If all of these new competencies were not enough,
state and federal accountability measures have highlighted the need for superintendents to
maintain a keen focus on student achievement while promoting collaboration and accountability
within their districts (Elmore, 2004; Petersen & Barnett, 2005). Such a focus has not only
re-solidified the superintendent’s role as instructional leader but has intensified the need for
superintendents to be politically savvy (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005). In short, today’s
superintendents need conventional competencies plus many new ones in order to meet the

23
increasing demands of market accountability (Usdan & Cronin, 2003). More and more, the
role of superintendent grows both in breadth and complexity. Taking into consideration the high
stake demands and expectations placed on public school systems nowadays, the importance of
the district leader has never been higher than it is today.
Factors Hindering Effective Leadership in Public Education
Dwindling Number of Leaders
In light of the mounting pressure and expectations attached to the superintendent
position, it is not surprising there is a current want of qualified educational leaders. Olson
(2000) goes as far as stating there is broad consensus regarding the lack of effective leadership
in public education. As the superintendent role becomes more politicized and complex,
educators are not leaving their school site to become district leaders. If the political demands of
the superintendency are seen as one of the most challenging areas of the office, the current
economic recession coupled with increased accountability demands at the state and federal
levels have also contributed to the creation of an environment that is highly stressful for any
superintendent (Glass et al., 2007). Worse, Archer (2003) argues these factors have led to the
common perception among educators today that the superintendency is a position in which
failure is perhaps inevitable.
Needless to say, the high demands placed on district leaders todays and the perception
that the superintendent job may be undoable do not equate to a large leader pipeline. Hess
(2003) echoes this sentiment when pointing out that, although wielding significant power within
the district, superintendents still find themselves the subject of a myriad of constraints that

24
prevent the job from being executed well. This paradox of power and constraints, Hess
continues, discourages applicants from seeking the highest level of leadership at the district.
Simply put, career educators are not signing up to tackle the challenges of the seemingly
impossible job of superintendent (Fuller et al., 2003). Davis (2006) corroborates these assertions
by citing Bainbridge and Thomas in relation to a 2006 study of educational leaders in which the
researchers claim fewer people are aspiring to ascend to higher leadership roles in education. As
the pool of possible future superintendent dries up, the more crucial it is for school boards to
find a qualified superintendent to lead a school district.

Shorter Tenure for Superintendents
Superintendents hold a uniquely powerful role in public school districts, where they are
the leaders who have the largest potential to positively influence the achievement of their school
districts (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). The implementation of successful programs, however,
takes time; like all other leaders, superintendents must set a vision, procure and allocate
resources to achieve their vision, carry out their programs, and constantly measure their
performance. Carter and Cunningham (1997) posited that most meaningful improvement in our
public school system requires at least five to seven years of sustained and consistent focus to
nurture a culture of success and continuous improvement. Bryant and Grady (1988) went further
by saying that when top school management changes, the ability of school leaders to provide a
nurturing environment for educational programs is compromised. Constant leadership turnover
at the district, therefore, can be construed as harmful not only to the implementation of new

25
efforts but also as detrimental to the maintenance of programs already established either at the
district level or at the school site.
Yet, research seems to indicate superintendents do not often enjoy appropriate time in
office to properly carry out their improvement efforts, unlike their industry counterparts. In a
2006 survey, the Council of the Great City Schools (a coalition of large urban school districts)
found that 42% of 65 urban school districts surveyed indicated their superintendents had been in
the office for a period of time between 1 and 5 years. The mean tenure rate of superintendents in
these positions equated to 3.1 years (Glass et al., 2007) – well short of Carter and Cunningham’s
(1997) five to seven year suggested timeline for the establishment of sustained change. On the
other hand, the tenure of superintendents’ corporate counterparts did not seem as short. When
comparing the tenures of superintends to those of corporate CEOs, Whittle (2005) made a stark
comparison: while Washington D.C. had nine superintendents in a period of twenty years (at an
average tenure rate of 2.2 years per superintendent), General Electric had gone over just two
different CEOs during the same amount of time (at roughly 10 years apiece). To further drive
the point: while Kansas City, Missouri, had seen fourteen superintendents (at an average of 1.4
years each) during the same twenty year period, corporations like Microsoft, Dell Computers,
and Federal Express had had only one CEO each. With such short tenures, superintendents are
truly challenged to be effective leaders who must achieve meaningful results within a
compressed timeframe – another indication of both the current challenges of the
superintendency as well as the importance of having a qualified leader at the helm of a school
district.

26

Alarming Student Achievement Numbers

While superintendents struggle with the growing requirements of an ever-evolving role,
urban school districts in the United States have come under increasing scrutiny and criticism for
failing to prepare students adequately for entering the internationally competitive economy of
the 21
st
century (Smith & Wohlstetter, 2001).
National Measures
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), administered periodically to
students in grades 4, 8, and 12 in mathematics, science and other subjects, highlighted in 2005 a
more-than-decade-old problem with science and math achievement in the U.S. The data showed
that 37% of 4
th
graders, 40% of 8
th
graders, and 43% of 12
th
graders lacked a basic level of
science proficiency (NIHOSE, 2011). Four years later, 82% of students reached the basic level
in the mathematics assessment, but only 39% were considered proficient and those numbers
dropped to 73% and 34% respectively by 8
th
grade. That is, the number of students who are
proficient decreases the longer U.S. students are in school (NIHOSE, 2011). There is no good
news in the literacy front either: the number of students performing at a basic level in reading
dropped by 7 percent between 1992 and 2008 (NAEP, 2008).
International Measures
International measures of U.S. student performance are no more encouraging. The
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) 2006 Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) of 15 year olds found that U.S. students ranked 21
st
in

27
science and 25
th
in math proficiency among students from the 30 OECD countries. Among
U.S, students, 49% and 54% scored at or below the basic skill level in science and math,
respectively.
Additionally, the performance of U.S. students in the International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement's (IEA) Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) is likewise sobering. In the 2007 TIMMS, an international assessment
of the mathematics and science knowledge of 4th and 8th grader students around the world, U.S.
students ranked 8
th
of 36 and 11
th
of 49 in 4
th
and 8
th
grades, respectively. However, 13 countries
that scored higher than the United States on the PISA exam, did not participate in TIMSS. What
is most disturbing about the TIMSS data is that it is consistent with the trends previously
mentioned in regards to the NAEP and PISA exams: that student performance relative to the
world appears to deteriorate over time as U.S. students move up in grade level (Olson et al.,
2008). Case in point: in the 2007 TIMSS, U.S. fourth-grade students scored an average of 539,
whereas eighth graders scored only 520 (TIMSS scale is set to an average score of 500).

28

Figure 1.1. Science proficiency of 15-year-old students in the 30 OECD countries. Top: Mean scores. U.S. students
rank 21
st
and well below the OECD average. Middle: Percentage of students scoring below baseic proficiency. U.S.
students rank 27
th
. Bottom: Percentage of students scoring Level 5 or higher (high proficiency). U.S. students rank
15
th
at about the OECD average. (http://science.education.nih.gov/SciEdNation.nsf/EducationNeedsYou4.html)

29
The Role of the Superintendent
Although none of the literature reviewed drew direct correlations between
superintendent leadership and the specific student achievement numbers offer above,
superintendents play a key role in in this endeavor as they have the power to affect policies and
allocate resources that can increase student achievement. (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Togneri &
Anderson, 2003). Another possible explanation for the relative poor performance of American
students in relation to their OECD counterparts may be the short nature of the contemporary
superintendent’s tenure ahead of a school system, as previously explored in this chapter. As the
average tenure of an urban superintendent is fewer than three years in total (Byrd, Drews, &
Johnson, 2006), a lack of consistency at the top of a school district could be the cause for the
slow improvement of American scores in international tests. Waters and Marzano (2007)
corroborate this idea in an article in a McREL report, where they affirm there is a positive
correlation between the length of superintendent service and student achievement. Their study
confirms the value of leadership stability and of a superintendent remaining in a district long
enough to witness the positive impact of his or her leadership on student achievement (Waters &
Marzano, 2007). The extent to which a superintendent affects student learning is a question that
warrants further study and will be visited next.
Impact of Superintendent Leadership
Amidst all the changes the superintendency has gone through in its evolution to the
complex role it is today, one of its aspects remains unaffected: the superintendent still is the
chief executive force in public school systems. Given the complexity of the superintendency and

30
its many constraints outlined in this paper, it may seem paradoxical to declare that
superintendents remain the most important piece of school districts. However, superintendents
have a key role in American public education as they have the power to affect policies and
allocate resources that can improve student achievement in ways no other district personnel can
(Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Most American citizens, in fact, concur that superintendents are
the single most important individuals in facilitating America’s educational systems (Lashway,
2002). How and why, however, may vary: while scholars seem to agree that superintendent
leadership is extremely important, the impact of such leadership remains difficult to quantify.
Nevertheless, arriving at this answer remains vital exactly because research continues to qualify
how important the superintendent role is to public education, and because the quality of
leadership at the helm of the district bears great influence on the student achievement (Waters &
Marzano, 2006).
Lack of Superintendent Leadership Studies
According to Davis (2006), superintendent leadership is the single most important factor
to ensuring district structures and expectations are in place to improve academic achievement
for all students. McAdams and Zinck (1998) also cite superintendents as a critical component
for the establishment of positive change in campus cultures. Yet, large-scale research studies
that identify specific, measurable and observable leadership behaviors of superintendent and
characteristics to improve student achievement remain largely absent (Young et al. 2007).
On one hand, research by DuFour (2002), Bensimon (1989) and Marzano et al. (2005),
among others, has focused on the leadership qualities necessary for school principals to

31
implement reform and work to improve student achievement. On the other hand however,
little research is available when it comes to the impact of superintendent leadership on student
academic achievement. That is why Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) add urgency to Young et
al.’s (2007) observations by claiming it is imperative that such research occurs so that
administrator qualities can be identified, and structures, processes and methods better
understood.
The Measured Impact of Superintendent Leadership
If qualitative statements abound as to the importance of superintendent leadership in
American public education, the impact of such leadership on student achievement remains
difficult to quantify. Faced with similar questions, Marzano & Waters (2009) conducted a meta-
analysis of all available studies involving district leadership and student academic achievement
in the United States from 1970 until 2005. Of the twenty-seven reports examined in the
meta-analysis, fourteen contained information about the relationship between overall district
leadership and the average student academic achievement in the district. These fourteen reports
included data from 1,210 districts. The authors found the correlation between district leadership
and student achievement was .24 and was statistically significant at the .05 level (Marzano &
Waters, 2009). In other words: Marzano & Waters predicted that the average student
achievement in a district with an average superintendent (one at the 50% level of ability) would
increase by 9.5 points if said superintendent were to be replaced by a above average
superintendent (one at the 84% level of ability). Statistically speaking, one standard deviation in
superintendent leadership equated to 9.5% improvement in student average scores.

32
Whereas teacher behavior in the classroom still remained the most impactful
component to bolstering student achievement, Marzano & Waters (2009) provided significant
empirical evidence that corroborated the existing qualitative body of literature on the
importance of superintendent leadership. The strong impact superintendents exert on student
achievement can be better understood by the fact that effective leadership at the district and
school levels changes what occurs in classrooms, and what happens in classrooms has a direct
effect on student achievement (Marzano & Waters, 2009). A study from the University of
Texas, at a smaller scale, also validated these findings (Meier & O’Toole, 2002). Interestingly,
the researchers also found that the longevity of the superintendent had a positive effect on the
average academic achievement of students in the district, as mentioned earlier in this
dissertation. This positive effect, they posited, could manifest itself as early as two years into a
superintendent’s tenure (Marzano & Waters, 2009).
Thus, the meta-analysis undertaken by Marzano & Waters (2009) provided empirical
backing to the work of a myriad of researchers such as Fuller et al. (2003), Glass et al. (2002),
Glass & Franceschini (2006), Kowalski (2005), Kowalski & Bjork, (2005), Lashway (2002) and
Leithwood et al. (2004), among others. In conjunction with these works, Marzano & Waters’
work is strong evidence of what educators and parents alike already intuited: there is an
important link between superintendent leadership and student achievement in American public
schools.

33
A New Kind of Leadership

As confidence in the public school system waned and the education reform movement
picked up steam nation-wide, school boards and elected officials start to seek leaders who could
bring a more modern perspective to an antiquated educational system (Usdan & Cronin, 2003).
Changes in the nature of superintendents’ work had stimulated calls for altering how the next
generation of district leaders were identified, prepared, hired, and evaluated (Bjork & Kowalski,
2005). As school boards expanded their search for these new leaders, they noticed that some
industry leaders had faced some of the same challenges and considered whether their success
would translate into school operations as well. Thus, non-traditional leaders began to be courted,
recruited, and hired as change agents in school districts (Fuller et al., 2003).
Benefits of Recruiting Non-traditional School Leaders
The most important question regarding the benefits of recruiting non-traditional school
leaders is whether they possess the necessary skills to successfully run school districts. A recent
study, however, demonstrated big city superintendents require all the skills leaders elsewhere in
government and business draw on (Fuller et al., 2003). It would thus follow that, by possessing
said skills already, non-traditional leaders would be capable of successfully running a public
school system.
Further, in investigating the potential benefits these non-traditional leaders could bring
with them to the education world, Hess (2005) found that non-traditional superintendents were
more comfortable with external criticism and more inclined to accept it as well as to challenge
the system internally. Hess also found they handled external pressure well. Perhaps because they

34
were more accustomed to inter-organization interactions and competition, they were much
less likely than traditional superintendents to find mandates, standards, accountability, and local
politics to be major problems (Hess, 2005).
With such information at hand, it is no surprise that alternative programs would
eventually arise to place non-traditional leaders at the helm of school systems. Programs such as
the Broad Center for Superintendents and the Fordham Foundation have developed to provide
opportunities for non-traditional system leaders to be exposed to the education world and to
develop skill sets that best qualify them to transfer into the superintendency of school districts –
especially those in urban settings where the need for improvement is the most apparent and
system complexity is generally greater. In these programs’ eyes, deregulation of licensing and
preparation reflects the growing belief that being a professional educator is an inconsequential
criterion that discourages highly effective business, political, and military leaders from
becoming superintendents (Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003). Such
programs have been particularly bolstered by the fact that nearly one-third of the U.S. states
have either eliminated the superintendent’s license or allow alternative routes to obtaining it
(Bjork & Kowalski, 2005).
Interestingly, some traditional leaders are blurring the lines between education and other
industries as well. In Miami-Dade County in 2003, for instance, traditional superintendent Rudy
Crew called on the services of a non-traditional leader, the vice-president of a large
transportation company based in Miami, to pull the school district out of debt (Quinn, 2007).
This example serves to show non-traditional leaders are also being recruited to other significant

35
roles in the district – and that they too, tomorrow, could find their way to the
superintendency.
Criticism and Resistance to Outside Leaders
Although many non-traditional leaders have demonstrated great leadership capacity in
achieving student gains, change management is always difficult. If leadership change is always
daunting at the district level, change to a different leadership paradigm can seem even more
radical for those within the system and who will now report to an outsider with few ties to their
experience. It is no surprise non-traditional leaders face criticism and resistance when joining
the education ranks. Fuller et al. (2003) illustrate this point with a survey where 97% of
educators surveyed indicated that districts would be better off with “experienced educators”
(Fuller et al., 2003, p. 47). If non-traditional leaders may bring a series of qualities as Hess
(2005) suggests, Fuller et al.’s (2003) research implies they also start with an additional
handicap: peer resistance. The argument most educators seem to make when opposing the entry
of a non-traditional leader into their system is evidenced in Adams (2011), who puts forth that
many tout as dangerous to have an educational leader who has no experience in in effectively
guiding principals as instructional leaders. Although no empirical evidence is provided to
substantiate the assertion, Adams continues by stating these outside candidates who are coming
from the business world appear to be lasting about the same amount of time as those who come
from the educational field (Adams, 2011). Regardless, these considerations raise a good point:
how do the strategies traditional and non-traditional superintendents use to improve student
achievement compare?

36

Summary
The role of superintendent has greatly transformed through time. It has grown in both
complexity and breadth, requiring an ever-growing set of competencies from those who wish to
pursue it. This increased complexity has led to a smaller pool of qualified applicants, as
educators are less interested in becoming the top leader in the district when pressure and
expectations are high. Among these, reduced tenures, a call for increased accountability, and
alarming student achievement results have made the superintendent position even less desirable
for most educators who are currently in the traditional leadership pipeline. As a consequence,
school boards and elected officials have begun to look to business, political and military leaders
as alternatives to traditional education leaders. Although there is evidence that many of these
non-traditional leaders are well qualified to lead public school systems, resistance from
traditional educators still remain. As more of these non-traditional leaders enter the public
educational system, the question of whether the strategies they use to improve student
achievement are more effective than those of their traditional counterparts persists. Yet, there is
little research on this area. Such research may prove pivotal in either supporting or stemming
the flow of non-traditional leaders into public education. Thus, this dissertation purports to
investigate and compare these strategies and the impact they have in student achievement in an
attempt to grow the small body of scholarly literature in the field.

37

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Introduction
The United States’ public education system is under unprecedented pressure to
demonstrate increased student achievement as recent indicators suggest the performance of
American students lag behind those of other developing countries (Miller et al., 2009). Despite
multiple reform efforts, there is broad consensus regarding a lack of effective leadership in
public education (Olson, 2000). A shortage of qualified public school administrators persists
(Elmore, 2005). Simply put, career educators are not signing up to tackle the challenges of the
job of superintendent (Fuller et al., 2003). However, the importance of superintendents remains
uncontested: superintendents play a key role in American public education as they have the
power to affect policies and allocate resources that can improve student achievement in ways no
other district personnel can (Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
As confidence in the public school system waned and the education reform movement
picked up steam nation-wide, school boards and elected officials started to seek leaders who
could bring a fresh perspective to struggling educational systems (Usdan & Cronin, 2003). As
school boards expanded their search for these new leaders, they noticed that some industry
leaders had faced some of the same challenges and considered whether their success would
translate into school operations as well. Thus, non-traditional leaders began to be courted,
recruited, and hired as change agents in school districts (Fuller et al., 2003). Yet, large-scale

38
research studies that identify specific, measurable and observable leadership behaviors of
superintendent and characteristics to improve student achievement remain largely absent
(Young et al. 2007). Such research may prove pivotal in either supporting or stemming the flow
of non-traditional leaders into public education.

The preceding chapters provided an overview of the study and a review of the literature
that is germane to the topic under examination. This chapter provides an outline of the study and
its methodology. It specifically includes the purpose of the study, research design, sample
population, conceptual framework, instrumentation, data collection protocols, and data analysis
process that will be used in addressing the research’s guiding questions.
Purpose of the Study
This study aims to comprehend how the strategies employed by traditional
superintendents to improve student achievement compare to those used by non-traditional
superintendents. As the influx of non-traditional leaders into positions of high leadership in
education continues to mount, research onto the comparative effectiveness of traditional and
non-traditional district leaders may prove helpful in assisting school boards and elected officials
in the hiring of qualified candidates to lead their respective school systems.
To that end, this study investigates how different superintendents: 1) define the existing
obstacles to improving student achievement; 2) align resources to achieve their goals; 3) carry
out programs to improve their school systems; and 4) monitor and evaluate their efficacy.

39

Research Questions
To achieve its purpose, the following questions guide this study:
1) What do traditional and non-traditional superintendents perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving student achievement?
2) How do traditional and non-traditional superintendents allocate resources to improve
student achievement?
3) What strategies do traditional and non-traditional superintendents leverage when
establishing programs to improve student achievement?
4) What criteria and systems do traditional and non-traditional superintendents use to
evaluate and sustain student achievement progress?

Research Design
Identifying strategies that successful superintendents employ to bolster student
achievement is in itself a daunting undertaking. Further comparing those used by traditional and
non-traditional district leaders is an even more complex task. Additionally, the relatively small
number of leaders with a non-traditional background leading school systems in California
creates an additional challenge. As such, a qualitative research design was most appropriate to
complete this study.
A qualitative research design allows the researcher to delve deeply into issues, cases or
events. (Patton, 2002) Qualitative research design also serves as a vehicle to explain “the

40
meaning of social phenomena with as little disruption of the natural setting” (Merriam, 1998,
p. 6). Additionally, it has been found that qualitative research is better equipped to capture the
perspective of the research subjects and to provide holistic data with which to report findings
(Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002).
Merriam (1998) characterizes qualitative research as follows:
1) Qualitative research is interested in understanding the meaning people have
constructed.
2) The researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis.
3) Qualitative research usually involves fieldwork.
4) Qualitative research employs an inductive research strategy.
5) Qualitative research provides a study that is richly descriptive.
In short, qualitative research offered the researcher a flexible design model in order to be
responsive to the variables within the study.

Sample and Population
Purposeful sampling was used to identify superintendents for qualitative research efforts.
Patton (2002) has described purposeful sampling as the nonrandom selection of information-rich
subjects (or sites) for in-depth study. Purposeful sampling allowed the researcher to select

41
superintendents whose districts had demonstrated significant gains in academic achievement
or that have maintained high levels of achievement (above 850 API points). Because the
implementation of meaningful improvement in public schools requires significant time (Carter
& Cunningham, 1997), superintendents who were in their posts for less than 2 years were
excluded from the studies to ensure student achievement results were reflective of their tenure
and not that of their predecessor. Other quantitative sampling criteria to determine which
superintendents would participate in the study were that participants were from: a) a California
school district; b) a district that had more than 50% of schools meeting API; and, c) districts that
had more than 4,000 students. The data used for sampling will be limited to information
reported by the California Department of Education up to the 2011-12 school year, as of August
of 2013. The research limited itself to the state of California for practical purposes, chief among
them the disparity of accountability systems between states. Additionally, the researcher was
also able to match two districts of similar size that were at risk of failing financially, and that
were led by one non-traditional leader and one traditional leader. Such pairing also provided
insight into different management styles and strategies they used to improve student
achievement when under financial duress.

Conceptual Framework

This research topic is not commonly found in the literature, thus a new framework to
assess the different strategies of traditional and non-traditional superintendents is herein
proposed. Rather than concentrating on leadership traits peculiar to the personality of the leader

42
such as those put forth in Bolman & Deal (1997) for example, the framework put forth assess
how superintendent diagnose issues and set a vision for success (research question 1), how they
allocate resources (research question 2), how they carry out programs to achieve their goals
(research question 3), and how they monitor progress towards increased student achievement
(research question 4). This research holds these four aspects as common to all successful
leadership endeavors and, thus, will provide a good canvas in which to draw similarities and
distinctions between the approaches of traditional and non-traditional superintendents. These
four aspects were in part inspired by and adapted from the phases of a project, found in “The
Project Management Body of Knowledge” (PMI, 2010), a publication by the Project
Management Institute – the leading organization for credentialed project managers in the world.

Instrumentation

The instruments listed below facilitated the research and ensured that a consistent
approach to collecting data was carried out for the qualitative efforts that were undertaken.
Appendix A evidences the alignment between the four research questions and the qualitative
instruments used in the course of this study.

Qualitative Instrumentation

The primary tool used in collecting data for this study was the semi-structured interview.
According to Patton (2002), the purpose of qualitative interviewing is to capture how those
being interviewed view the world as well as the complexities of their individual perceptions and

43
experiences. Semi-structured interviews allowed both for structure and flexibility, when
needed. This qualitative approach allows for a more holistic understanding of the situation,
making it possible for the researcher to better construct plausible explanations about the
phenomena being studied (Merriam, 1998).
The qualitative interview protocol consisted of eleven open-ended questions that reflect
the research questions and the conceptual framework created for this study. In addition to the
main eleven questions, a series of sub-questions was also devised to solicit more specific
information from participants when needed. A list of these questions and how they align to the
four research questions can be found in Appendix C. The protocol was implemented
consistently among interview participants but was not limited to these questions. In addition to
the pre-designed interview protocol, the researcher asked follow-up questions either to gain
clarity or to attain more elaborate information about specific statements or sentiments (Merriam,
1998).

Data Collection

Data collection was conducted through qualitative interviews with selected
superintendents during the period of February-March 2014.
Qualitative Data Collection
Interviews were conducted with six California superintendents who meet the sampling
criteria. To ensure the findings are meaningful and balanced, three of these interviews were
carried out with traditional superintendents and the remaining three with non-traditional district

44
leaders. The interviews were conducted by a single interviewer using the interview protocol
laid forth in Appendix C. At the start of the interview, the survey participant were asked to
confirm his or her willingness to have the interview audio-recorded and were provided with an
information letter (Appendix E). At the time of interview, superintendents were offered an
opportunity to receive a copy of the final dissertation. Audio recordings of the interview were
then transcribed via a professional transcription service, rev.com.

Data Analysis

So as to satisfy the four research questions put forth by this study, the researcher
analyzed the qualitative data obtained via the instrument explained earlier to identify the
strategies utilized by successful urban superintendents seeking to improve student achievement.
The researcher then sought to compare and contrast the strategies used by traditional and
non-traditional superintendents before drawing final conclusions. The interview protocol and
coding systems were also be included in the dissertation to create a sense of transparency, as
recommended by Anfara et al. (2002).

Qualitative Data Analysis

Interviews were transcribed before they were analyzed with any accompanying notes
taken the interview by the research. Analysis of transcripts and notes were done using the
method Miles and Huberman (1994) outlined, as follows:

45
 Data Reduction: Data is reconfigured and coded into categories that focus on
the subject of the research. This step assures that only the most relevant data is
considered.
 Data Display: Transparent graphic representation of the coding process is placed
into distinct categories so that conclusions can be drawn.
 Conclusion Drawing and Verification: The researcher derives meaning from the
data and draws out conclusions based upon the data.

Ethical Considerations

This proposal was submitted to and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at
the University of Southern California. All participants were asked to grant permission to use the
information obtained by the researcher. Participants agreed to take part in this study without any
coercion. To provide transparency, the interview process and information were presented before
the interviews to ensure that all participants were fully informed. Although interviews were
recorded, the recording device was be left in plain view and any request to comment “off the
record” was honored. Before starting the interview, participants were asked once more on tape if
they agree to take part in the study. No real names were used in this dissertation. Instead, only
titles and an index number (such as Superintendent 1, Superintendent 2) were used to
differentiate interviewees in chapters four and five. The researcher strove to be transparent all
times in the process so as to limit the appearance of impropriety (Creswell, 2002).

46

Summary
The preceding chapter outlined the purpose of the study and the main research questions
that guide this research before delving into the conceptual framework, research design, sample
population, data collection protocols, and the data analysis process used in the study. The ethical
considerations that will be taken into account were also visited. Of important notice is the rigor
with which the researcher carried out the qualitative study as set forth in this chapter, which
lends credibility to the findings that will be discussed in chapter 4.

47

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Background
This chapter presents the findings on the examination of traditional and non-traditional
superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement carried out by
this study. These findings are the direct result of six in-person interviews conducted with three
traditional superintendents and three non-traditional superintendents. All participants were
leading public school systems in California with at least 4,000 students enrolled at the time they
were interviewed. There were five men and one woman, and their ages ranged from the early
40s to late 60s. Only one superintendent held a doctorate, and only one superintendent did not
hold a master's degree – both were considered non-traditionals. All others held a master’s
degree. All leaders were at the helm of urban school districts. The previous experiences of
non-traditional superintendents interviewed were in investment banking and corporate and
entrepreneurial business management. Two out of these three non-traditional superintendents
had also previously held cabinet-level positions in California's two largest districts. The
interview sample included superintendents who had held the position for as few as two years, to
upwards of 6 years. The average tenure of non-traditional leaders in the study surpassed that of
traditional superintendents by a full two years. Great effort was applied to best match traditional
and non-traditional superintendents and their districts for better comparison, when possible.
However, the low number of non-traditional leaders in California made this a daunting task. At

48
the end, however, good parity was found. Four of the six districts witnessed either student
growth or demonstrated already high achievement in the past two years. Of these four, two were
led by traditional superintendents and two led by non-traditional superintendents. The other two
of the six school systems studied were plagued by financial problems and were turn-around
cases where new leadership (one traditional and one non-traditional) was called in to avoid
catastrophic fiscal failure. The data used for this study was collected and analyzed in the time
period of February-March 2014. The table below summarizes the participants to the study.

Table 1
Participants to the Study

Classification

Gender

Tenure

District Enrollment
Superintendent 1 Traditional Male 4.5 years 4,600
Superintendent 2 Traditional Male 3 years > 14,000
Superintendent 3 Traditional Male 2 years * > 14,000
Superintendent 4 Non-traditional Male 6 years > 14,000
Superintendent 5 Non-traditional Female 6 years 4,000
Superintendent 6 Non-traditional Male 3 years * 4,000
Note. Asterisk denotes districts financially at risk.

49

Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is (a) to present and analyze the qualitative data collected in
this study and (b) to report the findings for each research question present in this study. In order
to further investigate the differences and commonalities in strategies traditional and non-
traditional superintendents employed to bolster student achievement, interviews were used to
gather qualitative data. According to Patton, “The purpose of qualitative interviewing is to
capture how those being interviewed view the world, to learn their terminology and judgments,
and to capture the complexities of their individual perceptions and experiences” (2002, p. 348).
A set of interview protocols was assembled to guide this process with a semi-structured
approach utilized during the interviews. An interview guide was prepared with appropriate
questions. The interview method combined Patton’s (2002) “Interview Guide Approach” with
the “Standardized Open-Ended Interview” to promote consistency from interview to interview
in terms of questions asked, while permitting some leeway in the direction of the interviews to
allow for the addition of probing questions. The interview questions were broken up into four
sections, corresponding to the four research questions in this study. A protocol for the
interviews has been included in the appendices.
Coding of data
Once data were collected, an open-coding system was used to analyze the data from the
interviews. Following the interviews, time was spent coding and analyzing the data. Interviews

50
were taped and then transcribed verbatim in order to capture each and every aspect of the
conversations. The raw data from transcribed interviews were coded and this information was
analyzed and categorized to identify alignment with the study's four guiding research questions.
Prior categorization of the interview protocol corresponding to the four research questions
allowed for more efficient use of time in the categorization process. Subcategory codes within
each of these question-based areas led to a further coding of the data. After manually coding the
data, the researcher utilized HyperResearch, a qualitative coding software, to continue the
coding process. This software aided in inventorying the transcribed interviews into codes. The
program increased the reliability and meaningfulness of the data. With the data fully coded, both
manually and with coding software, formal analysis began. The use of the four sections based
on the four research questions derived from the study’s conceptual framework permeated the
analysis phase. Summarized analyses as well as direct quotations portray the findings. This
chapter contains a narrative report of such findings.
Guiding Questions
The following four research questions served as the guiding force for the study:
1. What do traditional and non-traditional superintendents perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving student achievement?
2. How do traditional and non-traditional superintendents allocate resources to improve
student achievement?

51
3. What strategies do traditional and non-traditional superintendents leverage when
establishing programs to improve student achievement?
4. What criteria and systems do traditional and non-traditional superintendents use to
evaluate and sustain student achievement progress?
Research Question #1: What do traditional and non-traditional superintendents perceive
to be the greatest obstacles to improving student achievement?
When it came to identifying the greatest obstacle to improving student achievement, all
superintendents leveraged their current experience to provide what ultimately were six distinct
answers. A pattern referencing “culture” seemed to emerge, however, from the answers of three
superintendents (2 non-traditional and one traditional). All three spoke about the importance of
having, setting, or changing the culture inside their organizations. One non-traditional
superintendent (Superintendent 5) described her greatest challenge at her current role as:
… Trying to figure out what's our vision, what's our mission? What are our values? And
really creating that part of it, the organization, as well as, how are we going to execute
and operate?
Superintendent 5’s answer point to the complexity of school systems that are often accused of
being bureaucratic in nature, losing sight of their primary mandate as they are emerged in the
day-to-day operations of a business demanding high levels of oversight and compliance. One
traditional superintendent (Superintendent 3) in a district financially at risk corroborates this
idea:

52
I felt that the biggest challenge was the culture there that had developed over decades.
The view of the district as a jobs-based center for adults rather than a child-centered
system -- and that needed to change.

Another non-traditional superintendent (Superintendent 4) abstracted the problem even more to
a matter of “performance and quality” that is both internal to school systems and external to
society. He continued by portraying public education over the past decade as having had “very
mixed performance and we did not have anyone on the landscape willing to take a very assertive
posture on that issue.” He went on to elaborate that this lack of clarity and assertiveness also
helped erode the fabric of confidence externally and culture internally. In turn, all these three
leaders (Superintendents 3, 4, and 5) agreed, student achievement suffered.
Another thread two superintendents (2 and 6) touched on was that of negative public
perception as their main challenge. Superintendent 2 (traditional) spoke directly to the
challenges he faces in convincing his local community that public education does not mean
necessarily mean lower quality education. Most of his efforts are geared towards changing this
perception – which has cost his urban district loss of enrollment in the past years, even as
student achievement improves in the district. Similarly, Superintendent 6, a non-traditional
superintendent, reports the lack of community buy-in as the most significant factor impeding
progress at his school system. Because of the large numbers of leaders to have come in and out
in quick succession, parents and other stakeholders believe he is just the “flavor of the month”.
Even after two years at the helm, quick tenures before him have derided confidence in the
leadership position he now occupies.
Lastly, one traditional superintendent (Superintendent 1) expressed the view that the

53
greatest challenge to be conquered in education is the achievement gap - and the increasing of
the overall quality of instruction in the classroom. Perhaps because superintendent 1’s district is
one of the highest achieving districts on CA, and perhaps because his school system remains
relatively small affording less layers between the top job in the district and the classroom, his
was the only answer that directly referenced the quality of instruction.
In summary, although there was no consensus as to what is the most significant
challenge to public education today, three leaders (2 non-traditional and 1 traditional) seemed to
focus on the importance of building great culture to foster student achievement. Additionally,
two superintendents (1 traditional and 1 non-traditional) cited public perception public
education as a barrier. Lastly, just one superintendent (traditional) highlighted good quality
instruction at the classroom level as the main barrier to the increasing of student achievement.
Table 2
Research Question #1 – Greatest Obstacle to Student Achievement

Classification

RQ1 – Greatest Challenge
Superintendent 1 Traditional Good classroom instruction
Superintendent 2 Traditional Public/Community perception
Superintendent 3 Traditional Culture
Superintendent 4 Non-traditional Performance and quality (w/ Culture)
Superintendent 5 Non-traditional Lack of vision (w/ Culture)
Superintendent 6 Non-traditional Public/Community perception

54
Research Question #2: How do traditional and non-traditional superintendents allocate
resources to improve student achievement?
Whenever resources are limited, allocating resources is an important activity for the
execution of any effort. Allocate too few resources and a program may flounder; allocate too
many and you may incentivize waste in one area and starve another. If we add to that idea the
fact that California currently ranks near the bottom nationally when it comes to per pupil
funding, resource allocation at school systems in this State becomes paramount. How do
traditional and non-traditional allocate resources? One approach to understanding how a
superintendent intends to prioritize efforts is to look at top roles in a school district. The people
they put in place in their cabinets are the people that will carry out their mandate and with
whom they will interact more often; they are the lens through which the top executive sees the
organization and implements change. How do traditional and non-traditional superintendents
compare in the structuring of their executive team?
In the area of resource allocation the study reports a more pronounced difference
between leaders with a traditional background in comparison to those with a non-traditional
backgrounds: non-traditional superintendents seem more willing to restructure their cabinet by
extinguishing exiting roles and creating new positions. The traditional superintendents
interviewed for this study also made changes to staffing at the executive team level, but they
tended to exercise their power by either dismissing staff from an existing role, choosing not to
staff an existing role, or by staffing a role previously vacant. None of the three traditional
superintendents interviewed for this study created a new cabinet role, and two of them chose not

55
to fill vacant positions. One such superintendent (Superintendent 3) in a finically at-risk
district, cited the desire to flatten the organization when choosing to do so:
I inherited the three assistant sups who now are all out on special assignment, they’re not
there. I couldn’t get through the whole year with them before I pushed them out of there.
I’m not replacing them, I’m flattening the organization chart.
Another cited financial constraints when choosing not to re-staff open positions:
We eliminated two cabinet-level positions, mostly for financial reasons. We were
getting a couple of retirements, and we just didn't fill the positions. I wouldn't say that
that was strategic. It was simply an effort to save some money. We didn't fill positions
when they were vacated.
In contrast, all three non-traditional leaders added or eliminated cabinet roles – in all
cases actually doing both. Although such changes were not always carried out at the same time,
in one fell swoop, they did happen. One non-traditional (Superintendent 4) described the
significant changes made to his cabinet as a necessary step towards aligning the organization to
its vision:
I think the changes that we made in the exec team reflected the changes that we wanted
to make in strategy and capacity as an organization. There were some painful decisions
that we had to make about reducing our investment and the services that we were
previously providing to schools. We had to pivot, from an exec team level, away from
some staff who had expertise in those kinds of things but did not have, in my estimation,
the capacities that we needed in the new skillsets.

Another non-traditional leader (Superintendent 6), at the helm of a financially fragile district,
chose to completely reformulate his finance team by dismissing every employee on it and
temporarily outsourcing the finance and accounting functions to a team of consultants. It was a
bold move, as he describes it:

56
I solidified that relationship [with the consultants] and signed a contract with them and
then let everyone else go on our finance and accounting team. That was a big move. I
also weeded out the home office.

The same executive swapped a year later his existing for Chief Academic Officer for two
distinct education officers. That stands in sharp contrast to his traditional counterpart
(Superintendent 3), who chose to push out existing assistant superintendents but go no further.
The last non-traditional in the study (Superintendent 5) also displayed an innovative approach to
hiring top level staff for her organization: “I want people who are experts in their area,” she
stated. As a consequence, her academic officer was from education, her technology expert came
from the tech industry, her finance leader had a finance background, and her chief of staff came
from the dot com world – among others. Additionally, given her organization’s aggressive
expansion, she has also created a Chief Real Estate Officer role to oversee the acquisition and
maintenance of facilities for her organization’s current and future needs.

57

Table 3
Allocation of Resources – Creating and Extinguishing Cabinet Roles

Classification
RQ2a – Created New
Roles
RQ2b – Extinguished
Roles
Superintendent 1 Traditional No No
Superintendent 2 Traditional No No
Superintendent 3 Traditional No No
Superintendent 4 Non-traditional Yes Yes
Superintendent 5 Non-traditional Yes Yes
Superintendent 6 Non-traditional Yes Yes

If the approaches employed by non-traditional leaders to organize and staff their cabinet
varied substantially from those utilized by traditional leaders, the allocation of their personal
time in communicating with key members of their cabinet did not. When asked what other three
internal roles they interfaced with most often, all six superintendents responded their
instructional leader, their operations officer, and their human resources expert. Although titles
varied (“Chief of HR”, “Chief of Employee Solutions”, “Director of Personnel”, etc), all leaders
placed the same three cabinet positions at the top of their lists. As an interesting aside, both
leaders now responsible for turning around districts struggling financially also noted that in the
first year of their stints they interacted mainly with their operations and finance chief – and that

58
it was only late in 1 they started to engage their Chief Academic Officer more frequently. The
only minor trend that also emerged from the interviews was that all non-traditional leaders also
inserted a fourth role in their answer, even when asked just for three. This fourth leader varied
from non-traditional to non-traditional, and included personnel in charge of legal,
communications, and another instructional officer.
Table 4
Allocation of Resources – Roles Superintendents Interact with Most Often
Classification Q2c – Roles Interacts With Most Often
Superintendent 1 Traditional
1) Chief Academic Officer
2) Chief Business Officer
3) Chief Human Resources Officer
Superintendent 2 Traditional
1) Chief Academic Officer
2) Chief Business Officer
3) Chief Human Resources Officer
Superintendent 3 Traditional
1) Chief Academic Officer
2) Chief Business Officer
3) Chief Human Resources Officer
Superintendent 4 Non-traditional
1) Chief Academic Officer
2) Chief Business Officer
3) Chief Human Resources Officer
4) Chief Communications Officer
Superintendent 5 Non-traditional
1) Chief Academic Officer
2) Chief Business Officer
3) Chief Human Resources Officer
4) Legal Counsel
Superintendent 6 Non-traditional
1) Chief Academic Officer
2) Chief Business Officer
3) Chief Human Resources Officer
4) 2
nd
Academic Officer

59
Another aspect in which background seemed not to matter was in the time
superintendents spent communicating with their respective board members. All six leaders
reported spending 20 to 30% of their time connecting with board members. The most
noteworthy fact that emerged about the time leaders spent communicating with their board was
the overall lens through which superintendents reported their relationship with their respective
board members. One traditional superintendent described it as “the most difficult part of my
job”, whereas a non-traditional leader spoke of his board in a more reverent fashion, describing
them as “the real owners of the organization.” When it came to the amount of work required to
interface with board members, though, no differences were found between traditional and non-
traditional leaders.

Table 5
Allocation of Resources – Time Spent Communicating with Board
Classification Q2d – Time Spent
Superintendent 1 Traditional 20%
Superintendent 2 Traditional 20%
Superintendent 3 Traditional 20%
Superintendent 4 Non-traditional 30%
Superintendent 5 Non-traditional 20%
Superintendent 6 Non-traditional 25%

60
Research Question #3: What strategies do traditional and non-traditional
superintendents leverage when establishing programs to improve student achievement?
The different questions posed to the six different leaders in attempt to identify particular
ways in which superintendents executed programs in their respective school systems yielded no
apparent pattern. All six leaders described different approaches to carrying out the work at their
districts. All mentioned the importance of planning and collaboration, in one way or another.
Superintendent 2 (a traditional superintendent) positioned his academics staff as the key to
executing at the campuses:
The chief academic officer, the two executive directors in academics are the key people
there. Because they directly supervise and monitor virtually everything that is going on
in the schools. Having close collaboration and conversation with those three people is
where I get most of my information about what's going on at the schools, and they're the
one who provide the day-to-day oversight. I think, there's the old saying, "Inspect what
you expect." That's essentially what we do.
Another (Superintendent 1) corroborated this very idea by weighing in on how careful planning
and collaboration are important for the execution of programs at his district:
… We don’t jump into things without spending a great deal of time determining where
we think adding resources will make a difference. We have to spend time really learning
the culture of the schools and trying to get an idea what additional programs or changes
in programs will really help.
While non-traditional leaders also mentioned the importance of planning and
collaboration, they were slightly more explicit as how their particular organizational culture
should and does take a role in implementation. Superintendent 6 was keen to point out that the
organization’s “three As” (Academics, Athletics, and Arts) was the guiding force behind the
programs; that programs were always carried out with these three in mind, backing it all up the

61
culture in place. Another non-traditional, Superintendent 4, went further and broke his
process down for turning vision into execution into four different steps:
… That is number one: can you get the right people? Second, can you get the right
strategy and can you articulate that strategy? … Then it comes down to culture. Then
there is the fourth one which… is execution and coordination.
If we compare that to a statement from a traditional leader in a financially at-risk district, we can
see how execution approaches can come close to each other while still remaining slightly
different. This traditional leader (Superintendent 3) stated, “Generally, I’m a pretty hands-off
leader. I get good people. I put them in the right position. I support them and then I get out of
their way. That’s my approach.” Finally, an interesting point is that only one leader openly
asserted that this was one piece which required constant learning. This non-traditional leader
(Superintendent 4) framed his reflection as follows: “I am not going to pretend for one second
that we have that fourth one [execution and coordination] figured out. That is one we just
continue to keep working on it.”
In short, when it came to the execution of programs to improve student achievement, all
superintendents coalesced around the importance of planning and collaboration – which is not
surprising given their responsibility to lead thousands of students and staff, and relate to other
tens of thousands of stakeholders in the community.

62

Table 6
Executing – Key Factors for the Successful Implementation of New Programs
Classification Q3 – Key Factors
Superintendent 1 Traditional
Planning and collaboration (listening and
weighing in return)
Superintendent 2 Traditional
Planning and collaboration (the importance of
academic staff)
Superintendent 3 Traditional Planning and collaboration (people)
Superintendent 4 Non-traditional
Planning and collaboration (people, strategy,
culture, and coordination and execution)
Superintendent 5 Non-traditional Planning and collaboration (alignment to culture)
Superintendent 6 Non-traditional
Planning and collaboration (focus on outcomes,
not inputs)

Research Question #4: What criteria and systems do traditional and non-traditional
superintendents use to evaluate and sustain student achievement progress?
To better understand how school systems leaders with traditional and non-traditional
backgrounds compare when it came to monitoring and evaluating success and progress,

63
superintendents were asked about how they monitor student success and how they evaluate
their staff (more explicitly their cabinet). Among other questions, they were asked about the
frequency and manner in which such evaluations took place. Were they formal or informal?
How often did they happen?
Academically, two of the three traditional superintendents reported they still did not
have clear evaluation processes to determine if and how schools and the district achieved their
achievement goals. As Superintendent 2 described it, his district was “working on that right
now.” In his own words, they were still “developing our own internal means of assessment and
determining how we know if we're being successful.” His words could have very well been used
by Superintendent 3 (another traditional superintendent), who is still focused, by his own
accord, in “righting the financial ship” of a struggling district.
On the other hand, two of three non-traditional leaders had a very specific academic
framework in place, often encompassing metrics outside of just student achievement (such as
college persistence). Two of the non-traditionals (Superintendents 3 and 4) went into
considerable detail, after a basic explanation, as to how their accountability system worked. The
metrics seemed as clear as the next steps these leaders would take when the district did not
achieve the desired results. Superintendent 4 explains:
First of all, we've really focused on outcomes and not inputs. And then, using outcomes
to drive desired results, and if a school's not achieving outcomes, then we start to look at
inputs. I think those that focus on inputs end up in the wrong place.
Still on the non-traditional side, the only leader who did not articulate a fully formed academic

64
accountability plan was also responsible from rescuing his school system from the brink of
financial collapse (Superintendent 6). At this point, he said, the only piece the board really cares
is whether he saved the district from complete insolvency.
When it came to evaluating top personnel, the difference between traditional and non-
traditional superintendents was also slight, but noticeable. Again, two out of three non-
traditional leaders had a formal process in place whereby cabinet staff had their performance
formally reviewed at least on a yearly basis – versus one traditional superintendent who did the
same. Non-traditional superintendents also carried out such performance evaluations more than
once a year, when a formal process was in place. One non-traditional leader’s (Superintendent
5) comment exemplifies the process at her school system: “We do a formal twice-a-year
check-in, and then, I try to connect at least once a quarter where we're really digging in on
goals.” The sole traditional superintendent (Superintendent 2) who performed formal
evaluations carried them out once a year only:
Yes, it's a yearly process. And it's based on setting their own performance, which they
share with me, and I approve. And then they do a self-evaluation, and then we sit down
and do a formal evaluation.
The majority of traditional superintendents preferred an informal method. One
traditional superintendent’s comments illustrated the informal approached preferred by two of
the three traditional leaders interviewed. Superintendent 1 explains:
Actually, I have not felt the need for such a formal process. I am working with them so
frequently on a regular basis that I’m constantly giving them feedback that causes them
to either continue what they’re doing or make some changes.

65
Superintendent 6, a non-traditional superintendent at a financially at risk district, also echoed
these feelings.

Table 7
Monitoring & Evaluation – Academic Accountability and Senior Staff Evaluations

Classification
Q4a – Academic
Accountability
Q4b – Senior Staff
Evaluations
Superintendent 1 Traditional Established Informal
Superintendent 2 Traditional In progress Formal (once a yr.)
Superintendent 3 Traditional In progress Informal
Superintendent 4 Non-traditional Established (w/ details) Formal (more than once a yr.)
Superintendent 5 Non-traditional Established (w/ details) Formal (more than once a yr.)
Superintendent 6 Non-traditional In progress Informal

Ancillary findings: Leadership styles
The conceptual framework that underlines this study focus on four aspects common to
all successful leadership endeavors, namely: how superintendent diagnose issues and set a
vision for success, how they allocate resources, how they carry out programs to achieve their
goals, and how they monitor progress towards increased student achievement. These four
aspects were in part inspired by and adapted from the phases of a project, found in “The Project

66
Management Body of Knowledge” (PMI, 2010), a publication by the Project Management
Institute – the leading organization for credentialed project managers in the world. These four
aspects became the basis for the four matching guiding research questions this study put forth.
To gain better insight into superintendents’ leadership style and main area of focus, they were
explicitly asked which of the four phases addressed by the study was more important. The
overwhelming answer among traditional and non-traditional leaders was that problem diagnosis
was more important than resource allocation, program execution, and monitoring and
evaluation. Program execution came a distant second.
Four of the six interviewees (two traditional and two non-traditional) responded problem
diagnosis was the success key. As Superintendent 1 (traditional) puts it, “if you don’t diagnose
the needs and the underlying causes correctly, then you’ll have great difficulty with execution
and I don’t know what evaluation will tell you.” In short, as another traditional leader
(Superintendent 3) asserted, “if you don’t get that right you’re not working on the right stuff.”
Interestingly, the point about the importance of vision and culture came up again for the two
non-traditional superintendents who also indicated problem diagnosis was the most important
aspect to focus on. Superintendent 4 went to great lengths to articulate how important setting the
right vision was to the role:
If creating vision is in the first bucket, then, it is all there. Then, it is creating it and
articulating it, finding a different way to articulate it over and over and over and over
again and being able to take that vision and ... A leader in a role like this, you are
holding kind of like a crystal orb in your hands and every day it drops and it breaks and
you are just picking it back up and putting it together again and again and again and
again and again. What you need to be able to do is show that orb to other people and
they have to recognize it. They have to see it. It has to be meaningful to them, and it has
to be meaningful to you as the leader and those that are immediately around you.

67

The other two leaders (one traditional and one non-traditional) who did not cite problem
diagnosis as the most important aspect, mentioned execution as the most important aspect, albeit
in slight different ways. Superintendent 2 (traditional) framed the importance of execution and
its relation to monitoring and evaluation, as follows:
… It's the hardest one to do. Implementation is everything. You can have the best plans
in the world, and the best systems in place. And if you're not implementing well, it just
isn't going to matter. That goes right down to the classroom. And I've also learned from
long experience that if you don't monitor, you're going to have very uneven
performance. Your highest performers are still going to perform well, your low
performers are going to do nothing, and the ones in the middle typically sink to the
lowest level of expectation. So you get a huge divide in performance if you don't
monitor. If you do monitor, sometimes it narrows it. Sometimes your high performers
don't do quite as well if you monitor them too much. So you have to be careful about
over-monitoring your high performing, self-motivated people. They kind of need to be
left alone.… Everybody needs some level of monitoring, but not everybody needs the
same level of monitoring. And a good manager will know who's who.”

Superintendent 6, the non-traditional leader who also agreed execution was the most important
aspect, equated its importance in great part to culture (a trend the study kept finding with non-
traditionals). As he explains it:
To me, if you force me to choose one of the four, I would choose number three which is
program execution. The reason being, effectively executing a program or starting a new
one or changing something has such important cultural ramifications. This is also my
personal bias which I will just admit right up front. I'm a deep believer in evaluation, I
actually believe culture trumps evaluation. That is one of the challenges that I ran into in
the district. It didn't matter how you evaluated something. The culture is so poisoned,
there was malicious compliance. That's completely counter-productive. To me, if the
program implementation and execution, if you lead by example, have programs that are
being implemented because teachers are demanding them and you work at them the right
way, that makes a huge difference.… That to me is why execution is key because it

68
warrants the right culture in an organization, which to me trumps everything else.… If
you have a hundred metrics, and a bad culture, that will lose every time to no metrics
and to good culture in my idea. That culture comes from the implementation of
initiatives and that work, which I roll together into your third category.

In terms of leadership styles, both traditional and non-traditional leaders seemed to be in
complete agreement that knowing how to diagnose the existing problems and set the right vision
was key to improving student achievement. They also agreed that program execution was
extremely important.
Table 8
Ancillary Findings – Most Important Area of Conceptual Framework
Classification A1 – Most Important Area
Superintendent 1 Traditional Problem diagnosis
Superintendent 2 Traditional Execution (then monitoring & evaluation
Superintendent 3 Traditional Problem diagnosis
Superintendent 4 Non-traditional Problem diagnosis (emphasis on vision)
Superintendent 5 Non-traditional Problem diagnosis (emphasis on culture)
Superintendent 6 Non-traditional Execution (emphasis on culture)

69
Ancillary findings: Leadership perceptions
To validate the research mentioned from Fuller et al. (2003) in this study’s literature
review about the general opposition to outsiders in education, interviewees were asked if they
thought leaders with non-traditional backgrounds had a role to play leading school systems in
public education. Additionally, non-traditional superintendents were also asked whether they
faced opposition because of their particular backgrounds. The answers seemed to be in line with
Fuller et al. (2003) findings.
Two out of three traditional superintendents expressed clear concerns about leaders with
non-traditional backgrounds being responsible for school systems. “Typically, it's not a formula
for success,” Superintendent 1 said before going on, “And I think the primary reason for that is
they don't understand the academics piece, which really is the core of what we do.” His
expounded as to his concerns about having a non-traditional background focused solely on
business:
They understand business. That's usually what happens when you go for a non-
traditional candidate, is somebody who understands business. But understanding
business doesn't mean you understand the real heart of what goes on at a school, which is
what happens in classrooms. I don't think it's a good idea to hire a superintendent who
does not have an intimate knowledge and understanding of good educational practice.
What teaching and learning really is. I think your superintendent needs to be an
academics person.
And sometimes they can do both. There are business people who have made a
successful transition into the academics, but it's unusual. And if you don't have that
experience, you need to know that you don't have it. And hire people who do.”

The second, traditional superintendent 2, echoed these words almost verbatim:

70
It’s a challenge. I think, in my opinion, just as a principal needs to be the instructional
leader at the school, the superintendent needs to be an instructional leader for the school
district. Now that doesn’t mean that the superintendent has hands-on day-to-day
responsibility regarding instructional services. Obviously, we have people, like I have…,
who take that responsibility, but the superintendent needs to be seen as somebody who
understands teaching and learning, who has had experience with that and can really
develop a mission and a vision based on one’s own competencies and experience.

Not surprisingly, non-traditional leaders thought there was a role for superintendents
with their background in public education. One traditional superintendent, Superintendent 3,
also seemed to agree, citing there should be leaders with different backgrounds to foster
competition, as education veers towards more and more choice in general: “The choice now is
just endless and on top of those, I’m for competition”. The non-traditional leaders all reported
some sort of push back from having different backgrounds, even if they have been in education
for a while. Superintendent 4 describes the conversation over a leader’s background as
“ridiculous”. He explains:
I just feel that there are so many capacity deficits within our public education system and
there are so many different entry points for being successful that I think it is ridiculous to
presume that anybody coming from any particular background is either, by definition not
going to be able to succeed or by definition has some big leg up. We have seen many a
teacher who has come into a superintendency who has ended up failing. We have seen so
many other industries where people can come from a different sector and prove
successful there.
Look at Silicon Valley. There is virtually no one that grew up within Silicon Valley who
is in Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley is like a little America. It is a place of immigrants. I
just personally feel that it is very difficult to predict who is going to be successful in
these kinds of roles and we should not prejudge. My own personal sense is that those
who have a more eclectic assemblage of skills and experiences are going to prove
successful in education, and we should be embracing folks from a wide variety of
backgrounds.

71
Another, Superintendent 6, digs deeper by saying he thinks “that's actually the problem.” He
explains why in more detail:
… What I've noticed is that some, not all, [career educators] as they go up in authority,
start thinking they know more than anybody else. That is the entire root of the problem.
It feeds uncollaborative environments.… I have met enough superintendents who think
they know more than anyone else in their district. That is a problem. Then there's some
wonderful superintendents who started as teachers who moved up, who are wonderful at
understanding that they're not the smartest ones and they seek out advice and they gather
a strong team around them.
He also presents an interesting argument not always discussed in the research this study has
encountered: that such close-mindedness about outsiders is not as prevalent in other industries
as it is in education:
To me, I have noticed [that] far more often when you step in education… Although I'm
sure it happens, I've rarely seen the business guy tell an educator, "Shut up, I know more
than you do." I've seen that happen many times, when educators get into positions of
authority. That to me is a tragedy. That to me is why it's so critical to have a blend. Now
I'm not saying that business people make the best superintendent. In fact, I think there's a
time and a place for people with my background, but there's also a time and a place
where we are not effective.

However, none of the four leaders who concurred that there is a place for non-traditional
backgrounds at the leadership of public school systems argued that such a background is
preferred. Instead, they all talked about the importance of being familiar with emerging
themselves into the instructional world. Superintendent 5, a leader with a non-traditional
background, described that through her own experience:
… I've spent an inordinate amount of time trying to build my knowledge and
understanding of teaching. That's our core business. I need to know that. I couldn't teach,

72
but I can definitely talk about teaching. I know what good teaching looks like. I know
what bad teaching looks like. I've spent a lot of time over the last six, seven years getting
to know and understand teaching and learning.
Superintendent 6, another leader with a non-traditional background, perhaps best summed up
what four of the six superintendents meant when he said, “I believe that the right leader should
be unbiased as to the source of the solution and the solution itself, and open-minded about what
that solutions means.”

Table 9
Ancillary Findings – Is There a Role for Non-traditionals in Education?
Classification A2 – A Role for Non-traditionals?
Superintendent 1 Traditional No - “A challenge”
Superintendent 2 Traditional No - “Typically not a formula for success”
Superintendent 3 Traditional Yes – “I’m for competition”
Superintendent 4 Non-traditional
Yes – should embrace “folks from a wide variety
of backgrounds”
Superintendent 5 Non-traditional Yes – but must understand teacher and learning
Superintendent 6 Non-traditional
Yes – we should be “unbiased to the source of
the solution”

73
The future leader
Additionally, to further understand what competencies the future leaders of school
systems may need to have or acquire, all superintendents were asked to expand on the traits they
thought tomorrow’s leaders would need to be successful. Out of six leaders interviewed, four
(three traditional and one non-traditional) commented on the need for flexibility and being
well-rounded to face the massive change they see in the horizon for education over the next
decade. One non-traditional leader (Superintendent 4) explained the magnitude of such change
and the need for change management leadership as follows:
I just think in general that people are not thinking through the breadth of change, the
scope of change that is going to happen. The leaders that we need are folks that are
going to be able to grow and change and deal with changes at levels that no one is kind
of predicting right now. Also, I think we have got a culture within public education that
is kind of based around stasis. It is based around this idea that things do not change that
much. Schools in 1970 did not look really that much different than schools in 1830, and
yet what is going to happen is just going to be so radically different.
Arguably, the least changed institution that we have in our country is public education. It
is the least changed industry of any in our country and yet it is going to be propelled into
two centuries of change in the next 20 years. We are going to have to have some very
capable leaders who are able to help us manage that kind of just fundamental shift.”

Superintendent 6, another non-traditional, also described that change putting it more in more of
political context:
I think the greatest challenge is going to be a very specific political one. That's going to
be the centers of power. We have over the last hundred years with a progressive error
really consolidated power in the board of education and state boards and state offices. I
think with technology especially, that power needs to be shifted back into the hands of
students and parents. I think that's going to be a massive battle, because the incumbent

74
powers don't want parents to have power. They don't want choice. They don't want all
those things. If you think about it, my hope is that 20 years from now, you can have a
system of education where we really only care about outcomes much more than inputs.

Interestingly, one traditional superintendent also echoed those sentiments and the need for a
more well-rounded background to cope with such changes. This traditional superintendent
(Superintendent 3) went as far as saying that the leaders of tomorrow will have a more non-
traditional background, even if a non-traditional background has not been proven to be more
successful to date:
I think they need to be more well-rounded…. I think they can’t just come up from the
classroom or they just won’t have the breadth and depth of understanding of what the
possibilities are. I think we’ll have more non-traditional superintendent than we have had
historically. We just have to have people that are enriched that way to be successful
leaders of their systems or schools. I think it’s going to be great change going forward.
Although I’d say so far the non-traditional leaders haven’t done that well.

At the other end of the spectrum, two traditional leaders did not express or hint at the idea that
fundamental change might be coming to education. Instead, they seemed to focus on more short
term needs around their own districts. One of these traditional leaders expounded on the
importance of public relations and knowing what not to change in a district. Superintendent 2:
I would have to say two things. One is an understanding of what the core programs in a
district are. Every superintendent who comes in changes some things, but there
somethings that really can't be changed without being disruptive.… The other thing… is
the ability to promote the district publicly.

The other traditional leader, Superintendent 1, talked about the importance of knowing how to
listen:

75
I do talk to people about the importance of listening and not thinking that you come
into a situation with answers. You don’t. You come into a situation with prior
experience, and it may or may not apply to your new situation.

In that sense, traditional and non-traditional superintendents exposed very different views about
the future and there was minor overlap as to the skills they saw the leaders of the future
possessing.

Table 10
Ancillary Findings – Skills the Leaders of Tomorrow Should Possess
Classification A3 – Skills for Future Superintendents
Superintendent 1 Traditional Knowing how to listen
Superintendent 2 Traditional
Knowing what not to change, promoting the
district publically
Superintendent 3 Traditional
A more well-rounded background (like
non-traditionals)
Superintendent 4 Non-traditional Change management
Superintendent 5 Non-traditional
Constant learner, admit mistakes, move the
vision forward, strong financial background
Superintendent 6 Non-traditional
Political courage (caring more for outcomes than
inputs)

76
Summary
After comparing the strategies superintends with a traditional background utilize to
improve student achievement with those used by leaders with a non-traditional background, this
study concluded there were more similarities than differences between these two types of
leaders. Data collected by semi-structured interviews with three traditional and three non-
traditional superintendents around the four research questions created by the study’s conceptual
framework revealed no consensus (even within the two individual subgroups) around how to
best diagnose the greatest challenge to improving educational outcomes for students (research
question #1) as well as no major difference to the philosophical way in which superintendents
carry out programs in their respective districts (research question #3). When it came to
allocating resources (research question #2), both traditional and non-traditional leaders reported
spending most of their time with experts in their cabinets responsible for the same functional
areas: academics, operations (business and finance), and human resources. Similarly, both
subgroups reported nearly the same amount of time spent communicating and collaborating with
their respective boards of education. The only marked difference in the way traditional and non-
traditional superintendents differed from each other in allocating resources was how they
composed their cabinet: non-traditionals were more liberal when it came to creating new roles
or extinguishing existing ones in order to achieve their goals. In the area of performance
monitoring and evaluation (research question #4), a difference was also present: non-traditional
superintendents were more likely to have academic accountability systems in place, as well as to
conduct formal performance reviews with their senior staff more periodically. Both subgroups,

77
however, agreed that problem diagnosis was the most important area for a superintendent out
of the four highlighted by the study’s conceptual framework and research questions, followed
by the execution of programs. The study also detected a minor bias against non-traditional
leaders by traditional leaders, although acceptance of and advocacy for non-traditional leaders
was also found. Lastly, as ancillary findings, the study found non-traditional leaders valued and
talked about culture more frequently. The study also polled all six superintendents interviewed
to find out that three out of six interviewees listed flexibility and the ability to constantly learn
on the job and deal with change as the most important skill the superintendent of tomorrow
should possess to improve student achievement.

78
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Introduction

Today’s American society faces an educational crisis of significant proportions.
Although the US dedicates more resources to education than any other nation (Hanushek &
Lindseth, 2009), student achievement has remained stagnant while other developed countries
continue to produce academic gains and surpass the United States in international tests
(Schleicher, 2006). One interpretation of such a trend is that American public school systems
are struggling to produce students with the knowledge and skills to compete in an increasingly
global market (Levine, 2005). The large-scale social implications of this potential shorter supply
of adequately prepared human capital are self-evident: the United States’ economy may be
adversely impacted over the next decades.
In response to this perceived declined in educational achievement levels, our nation has
embarked on a series of reform efforts over the past fifty years. In terms of government
compliance measures, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the current re-authorization of the
Elementary School and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, is the latest attempt to
mandate student achievement reform through increased accountability (Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004). On the school governance side, the nation has witnessed the birth and
expansion of charter schools over the past twenty years. While the debate ensues as to what may
constitute the most effective reform measure, the prevailing opinion is that student achievement
continues at a low.

79
Despite multiple reform efforts, there is broad consensus regarding a lack of effective
leadership in public education (Olson, 2000). At the school level, a shortage of qualified public
school administrators persists (Elmore, 2005) at a time where it is most needed, and many of
those who are hired in leadership roles are often ill prepared to excel (Davis et al., 2005). As
such, a case can be made for the growing impact and importance of superintendent leadership.
With a reduced pool of qualified site leaders to choose from and with the challenge of
developing those who may be in place but not excelling, superintendents everywhere are being
put to the test as increased calls for accountability and compliance continue. Additionally,
superintendents must not only face mounting pressure to demonstrate gains in student
achievement, but they must also do it quickly: the average tenure for an urban superintendent is
fewer than three years (Jackson & Cibulka, 1991).
As confidence in the public school system waned and the education reform movement
picked up steam nation-wide, school boards and elected officials start to seek leaders who could
bring a more modern perspective to what has been often perceived as an antiquated educational
system (Usdan & Cronin, 2003). Changes in the nature of superintendents’ work had stimulated
calls for altering how the next generation of district leaders were identified, prepared, hired, and
evaluated (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005). As school boards expanded their search for these new
leaders, they noticed that some industry leaders had faced some of the same challenges and
considered whether their success would translate into school operations as well. Thus, non-
traditional leaders began to be courted, recruited, and hired as change agents in school districts
(Fuller et al., 2003).

80
A question, however, remains as to the benefits of hiring leaders with non-educational
backgrounds to lead public school systems, with no clear answer present in the literature availed
by this study. Thus, this study hopes to add to the growing body of scholarly literature on the
issue. This chapter provides a summary of the study, including the statement of the problem, a
review of existing literature pertinent to the topic, the methodology employed, and the findings
related to the four research questions put forth at the beginning of the study. In closing,
implications and recommendations for future studies will also be offered.

Statement of the Problem
As district leadership becomes even more important in the face of mounting public
pressure, mandated accountability, and administrative complexity, research on the impact of
superintendents’ actions on student achievement is lacking. Even more scant are studies on how
superintendents with non-traditional and traditional backgrounds compare when facing the
challenge of improving student achievement in this new era of increased complexity. As such,
an investigation as to whether traditional and non-traditional superintendents achieve different
results is both of consequence and warranted.

Research Questions

In order to better understand how the strategies superintendents with a traditional
background employ to improve student achievement compare to those utilized by

81
superintendents with non-traditional backgrounds, a conceptual framework model was
developed to examine four areas common to the implementation and management of all
programs and projects: 1) problem diagnosis; 2) resource allocation; 3) program execution; and
4) monitoring and evaluation. This conceptual framework, partly based on the phases of a
project, found in “The Project Management Body of Knowledge” (PMI, 2010), led to the
creation of the following four research questions that guide this study:

1) What do traditional and non-traditional superintendents perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving student achievement?
2) How do traditional and non-traditional superintendents allocate resources to improve
student achievement?
3) What strategies do traditional and non-traditional superintendents leverage when
establishing programs to improve student achievement?
4) What criteria and systems do traditional and non-traditional superintendents use to
evaluate and sustain student achievement progress?

Review of Current Literature

As the concept of non-traditional leadership in public school districts is a relatively new
phenomena, the literature on the topic of traditional and non-traditional leadership comparisons
is scarce. However, the skillset needed for being a successful leader of public school systems

82
has changed greatly since the role’s inception. A historical study of the role of superintendent
has shown it has greatly evolved through time (Candoli, 1995). It has grown in both complexity
and breadth, requiring an ever-growing set of competencies from those who wish to pursue it,
including increased operational management knowledge (Johnson, 1996), political savvy
(Kowalski, 2005), and accountability expertise (Glass, Bjork & Brunner, 2000).
The increased complexity the superintendent role has seen has also led to a smaller pool
of qualified applicants, as educators are less interested in becoming the top leader in the district
when pressure and expectations are so high (Davis, 2006). Whilst the crucible of superintendent
leadership grows hotter amidst growing demands for increased accountability (Elmore, 2004;
Petersen & Barnett, 2005) and improved student outcomes (Smith & Wohlstetter, 2001), a
reduced tenure to an average of 3.1 years (Glass et al., 2007) has fallen well short of the
suggested five to seven year suggested timeline for the establishment of sustained change
(Carter & Cunningham, 1997). In short, more has been required of superintendents while less
time to implement changes and achieve these new, more complex goals has been afforded them.
These factors have led some educators to contend the superintendency is a position in which
failure is perhaps inevitable (Archer, 2003).
As a consequence, school boards and elected officials have begun to search elsewhere in
hopes of finding a new paradigm for district leadership. A study by Fuller et al. (2003)
demonstrated large urban superintendents require all the skills leaders elsewhere in government
and business draw on (Fuller et al., 2003). As such, school boards and elected officials are now
sometimes looking for business, political, and military leaders as alternatives to traditional

83
education leaders (Usdan & Cronin, 2003). Still, strong resistance to these “outsiders”
remains from traditional educators (Fuller et al., 2003). In short, as more of these non-traditional
leaders enter the public educational system, the question of whether the strategies they use to
improve student achievement are more effective than those of their traditional counterparts
persists.

Methodology
The study employed semi-structure interviews with six urban superintendents in early
2014 to address whether there was a qualitative difference in the strategies they employed to
improve student achievement. In addition, this study helped highlight the existing perceptions of
the traditional and non-traditional superintendents with regard to the leadership ability and style
for each type. Three superintendents with traditional backgrounds and three with non-traditional
backgrounds currently leading public school systems in California with enrollment greater than
4,000 students were matched for comparison through purposeful sampling. For greater breadth
of comparison, one traditional and one non-traditional superintendent charged with leading
financially troubled school systems were also matched to allow for insight into differences of
style in “turn-around” management.

84

Findings
Research question #1: What do traditional and non-traditional superintendents perceive
to be the greatest obstacles to improving student achievement?
No clear specific culprit emerged amongst the six traditional and non-traditional
superintendents interviewed as the greatest challenge public education is currently facing today.
However, emerging themes revolving around negative public and community perception and the
lack of a positive, collaborative culture in public education surfaced in many occasions as the
main detractors to improving student achievement in urban school systems. Although the quality
of classroom instruction was mentioned by one superintendent, the overarching theme that
remained was the need for clear visioning and the establishing of positive culture in school
districts – concepts touched upon by three leaders.

Research questions #2: How do traditional and non-traditional superintendents allocate
resources to improve student achievement?
In relation to the way traditional and non-traditional public systems leaders allocate
resources to achieve their objectives, one pronounced difference emerged as a powerful theme.
Superintendents with non-traditional backgrounds were more willing to trigger structural change
in their respective school systems via the creation or extinction of senior leadership roles in their
cabinets. All three non-traditional leaders had done so in their course of their current tenure,
where no traditional leader attempt such a change. Instead, non-traditional leaders preferred a

85
more conservative and prudent approach of either not filling existing positions when they
became vacant, or by choosing to staff previous positions that were currently open.
When it came to the different functional roles superintendents interacted with on a daily
basis to improve student achievement, no significant differences between traditionals and
non-traditionals were found. Both types reported their chief academic officer, chief business and
finance officer, and chief human resources officer as the three roles they collaborated with the
most on a daily basis. The only small difference noted, however, was that non-traditionals also
made a point of inserting a fourth role as well when asked about their top three, albeit each of
the three non-traditional superintendents cited a different fourth role.
The study also found a small difference (5%) in the amount of time different types of
superintendents spent communicating with their board members. Non-traditional leaders
reported spending an average of 25% of their time communicating with their board versus 20%
for traditional superintendents. The researcher also detected a slight bias difference when it
came to description of their overall interactions with their boards: non-traditionals seemed to use
a more collaborative tone when describing their relationship to their board, perhaps validating
Hess’ (2005) point found in the literature research that non-traditionals were much less likely
than traditional superintendents to find mandates, standards, accountability, and local politics to
be major problems.

86

Research question #3: What strategies do traditional and non-traditional superintendents
leverage when establishing programs to improve student achievement?
The interviews with the six urban district leaders also did not unearth any significant
differences as to the philosophical approach superintendents took when it came to instituting
and carrying out new programs or efforts in their districts. All six superintendents spoke at
length to the importance of good planning and collaboration when rolling out new programs and
efforts. Another emerging theme was the importance of having good personnel to accomplish
established goals. The only small bias found was the willingness of leaders with non-traditional
backgrounds to relate execution back to, again, overall culture.

Research question #4: What criteria and systems do traditional and non-traditional
superintendents use to evaluate and sustain student achievement progress?
Research question #4 one area in which differences in leadership style between
traditional and non-traditional leaders was more readily apparent. When it came to both
academic and personnel evaluations, leaders with non-traditional backgrounds seemed to have
more structured processes in place. Besides having fully operational accountability frameworks
in place for their districts more often than traditional superintendents, non-traditional leaders
also seemed more interested in measures outside of standard academic achievement (API,
AYP), such as college acceptance and persistence. In the personnel side, leaders with
non-traditional backgrounds were also more likely than their counterparts to have formal

87
systems of accountability in place for their senior staff. Further, these formal evaluations also
took place more frequently.
Ancillary findings
In addition to the four research questions that guided the study, the structure interviews
conducted with the six California superintendents allowed for additional insight into the skills
superintendents deem most important to successfully carrying out their work, the perceptions
traditional superintendents have of those with non-traditional superintendents, non-traditional
leaders perspective on this perception, and the necessary skills superintendents of today think
will be required of the educational leaders of tomorrow.
When it came to choosing one of the four areas the conceptual framework of this study
put forth (problem diagnosis, resource allocation, execution, and performance and evaluation) as
most important to the successful completion of their jobs as superintendents, the majority (4) of
leaders agreed that problem diagnosis was the key to achieving success, followed by program
execution (2 leaders). Again, non-traditional superintendents demonstrated a slight biased
towards culture by connecting problem diagnosis with it.
As to the perceptions traditional superintendents held of non-traditional leaders, Fuller et
al.’s (2003) research was validated. Two out of three traditional superintendents did not believe
a non-traditional background to be a formula for success in education. A third traditional
superintendent, however, bucked the trend to assert non-traditional superintendents provided
good competition in the public education space and went as far as prognosticating that the
leaders of tomorrow would have a more non-traditional background. Not surprisingly and

88
perhaps again validating Hess’ (2005) research, non-traditional leaders were not gravely
affected by such comments in general although they all reported having experienced resistance
from other educators in their careers in public systems.
Finally, just as the study did not seem to find consensus as to what constitutes the
greatest barrier to improving student achievement today, this research did not also find general
accord as to the essential skills the leaders of public school systems of tomorrow should have to
be successful stewards of future public education. If a theme were to emerge, it would most
likely be the need for a well-rounded background to deal with the sleuth of political changes the
leaders of today envision happening over the next decade.

Implications
The results of this study are of consequence to a series of different stakeholders in the
public education space. For educators in general, the similarities and commonalities between the
approaches of traditional and non-traditional superintendents to the work of improving student
outcomes should speak louder than the few points of disparity between both types of leadership.
Additionally, the ingress and continued presence of leaders with non-traditional educational
backgrounds into the field and the growing complexity added to the role of the superintendent
also indirectly speak to the need for schools of education to retool their leadership programs to
embrace an education more encompassing of trends in other larger industries such as general
business, finance, policy, and government. As the education reform movement also continues to
grow, it would likewise behoove schools of education to better instruct students as to the

89
different career paths ahead of them in the public education sector. These simple adjustments
might prove powerful in counteracting the “us versus them” mentality that often assigns leaders
with non-traditional backgrounds or in education reform a perception handicap that is ultimately
detrimental to the improving of student outcomes because it occupies the focus of conversations
that should otherwise be centered on the betterment of kids.
Most importantly, school boards and selection committees should heed that the hiring of
non-traditionals may help bring about change to educational systems, but that this approach is
not the only way to do so. In fact, many traditional leaders are already successfully doing just
that in a climate of growing expectations and growing resources and constraints. Instead, focus
should be placed in an individual leader’s competencies, and not solely on his or her previous
industry background. Finally, the study also offers some guidance to the aspiring leaders of
tomorrow, who should strive to develop the right analytical skills to be able to quickly and
correctly diagnose what needs to be changed in public school systems, develop and
communicate a vision to do so, and bring people together to carry out said vision in a way that
will empower both students and communities to reach new levels or learning and performance.
The same may apply to the leaders of today who are also seeking to better their practice.

Recommendations for Future Research
In the course of collecting and analyzing data to examine the efficacy of strategies used
by leaders with traditional and non-traditional backgrounds to improve student achievement, a
series of new considerations arose that warrant further examination. This researcher

90
recommends future studies into the following could lead to a greater understanding of
leadership in the field of educational:
1) As the number of non-traditional leaders in California is current limited, carrying out
a national study may reveal other trends not found in this study;
2) As some traditional leaders seek additional professional business training during
their careers, a study into the frequency of such occurrence may reveal that a
“hybrid” leader background has already or is emerging;
3) As many non-traditionals choose to take on leadership roles in charter management
organizations instead of remaining at large urban districts, an in-depth study as to the
impact governance model has on the choice non-traditional leaders make as their
next assignment could prove interesting; and
4) Still on the realm of governance models, a study into the perception of traditional
school system leaders who made the transition into the education reform and charter
worlds may deepen the discussion as to the overall impact of different governance
models in educational leadership; and
5) A study into the egress of superintendents from public school systems into private or
corporate enterprise may reveal interesting insights as if non-educators are as
resistant to “outsiders” as educators seem to be, and if the training educators receive
to lead youth to productive careers is indeed adequate to excel in such careers.

91
Conclusion
In times of great change, it is not unheard for contingencies of people to remain steadfast
to habits and perceptions that have held true so far. In an attempt to derive a sense of order
amidst great transformation, these groups of people cling to notions and behaviors that are most
familiar to them and shun new ideas and the people who are often their bearers. At the same
time and in the other end, it is not unusual for other groups of people to demand immediate
rupture with practices of the past in order to usher in ardently desired change. Human history
has often proved that neither extreme is ultimately the most efficacious approach in the long
run. Perhaps this is also the case of current public education, where new forces pull towards
reform while the powers of old resist any changes to traditional institutions. If so, then it
behooves all of us to re-focus much of our conversations from what type of leader is better to
what can we learn from different leadership styles to ensure we move forward the cause of
improved student outcomes.
Even if the perfect solution to our current educational woes were the hiring of leaders
with non-traditional backgrounds and experiences, we would still likely not succeed because we
have simply been unable to lure enough of them into the business of education and into the
thousands of school districts throughout the country to truly be able to scale whatever best
practices we may develop. Further, non-traditional leaders themselves agree they are not the
“silver bullet” to our current educational problems. As Superintendent 6, a non-traditional,
asserts, “I think there's a time and a place for people with my background, but there's also a time
and a place where we are not effective.”

92
On the other hand, an instructional background alone is no guarantee of success. As
one non-traditional leader (Superintendent 4) rebutted the prevailing criticism, “we have seen
many a teacher who has come into a superintendency who has ended up failing.” Further, even
those superintendents who have extensive instructional credentials still require additional
academic expertise in their management team because the demands of the work are taxing, and
the hours in the day too short. As one traditional superintendent (Superintendent 2) confided:
I got some criticism from the unions for filling those administrative vacancies. I thought
it was important to have, particularly, a secondary schools director. I couldn't imagine
ever not having a secondary schools director. Although the union thought that I should
play the role of chief academic officer, secondary schools director, and elementary
schools director, and superintendent. They thought that that was reasonable for me to do
all of those things.

Paradoxically, a fundamental piece is often overlooked in our debates about educational
leadership: educators are in the business of learning – whether that learning be of students or
themselves. To ignore that educators and educational leaders must continuously learn too and
insist they only do that which they have previously learned is to turn our backs to very core of
the roles we profess to take. As one superintendent expounded during the course of this
research, we “should be unbiased as to the source of the solution and the solution itself and
open-minded about what that solutions means”. Else we risk fostering the current paradigm of
isolation that seems to feed on the fear that public schools are losing ground to charter schools
and on the self-aggrandizing belief that only by having a specific background will we afford
ourselves the right understanding to solve the growing plethora of different problems we face.
Has such divisive and isolationist posture so far yielded the results we have wished for?

93
Therefore it is much more likely that history will show the prudent approach may also
be the most efficient one: that a “hybrid” type of leader will emerge over the coming years to
blend the understanding of teaching and instruction that is needed to run academic programs
with the savvy that is required of managers who must run complex systems that only grow in
complexity and often verge into the political. This very research shows the superintendents of
today have highlighted that a wide set of skills is required to adequately mange a public school
district, including great problem diagnosis, vision creation and communication, general
collaboration, team building and personnel acquisition, public relations, execution, and the
overall maintenance of productive organizational cultures. These are also the very skills they
predict the leaders of tomorrow will need, plus one: the flexibility and change management
ability to deal with even greater transformation they seem coming to the education space over
the next decades.
Thus, it may be time for us to stop seeking one right model of leadership and, instead,
focus on finding the right style of leadership for each specific situation – much the same way we
talk about differentiating and personalizing instruction according to the different circumstances
in our classrooms. Superintendent 4 may have better expressed this idea when he said:
I just feel that there are so many capacity deficits within our public education system and
there are so many different entry points for being successful that I think it is ridiculous to
presume that anybody coming from any particular background is either, by definition not
going to be able to succeed or by definition has some big leg up. … I just personally feel
that it is very difficult to predict who is going to be successful in these kinds of roles and
we should not prejudge. My own personal sense is that those who have a more eclectic
assemblage of skills and experiences are going to prove successful in education, and we
should be embracing folks from a wide variety of backgrounds.

94
REFERENCES

Adams, C. (2011). No experience needed? Just what is a superintendent anyway? An educator?
CEO? What’s the right resume? Administrator Magazine, winter.

Anfara, V. A., Brown, K.M., & Manglone, T.L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the
research process more public. Educational Researcher, Spring 28-38.

Archer, J. (2003) “Urban School Chiefs Complain of Demands in Impossible Roles” Education
Week. August 6, 2003. No.22. Vol. 43. pp18-19.

Bensimon, E. (1989). The meaning of “good presidential leadership”: A frame analysis. The Review
of Higher Education, 12 (2), 107-123.

Bjork, L., & Kowalski, T. J. (Eds.). (2005). The Contemporary Superintendent: Preparation,
Practice, and Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2003). Better leaders for America’s schools: A
manifesto. Retrieved March 11, 2013, from
http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2003/200305_betterleaders/manifesto.pdf

Bryant, M. & Grady, M.L. (1988) Superintendent turnover in rural school districts. Paper presented
at the National Rural Education Research Forum (Bismark, ND, September 23-24, 1988)
(ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED308032).

Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have
shaped the administration of public schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools: A historical analysis. East Lansing, MI:
National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 0104 410)

Campbell, R. F., Cunningham, L. L., Nystrand, R., & Usdan, M. D. (1990). The Organization and
Control of American Schools. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Candoli, C. (1995). The superintendency: its history and role. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 9, 335-350.

95
Carter, G., & Cunningham, W. (1997) The American School Superintendent: Leading in an Age
of Pressure. The Jossey-Bass Education Series.

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. (2007). Preparing school leaders for
a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Davis, E. E. (Ed.). (2006). Qualities of effective leadership: School leaders speak. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study:
developing effective principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational
Leadership Institute.

DuFour, R. (2002). The Learning-Centered Principal. Beyond Instructional Leadership, 59 (8), 12-
15.

Eliot, T. S. (1972). Little Gidding. Four Quartets (7. Impr. ed., ). London: Faber and Faber.

Elmore, R. F. (2004). School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, Practice, and Performance.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 134-142.

Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys. (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Fink, E., & Resnick, L.B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 82(8), 1-28.

Fuller, H. F., Campbell, C., Celio, M. B., Harvey, J., Immerwahu, J., & Winger, A. (2003). An
impossible job? The view from the urban superintendent’s chair. Seattle, WA: University of
Washington, Center on Reinventing Public Education.

Glass, T., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. (2000). The study of the American superintendency 2000: A look
at the superintendent of education in the new millennium. Arlington: American Association
of School Administrators.

Glass, Thomas E. & Franceschini, Louis A. (2007). The State of the American School
Superintendency: A Mid-Decade Study. American Association of School Administrators.
Rowman & Littlefield Education.

96
Gonzalez, P. Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of US fourth
and eighth grade students in an international context. International Center for Educational
Statistics, Washington, DC.

Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses: Solving the
funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, Spring/Summer, 17-19.

Hess, F. M. (2003). Lifting the barrier: Eliminating the state-mandated licensure of principals and
superintendents is the first step in recruiting and training a generation of leaders capable of
transforming America’s schools. Education Next. 3(4), 12-19.

Hess, F. (Ed.). (2005). Urban school reform: Lessons from San Diego. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.

Hoyle, J.R., Bjork, L.G., Collier, V., & Glass, T. (2003). Superintendent as CEO. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21st century: It’s not just a job, it’s a calling. Phi Delta
Kappan, 82(6), 428-443.

Institute of Education Sciences of the National Center for Education Statistics. 2008. An
Introduction to NAEP. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
(http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/about/introduction_to_naep_2008.pdf)

Jackson, B. L., & Cibulka, J. G. (1991). 5 Leadership turnover and business mobilization: the
changing political ecology of urban school systems. Journal of Education Policy, 6(5), 71–
86. doi:10.1080/0268093910060506

Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to Change: The Challenge of the New Superintendency. Jossey-
Bass.

Johnson, R. B., & Onweugbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose
time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Kowalski, T. J., & Bjork, L.G. (1999). Role expectations of the district superintendent: Implications
for deregulating preparation and licensing. Journal of Thought, 40(2), 73.

Kowalski, T. (2005). Evolution of school superintendent as communicator. Communication
Education, 54(2), 101-117.

97
Lashway, L. (2001). The superintendent in an age of accountability [Electronic version]. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82(6), 428-443.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education School Project.

McAdams, R. P., & Zinck, R. A. (1998). The Power of the Superintendent's Leadership in Shaping
School District Culture: Three Case Studies. ERS Spectrum, 16(4), 3-7.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research
to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). District Leadership That Works: Striking the Right Balance.
Solution Tree Press.

Meier, K. J., & O'Toole, L. J., Jr. (2002). Public management and organizational performance: The
effect of managerial quality. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(4), 629-643.

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Miller, D. A., Malley, L. B., & Owen, E. (2009). Comparative indicators of education in the United
States and other G-8 countries: 2009. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Statistics.

National Institute of Health Office of Science Education (2011, November 2). NIH Science
Education Nation - Education Needs You. Retrieved May 4, 2013, from
http://science.education.nih.gov/SciEdNation.nsf/EducationNeedsYou2.html

Olson, (2000). New Thinking About Leadership. Education Week

Olson, J.F., M.O. Martin, and I.V.S. Mullis, Eds. (2008). TIMSS 2007 Technical Report Chestnut
Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
(http://timss.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/techreport.html)

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Petersen, G. J., & Barnett, B. C. (2005). The Superintendent as Instructional Leader: Current
Practice, Future Conceptualizations, and Implications for Preparation. The Contemporary
superintendent. Preparation, Practice and Development. Corwin Press.

Quinn, T. (2007). Preparing non-educators for the superintendency. The American School
Administrator, 64(7), 22-29.

98
Schleicher, A. (2006). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. OECD Briefing.
Retrieved from www.pisa.oecd.org.

Smith, A. K., & Wohlstetter, P. (2001). Reform through School Networks: A New Kind of
Authority and Accountability. Educational Policy, 15(4), 499–519.
doi:10.1177/0895904801015004001

Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First
Alliance.

Usdan, M. D. (2003). Rethinking the urban school superintendency: Non-traditional leaders
new models of leadership. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Usdan, M.D., & Cronin, J.M. (2003). Rethinking the urban school superintendency: Non-
traditional leaders and new models of leadership. Presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association.

Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R.J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Midcontinent Research
for Education and Learning.

Whittle, C. (2005). Crash course: imagining a better future for public education. New York:
Riverhead Books.

Young, M. D., Fuller, E., Brewer, C., Carpenter, B., & Mansfield, K. C. (2007). Quality
leadership matters. UCEA Policy Brief Series, 1(1), 1-8.

Center on Education Policy. 2008. Has Student Achievement Increased Since 2002?
Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. (http://www.cep-
dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm?fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=
241&documentFormatId=4309)

99
APPENDIX A – INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Questions appeared numbered below, while potential follow up questions are found indented under them.
Research Questions Interview Questions
What do traditional and non-traditional
superintendents perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving student
achievement?
1) What do you think are the greatest challenges superintendents and school
districts face when trying to improve student achievement?
2) What were the greatest challenges you faced when you first came to your
district?
3) Has your perception of these challenges changed since you first started?
How do traditional and non-traditional
superintendents allocate resources to
improve student achievement?
4) What kind of changes did you make, if any, in your district that allowed you
improve student achievement?
a. Staffing – What staffing changes did you make, if any? Did you
create new roles? If so, what were they?
b. Did you extinguish existing ones? If so, which ones? Have staffing
levels and/or ratios changed in both the Central Office and at the site?
c. Consultants - Did you or do you utilize outside consultants? If so, in
what capacities?
d. Curriculum – Did you make any changes on curriculum and
instructional approaches? If so, can you describe them?

What strategies do traditional and non-
traditional superintendents leverage when
establishing or carrying out programs to
improve student achievement?
5) What changes/programs/efforts do you think have been most effective in
increasing student achievement?
a. Why? – if responses are not substantiated enough
6) How were these changes implemented?
a. What influenced your decision to implement in that way?
7) Do you think there is a relationship between the implementation and the
results? Can you explain?
8) If you were to do this again in this or at another district, would you

100

implement things differently? If so, what would you change?
What criteria and systems do traditional
and non-traditional superintendents use to
evaluate and sustain student achievement
progress?
9) How do you define success?
10) How do evaluate whether progress has been made towards your goals?
a. Is there a formal process in place?
b. If so, how does it work? How was it created? Who created it?
c. If not, do you find you have adequate monitoring systems in place?
d. How do you hold personnel accountable to their goals?
11) What do you think are the most important skills the superintendent of
tomorrow will need to be successful at their job?

101
APPENDIX B – INFORMATION SHEET
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

An Examination of Traditional Versus Non-Traditional Superintendents and the Strategies They
Employ to Improve Student Achievement

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You
should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

Your participation is voluntary. To be eligible, you must be a superintendent whose district(s)
has demonstrated significant gains in academic achievement.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study seeks to comprehend how the strategies employed by traditional superintendents to
improve student achievement compare to those used by non-traditional superintendents. To do
so, the study investigates how different superintendents: 1) define the obstacles to improving
student achievement; 2) align resources to achieve their goals; 3) carry out programs to improve
their school systems; and 4) monitor and evaluate their efficacy.

As a result, this research may: provide additional insight as to the effect a superintendent’s
professional background and experiences may have on student outcomes; furnish school boards
with supplementary information that could prove useful in making future superintendent
appointments; provide some guidance to aspiring superintendents on the types of professional
experiences they should garner in order to increase their chances of becoming district leaders
who successfully improve student achievement; and document some strategies that proved
effective in bolstering student academic results in some California districts.

This research study is conducted as part of a doctoral dissertation in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California.

102

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to take part in a 30-minute audio-taped
interview. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to; if you don’t want to be
taped, handwritten notes will be taken instead.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. Any
and all data collected will be stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office.
Identifiable information will be destroyed at the conclusion of the study; non identifiable data
will be maintained indefinitely and may be used in future research studies. If you do not want
your data used in future studies, you should not participate in this study.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Principal Investigator:
Daniel Assisi
assisi@usc.edu
310-704-0999

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

103
APPENDIX C – RECRUITMENT LETTER

Dear Superintendent ____,

My name is Daniel Assisi and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at
University of Southern California under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita. I am conducting a
research study as part of my dissertation, which examines the strategies traditional and
non-traditional superintendents employ to improve student achievement. You are cordially
invited to participate in the study.
If you agree, you are invited to participate in an interviewed via phone or in-person. The
interview is anticipated to last approximately 30 minutes and will be audio-taped with your
permission.
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times.
If you have questions, please contact me at assisi@usc.edu or at 310-704-0999

Thank you for your participation,

Daniel T. Assisi, MPA, PMP
Doctoral Candidate - Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

Abstract (if available)

Abstract As the demands and expectations placed on public school systems to improve student achievement continue to mount, many boards of education have sought alternative leadership models by appointing non‐traditional superintendents to lead their respective districts. Criticism remains from traditional educators as to whether these new leaders are properly equipped to meet the growing challenges of public education. The purpose of this study was to examine how strategies employed by traditional superintendents to improve student achievement compare to those used by non‐traditional superintendents. More specifically, this study set out to determine: 1) what superintendents perceive to be the greatest obstacles to improving student achievement

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Latinas in the superintendency: the challenges experienced before and after obtaining the superintendency and strategies used for success

PDF

The teacher evaluation: key components that positively impact teacher effectiveness and student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Assisi, Daniel T. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

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

Tag leadership,leadership strategies,non‐traditional,nontraditional superintendents,non‐traditional superintendents,OAI-PMH Harvest,student achievement,superintendents,traditional,traditional superintendents

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member), Ott, Maria G. (committee member)

Creator Email assisi@usc.edu,daniel@assisi.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-464381

Unique identifier UC11288269

Identifier etd-AssisiDani-2846.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-464381 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AssisiDani-2846.pdf

Dmrecord 464381

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Assisi, Daniel T.

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